The resignation of Nicholas II March 1917, in union with the organization of a temporary government in Russia built on western values of constitutional moderation, and the capture of control by the Bolsheviks in October is the political crucial opinions of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The actions of that historic year must also be viewed more broadly, however: as aburst of social strains associated with quick development; as a disaster of political modernization, in relations of the tensions sited on old-fashioned traditions by the burdens of Westernization; and as a social disruption in the widest sense, concerning a massive, unprompted expropriation of upper class land by fuming peasants, the devastation of outmoded social patterns and morals, and the scuffle for a new, democratic society.
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 individuals as Vladimir Lenin and Josef ‘Soso’ Stalin. Does the account tarnish such important assemblages as the Bolshevik Party and even the Russian Proletariat needlessly, and how has this representation been reflected in our current understanding of past events?
On March 20, 1815 Napoleon returned to Paris from his exile on the island of Elba. This day marked the beginning of “Napoleon’s 100 Days”, as many historians have dubbed the brief episode , which ended July 8, 1815 when Louis XVIII was reinstated as the King of France. Within a period of two months Napoleon, capitalizing on France’s enormous population, conscripted an army roughly 280,000 strong . Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces exceeded those of the Anglo-Allied forces, led by the Duke of Wellington, Field Marshall Blucher, and the Prince of Orange, by 50,000 men. The advantage in numbers and Napoleon’s gift for military strategy would not be enough to prevent his loss at the Battle of Waterloo and his second exile to St. Helena . The would be Emperor’s lack of military communication, his inability to draw the smaller English forces into battle, his underestimation of the Prussian forces, and a lack of morale with the second “Grande Armee” would prove Napoleon’s downfall at the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon’s strategy to crush the Anglo-Allied forces in Belgium, while they gathered, would have proved effective had these issues not occurred.
Russia had taken on the side of Serbia in World War 1 against Austria-Hungary and Germany and they were losing thousands of men. Here, the Tsar made the call to lead the army himself and left the Tsarina and Rasputin in charge. Having their leader at the front of the army, gave the Russian population a short-term morale boost as he was finally helping his country and doing some good for his people.The Tsar, however, had no war experience and he was an ineffective leader, he soon became a failure to his people as another bad call for the fate of Russians was made.
As the Germans arrived at Stalingrad the Russian forces were badly outnumbered in terms of tanks and soldiers. Reinforcements from across the Volga River prevented the Germans from gaining an edge. To prevent the Germans from effectively using their artillery and aircrafts, ...
“To understand the cataclysmic turmoil that engulfed Russia in the years of 1914-1921, historians must focus their attention not on great men or on discrete events, but rather on the interactions of war, economics, and revolution. It was these interactions that drove the masses to revolution, propelled the Bolsheviks to power in 1917, and almost caused their downfall in 1921…”
In September of 1942, the German commander of the Sixth Army, advanced his troops to the city of Stalingrad where Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht to secure the oil fields and take Stalingrad. Stalingrad was a target location due to its manufacturing and center of communications for parts of Russia. Hitler had extra motivation to take Stalingrad because the significance of the name, it was named after the Soviet Russian leader Stalin. Russia had been war torn and devastated from previous attacks and battles from the Germans, they knew they had to persevere and hang on along enough to defeat the German Army. The Soviets did have somewhat of a warning of the German attack, they shipped out cattle, grain, and other main supplies, but most of the civilians stayed. Hitler was very confident he could take this city down without losing major causalities. While Hitler was planning the attack the Soviet Marshall Zhukov was planning a major counterattack. Marshall Zhukov had 6 armies of 1 million men ready to attack the Germans. Both the Germans and Soviets had flaws in their attacks but, t...
...s and declared that Lenin was the only authority they would recognize. Nearly 23,000 soldiers were sent to trial or transferred. At this point the signs were clear that “If Lenin and Trotsky want to take Petrograd, nothing can stop them.”
...these attempts failed and were only seen by the troops as attempts to restore the old Tsarist military system. The civic patriotism did not extend beyond the urban middle classes either. The discontent and demoralization of troops persisted. In fact, the persistence of discontent was more obviously shown when desertion escalated up to 170,000 as the Offensive drew nearer.
General Kutuzov arrived. He inspected the soldiers and was happy with their dishevelled turnout, particularly their worn out boots. That would be a good excuse to proffer to the Austrians. The only one he addressed personally was the rebellious Dolokhov. He counselled him to put his head down and work hard towards being reinstated as an officer. The morale of his troops was high. They broke off with songs and shouts. Soon, Zherkhov, a man whom Dolokhov knew from his days in St Petersburg, met him. He asked him to join him in gambling. The haughty Dolokhov refused his offer. He told him that he would not gamble or touch alcohol till he was promoted back to the rank of an officer, once again.