Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The development of the Bolsheviks
The collapse of the tsarist system of government
Russian revolution changes
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The development of the Bolsheviks
Tsarism during the period after the 1905 revolution and the March revolution of 1917 faced a ‘wave of social discontent’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). This was no surprise, as there was many who during that period had thought that there was a ‘straight road [to] a socialist future’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). However many saw that there was not the means to happen in Russia at the time. Hobsbawm plants the idea of a Bourgeoisies revolution and the class struggles, combined with Karl Marx’s ideas about the impending revolutions. Centralised in Europe was the ideas of socialism and revolution. Hobsbawm reflects the ideas of the time, that they were ‘helpless’ by 1914 and by 1916 the majority followed. This was just the popular opinion of the time of the Russian public. Although he jumps between times, starting with the October revolution then jumping to the ‘overthrow(ing) of Tsarism’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57) then back to the post October revolution. This does not affect the readability of the section. It gives a well-rounded description of the period to form a good base for Part II. Part II of this chapter mainly focuses on how the Bolsheviks moved forward, obtained and revolutionised the way in which the world was in the times of revolution. For some the times of revolution was a time of grave concern, however the Bolsheviks had not this issue. As proven by Hobsbawm, stating that the Bolsheviks ‘grew from a small troop of a few thousand in March 1917 to a quarter of a million members by the early summer of that year’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 61). The way they thrived in such a time was that they were not only efficient at recognising what the people wanted, but they were convincing in how they would give it to them, this is a main reason tha... ... middle of paper ... ...vent and conclude how ‘the history of the Short Twentieth Century cannot be understood without the Russian revolution and its direct and indirect effects’. (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 84) To some the revolution may not seem as important, to Hobsbawm it is a pivotal moment in the history, as it ‘changed the world… in the way that [no one] expected. (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 83) Hobsbawm presents, a chapter which recounts the moment in history, he gives a different perspective to other historian’s accounts of the time. He gives some ideas which many had not thought of, which adds to the depth of the chapters, but he also goes against some other accounts slightly, this could just be down to his own view of the time. However, this does not affect the book in a negative way, they lead to a deeper understanding of some central issues into how the world has come to be how it is today.
This was, of course, only a humorous exaggeration, a case of political satire. Yet beneath the humor, there lies a very profound testament to the belief that Russia's political culture has been inherited from its czarist days and manifested throughout its subsequent development. The traditions from the pre-Revolution and pre-1921 Russia, it seems, had left its brand on the 70-years of Communist rule. The Soviet communism system was at once a foreign import from Germany and a Russian creation: "on the one hand it is international and a world phenomenon; on the other hand it is national and Russian…it was Russian history which determined its limits and shaped its character." (Berdyaev, "Origin")
In order to establish whether Lenin did, indeed lay the foundation for Stalinism, two questions need to be answered; what were Lenin’s plans for the future of Russia and what exactly gave rise to Stalinism? Official Soviet historians of the time at which Stalin was in power would have argued that each one answers the other. Similarly, Western historians saw Lenin as an important figure in the establishment of Stalin’s socialist state. This can be partly attributed to the prevailing current of pro-Stalin anti-Hitler sentiments amongst westerners until the outbreak of the cold war.
Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and Rethinking the Russian Revolution. Writing of an annotated bibliography of the topic. 2. Selection and reading of the sources to determine which ones are the most relevant and comprehensive 3. Finding opposing arguments to give and analytical view with multiple perspectives 4.
It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.
future leader of the Soviet Union as a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution. The most important difference is that the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy in Imperial Russia. A combination of reasons can explain why this revolution failed at overthrowing the Tsar Nikolas the Second. The revolutions participants were not revolutionaries that wanted to overthrow the Tsar, it was not started by revolutionary groups. The military and military context played an important role to the revolution’s failure, and the autocracy’s reforms gave compromise to the protestors who could be satisfied with the changes. These factors show why the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy.
