The Soviet Revolution Of Russia

Architecture should not be separated from the political and social life of human-beings. On the contrary, “throughout the history, architects have always been involved to some extent in politics, and have a nearly always sought positions of power and influence’’. Communist ideology in the Soviet Union had a huge impact on the architectural development of many modern nations: Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Azerbaijan. The amount of affected countries makes the topic of my analysis relevant and worth-discussing. My essay will be structured in a following way. I argue that communist ideology had an

In The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth  Century Russia, Cynthia Whittaker argues that depending on the historical, cultural and contextual period, there can be demarcated two types, both distinctive and contrasting, of Russian sovereigns, namely the “good tsar” and the “reforming tsar”. The scholar juxtaposes the two models of monarchs against the backdrop of “medieval” versus “modern” type of governance. According to it the “good tsar” typology, which is typical for the earlier Muscovy realm, defines the ruler as pious and inert, characterized by its liturgical form and static nature of the rule. The “good tsar” is bound to uphold Orthodoxy, preserve and control public order, help the poor and the underdogs

As an enlightened despot, it was common for rulers to change every law and policy possible in order to make life better for their people as according to enlightenment ideals. The ruler was seen as being in charge only to serve the people (Document 3). The ruler was to put the needs of his people before the needs of himself, and could not do anything that would harm them (Document 4). In Russia, this was prominent amongst rulers. Peter the Great believed and acted on these ideas. He offered rights to the serfs in order to help them and made it so that anyone, no matter of their social standing, would suffer the same consequences for breaking the laws (Document 10, 6). According to Document 3, “the ruler and the ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united.” This shows how the people expected their rulers in this time to meet their needs to make them happy and to help them flourish as a

The Russian Revolution began in 1917 and lasted until late 1930’s, the revolution was very brutal with total death of 3 million people and 7 million people were arrested (Document 12). The revolution broke out when Nicholas II comes to power because Bloody Sunday leads to Duma, then he steps down and the Duma sets up a provisional government thus sparking the want for domination and the revolution kicks off (Book). By the end of the revolution Russia was definitely weakened in some aspects but strengthened as a nation. Therefore, the Russian people were better off after the Russian Revolution because they benefited from a better economy, government, and living conditions.

Czar Nicholas II was a very poor leader at the time. Many of his bad leadership decisions and weak skills lead to the Russian Revolution. The Czars were rich, but many Russians were very poor. The Czars took advantage of this and and made them slaves. Finally, Czar Alexander II freed them in 1905. When there were protests and many people were getting killed, he

The Russian revolution was going on in 1917, during the final phase of World War 1. Russia had bean in the war , and transformed into the union of soviet socialist republicans(USSR). During the war tzarism was overruled and taken over by a democracy. The russian Revolution generally took out powerful leader and spread power throuhgout the country and the government. Russia was probably changed the most but also for the better during WW1.

The Russian revolution was a monumental change for Russia they went from a government of ordocrasy to communism, with evidence it will show that this truly was a change Russia needed. Yet many argue that the death and outcome was not what the people had imagined when agreeing to communism.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

During the 1900’s the Russian Government made it extremely hard for the Bolsheviks to progress which made them revolt against the government making this a prime matter for the start of the Revolution. The Czarist government was ostracized by the common people of Russia so Tsar Nicholas II was overthrown by the Provisional Government, whom later on were overthrown by Lenin and shortly after the Bolsheviks took control over Russia. Russia was hard to develop because of the major leaders who had control; Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky. Almost overnight an entire society was destroyed and replaced with one of the most radical social experiments ever seen. Poverty, crime, privileged and class-divisions were to be eliminated, a new era of socialism

There were many reasons for the fall of Tsarism, such as the backwardness of Russian society, the failure of the Tsar personally, and the autocratic system of government which caused grievances amongst the people. The Russian public desired political change, whether towards a more democratic society like 20th century Britain, or towards a more socialist revolution in which power was returned to the people. When assessing the reasons as to why Tsarism collapsed, it is crucial to look at the setting of early 19th century Russia, which inevitably led to the Tsar’s weaknesses in his control of the government.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

The Bolshevik revolution came to prominence because of the Provisional Government’s inability to gain support from the Russian population. ‘The government enjoyed little confidence amongst the masses; and many of its members were largely unknown to the new Russia that had burst upon the political scene.’[3 ] Kerensky himself comments on the problematic circumstances his government experienced, ‘the old (governmental machine) had disappeared; the new was not yet established.’ The support of the peasantry was critical in establishing popular rule, as historian Richard Abraham comments, ‘the largest social class in Russia was still the peasantry.

The Russian people saw the structure of the Government as a crumbling disaster Nobles, Priests, Officials and, the Military were rulers and the governors of Russia that weren’t effected by the change that was happening. Russia was an enigma, it was feared because of its massive size, the Tsar was an Autocrat, which means no legal restrictions on the Tsar took place and no elections were represented. He supported the Nobles, as for the government it was small, inefficient, and resistant towards change, almost most of the Russians were uneducated, peasants and serfs as there were no middle class. The serfs acquired 8409% of Russia, Serfs are publics who occupied a plot of land where they were required to Tsar and in return

Despite all the work Alexander II did toward reforming Russia, the “Era of Great Reforms” left one crucial aspect unaltered: the power of the emperor. The intentional neglect of this was what kept the reforms from realizing their true potential. This led to dissatisfaction, which encouraged repression, terror, and most importantly: revolution. The first was the Polish Rebellion, caused by the failure of Russian authorities to suppress Polish nationalism. Although the Poles failed, other minorities sprung up for their voice

In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.