Katkov, George. Russia 1917: The February Revolution. George Katkov. London: Longmans, 1967. This book challenges many other viewpoints on the fall of the Russian monarchy, focussing on the wartime crisis that preceded the eve of the uprising at the palace. The author blames the Revolution on multiple conspirators, particularly the Russian Freemasons, many of which were in the Duma, who ultimately undermined the government from inside the system. By analyzing this book, it is anticipated that it will explain how the February Revolution was not spontaneous, and that conspirators formulated events such as the workers’ riots. Newman, Sarah. "Alexandra and Rasputin." Historian no. 108 (Winter, 2010): 11-13. Http://search.proquest.com/docview/857450073?accountid=15115. …show more content…
This results in the conservatives spreading their revolt to the liberals and therefore scaring the monarchy into believing that revolution was inevitable, and explains how the events during the February Revolution after the discontent of the Tsar’s handlings of the war and other policies forced him to abdicate. It is expected that this article will provide a very political view of the revolution, explaining the political mistakes of the …show more content…
2005. "The Symbolic Revolution: The Russian Nobility and February 1917." Revolutionary Russia 18 (1): 23-46. Doi:10.1080/09546540500091076.http://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/09546545/v18i0001/23_tsrtrnaf1. This journal article by Matthew Rendle examines the perspective of the nobility’s disgust of the Tsar, and their response during the February Revolution, recognizing the collapse of the support for Nicholas II. February posed a number of groups coming in the opposition of the monarchy due to their strong discontent and their view of it being weak. Rendle’s work is expected to give a sense as to why groups wished to cause an uprising. Stavrou, Theofanis George. Russia under the Last Tsar. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1969. This book offers a collection of nine essays by historians giving their interpretation of the reign Nicholas II. There is a divide of negative and positive interpretations, offering views of the chances of liberal constitutionalism in Russia after 1906. There are essays on the rapid force of industrialisation, as well as essays that focus on constitutional developments and the Duma activities during the reign of Nicholas II. This book should be able to offer valuable information about the activities under Tsar Nicholas II and tsarism that lead to his
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
The Seizure of Power by the Bolsheviks in 1917. How did the Bolsheviks seize power of the Russian Empire in 1917? They were able to do this as a result of taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Through such decisions as disbanding the army and siding with the majority. the peasants, through such promises as land, food, equality and peace.
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.
Mosse, Werner E., “Alexander II and the modernization of Russia”. London, English Universities Press ltd. 1958.
I recollect as a child how I cherished the way my mom took care of me and made all my executive decisions. I recall getting excited about my weekly allowances and about her picking out my clothes for school. However, when I became a teenager I wanted my independence. I know longer wanted her to buy my clothing and I wanted to financially support myself by getting a job. I was so tired of her telling me what to do and how to do it that I revolted. At first it was difficult trying to establish independence in my mother's house, but after a while it seemed as if I had won the battle. Unbeknownst to me that battle would be short-lived and ultimately my mom won the war. Basically, I had constructed my own crazy revolution against my mother. You see a revolution is “a fundamental change in political organization; especially: the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed .Activity or movement designed to affect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation (Webster Dictionary).”One revolution that is said to have inspired communism was the Russian Revolutions of 1917.
The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. The causes of the revolution were very critical and even today historians debate on what was the primary cause of the revolution. The revolution began in Petrograd as “a workers’ revolt” in response to bread shortages. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, replacing Russia’s monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Before 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation. The Russian working class had been for many years fed up with the ways they had to live and work and it was only a matter of time before they had to take a stand. Peasants worked many hours for low wages and no land, which caused many families to lose their lives. Some would argue that World War I led to the intense downfall of Russia, while others believe that the main cause was the peasant unrest because of harsh living conditions. Although World War I cost Russia many resources and much land, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was the peasant unrest due to living conditions because even before the war began in Russia there were outbreaks from peasants due to the lack of food and land that were only going to get worse with time.
I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent, along with economic hardships, caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution, as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards.
“The social causes by the Russian revolution mainly became of centuries of domination over the lower classes by the Tsarist regime, and Nicholas’s failures in World War one.”5 As the rural agricultural peasants had been limitless from serfdom in the year 1861, the peasants still refused paying redemption payments to the state and demanded to be the private owner of the land that they worked. The only problem was further compounded by the never lasting failure of Sergei Witte’s land reforms during the early twentieth century. Peasant disturbances increased which sometimes ended up becoming revolts, with only the goal of securing the ownership of the land they worked. At that time Russia consisted mainly of poor farming peasants, which made up one and a half percent of the population owning twenty-five percent of the land.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
1) Adams, Arthur E. The Russian Revolution and Bolshevik Victory: Why and How? Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1960.
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.
Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past in Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964)
On July 16, 1918, in the crowded basement of an old imperial mansion, one of the most unjust and tragic occurrences in Russia’s history took place. The Romanov line that had ruled Russia for over 300 years was terminated. Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 after the popularity of Tsar Nicholas II had profoundly diminished, forcing the Romanovs into exile in Ekaterinburg. Radicals there took it upon themselves to assassinate the entire family without trial or orders from Lenin and the Bolshevik high command.
8Sites Richard, ‘The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, 1900-1945’, in Michael Howard and William Roger Louis, The Oxford history of the twentieth century, New York, 1998, p. 117-27.
...was alone, Lenin’s leadership that enabled the Bolsheviks to seize power in November 1917. On the other hand, if we consolidate the facts we have covered in the essay we can identify key points that were capitalised on by Lenin such as the weakness of the provisional government and using his influence to motivate the Bolshevik Central Committee, we cannot deny that these were some of the more crucial factors regarding the Bolshevik seizure of power and without them a November Revolution may not have happened. A result of that would be a legitimate leadership within Russia and the Bolsheviks would then be seen as the aggressors. Concluding this we can make the decision that it was not Lenin alone who was the reason for the success of the Bolshevik coup rather an overall period of instability within the Russian leadership and the Bolsheviks offered an alternative.