This essay asks for the comparison of the three historical monographs, which offer different interpretations of the same or related topic. This essay will focus on writings about the Russian Revolution (1818-1919) particularly concentrating on the October Revolution in 1917 and the leadership of Vladimir Lenin during this period. The goal of this essay is to examine how three historians, from three separate schools of thought, have interpreted these events and how their particular political views, evidence and personal experiences have influenced these interpretations. This will be achieved by analysing the works of Richard Pipes; a western liberal-conservative, Dmitri Volkogonov; a soviet-revisionist and John Reed; a socialist.
By 1905, a revolution was immanent, Tsar’s power was to be challenged and the reasons for this are to be laid out here in this essay. Was the Tsar’s non-reformist attitude solely to blame or was the nature of Tsardom destined to destroy itself? We need to look at the foundations of the revolution in order to fully understand this and make an informed response to these questions.
Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.
Lenin’s pragmatic leadership was the most considerable factor in helping to fortify Bolshevik power. His willingness to take power in October/November 1917 and the successes of the move, through his right-hand man, Trotsky, was critical as it helped give him unquestioned authority within the party despite members of the Central Committee i.e. Zinoviev and Kamenev who suggested industrialisation needed to occur first. This highlighted Lenin’s communist ideology in practice which was essential to the Bolsheviks maintaining power. Following the failure of the Provisional Government, Lenin recognised that it was the Bolshevik’s priority to legitimise their government. As a result, issues of ‘Peace, Bread and Land’ were addressed through the issuing of a number of decrees in late 1917 including decrees on land, peace, Workers’ Rights as well as reforms to marriage and religion. ...
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
In February of 1917 a group of female factory workers and led a revolt in which the Tsar was dethroned, only to be replaced by a provisionary government composed of the Russian elite. When this government did not live up to its promises of an end to Russian involvement in World War I, the Bolsheviks (“majority”), a revolutionary movement led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisionary government in what bacame known as the October revolution.
Inspired by the works of Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin nonetheless drew his ideology from many other great 19th century philosophers. However, Marx’s “Communist Manifesto” was immensely important to the success of Russia under Leninist rule as it started a new era in history. Viewed as taboo in a capitalist society, Karl Marx started a movement that would permanently change the history of the entire world. Also, around this time, the Populist promoted a doctrine of social and economic equality, although weak in its ideology and method, overall. Lenin was also inspired by the anarchists who sought revolution as an ultimate means to the end of old regimes, in the hope of a new, better society. To his core, a revolutionary, V.I. Lenin was driven to evoke the class struggle that would ultimately transform Russia into a Socialist powerhouse. Through following primarily in the footsteps of Karl Marx, Lenin was to a lesser extent inspired by the Populists, the Anarchists, and the Social Democrats.
According to most historians, “history is told by the victors”, which would explain why most people equate communism with Vladimir Lenin. He was the backbone of Russia’s communist revolution, and the first leader of history’s largest communist government. It is not known, or discussed by most, that Lenin made many reforms to the original ideals possessed by many communists during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. He revised Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles’ theories to fit the so-called ‘backwardness’ of the Russian Empire. Lenin’s reforms were necessary to carry out a socialist revolution in Russia, and the contributions he made drastically changed the course of history. It can be assumed that, the Soviet Union would not have been as powerful if it was not for Lenin’s initial advocacy of violence and tight organization.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
Lenin's Economic Policies in 1924 When the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 they inherited many of the problems faced by the old Tsarist regime as well as those of the Provisional Government after the Tsars abdication. Lenin, as leader of the Bolsheviks took many measures to try and solve these problems, each with varying degrees of success. This essay will, therefore, go on to look at and discuss the various measures that Lenin and the Bolshevik party took, and, whether these measures created more problems for Russia in the end or in fact made significant progress towards the communist society that Lenin had prophesised for Russia. In the early days of Bolshevik rule, there were many problems facing Lenin.