More handpicked essays just for you.
Why did the Tsar regime fall in 1917
Stability in Russia in 1914
The collapse of the tsarist authority in march 1917 was due to the first world war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why did the Tsar regime fall in 1917
Why the Tsar's Power Crumbled in March 1917
Why do you think the Tsar's power crumbled so swiftly in March 1917?
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
It was a time of great upheaval. Peasants were demanding that the land of the great estate owners be turned over to them because there was not enough land to provide food for all the villages. This caused the migration of many peasants to the factories.
Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These
…show more content…
Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of
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.
Russia, industrialized as a result of many peasant revolts. The revolts led to the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, they received land but the political chains were still in place. Many reforms were still needed. The military became based on merit, education was increased, transportation became more efficient with the introduction or railroads, and law codes were improved with local councils put in place called zemstvoes. These reforms and the great size and natural resources of Russia allowed it to build factories. Yet, the change experienced by the West had not, yet, occurred.
In the years leading up to the fall of the three hundred year old Romanov dynasty there was increasing tension building up in Russia. The failing of Russia in the war, the failings of the tsar and his decisions, and the social and economic situations in Russia all played a part in the fall. Still it is believed that the First World War had played the biggest part in the fall of the dynasty.
Invisible Man (1952) chronicles the journey of a young African-American man on a quest for self-discovery amongst racial, social and political tensions. This novel features a striking parallelism to Ellison’s own life. Born in Oklahoma in 1914, Ellison was heavily influenced by his namesake, transcendentalist Ralph Waldo Emerson. Ellison attended the Tuskegee Institute on a music scholarship before leaving to pursue his dreams in New York. Ellison’s life mirrors that of his protagonist as he drew heavily on his own experiences to write Invisible Man. Ellison uses the parallel structure between the narrator’s life and his own to illustrate the connection between sight and power, stemming from Ellison’s own experiences with the communist party.
The illustration of Margaret’s mother standing in the doorway looking down on Clementine shows there is a direct didactic lesson taking place. This picture reinforces the adult-centeredness that is being portrayed because her mother is an obvious authority figure and therefore knows what is right. Margaret’s mothers concern of Clementine’s and Margaret’s behavior shows that she is caring and giving the children knowledge that they should be taking to heart. She is teaching them a direct lesson. Margaret’s mother standing in the doorway, hovering over Clementine, shows that she is the center of authority and gives her power. When she tells Clementine that she should be in her room thinking about the consequences of her actions it shows that Clementine and Margaret need to be thinking about their actions and learning a lesson. Punishment weakens a behavior because a negative condition is introduced or experienced as a consequence of the b...
The presence of mirrors is highlighted in this episode. Before this episode there has not been an emphasis on mirrors, even though they appear in other episodes. I feel like the use of this prop is important in understanding the episode. Every time a mirror appears, there is a different circumstance that the character is dealing with. The first mirror appears in Quinn’s house. She is trying on her Chastity Ball dress with her mom, and the dress does not zip up all the way. Quinn is shown in the mirror as the mom measures her stomach. In this instance, the mirror could signify a desire to hide the truth, despite the fact that the truth is there for everyone to see. The second time a mirror is used is in Finn’s basement. He and Kurt are discussing his dad’s bravery in war, while trying on his dad’s old suit jacket. This scene is open on an emotional level, and the mirror works to illustrate that Finn is more like his dad than he realizes. It acts as a reflector for the characteristics that Finn will demonstrate later in the episode and in the series. Finally, a mirror is used with Rachel when she is being told by another student that she does not have a chance with Will. In this scene Rachel is applying makeup in the mirror. The presence of a mirror, and it being actively used, could indicate that Rachel is hiding the truth from herself. Rachel’s character rarely wears a lot of makeup, which emphasizes the use of the mirror. Instead of being honest with herself, Rachel is denying the truth that she is knows is there.
Czar Nicholas’ poor leadership forced him to abdicate and caused the Bolshevik takeover. One of the reasons I say that is because of the way he handled “Bloody Sunday”. “Bloody Sunday” was when troops killed over a thousand people in a peaceful worker assembly. After “Bloody Sunday”, workers all over Russia went on strike, and peasants caused uprisings that were suppressed by Nicholas II’s troops causing tensions to increase. Another reason was his disastrous involvement in World War I. In the beginning of the war, Russia’s armies did not do well. To fix this, Nicholas became the commander. Now under his command, their continued failure reflected the Czar himself, further decreasing his popularity. Lastly, civil unrest grew as food riots, chronic food shortages, and labor strikes continued to proceed. This eventually erupted into open revolt, and Czar Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate. Soon after, the new government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin.
Nicholas was considered a selfish ruler with no love for his very own people. Nicholas was forced to give up his throne by a strike that broke out in Petrograd on March 1917(Kindersley). After Nicholas getting forced out of his throne a party called The Mensheviks formed a govern-ment made up of revolutionary’s but failed. The Bolsheviks came right after seeking to enforce Marxism and gain power. The Czar Family were arrested and all killed after a year,
..., I found that their final goals and impacts of the world were different, though they began within a similar circumstance. The American Revolution successfully against Europe’s supreme powerful empire over the sea, and overthrew an absolute government, as well as established a nonmonarchical, united form of government. The impact of the French Revolution was far-reaching. It abolished the Bourbon monarchy, legitimized the National Assembly, and found the first French Republic. It stated liberty base on individual rights.
Through these decrees we see how Russian social class is very stratified and there are more high official roles but more people in poverty. Russia still had to serfs until 1861. Also the state of the Russian economy was probably very limited to do the fact that there was no manufacturing company to provide for the empire. The Russian economy was very isolated and they go to areas where they can trade. With Russia’s subsistence economy, they were not able to specialize in other areas.
The American Revolution and French Revolution were two long lasting uprisings that had great value to those battling for their rights and want they wanted to change. Yet there are a few distinctions details set them apart in a small way. The Americans wanted a change in their government, but the French wanted a huge change in everything including their government, religion, social structure (whereas American’s social system stayed the same) and economy. Other than the few differences they had, they two Revolutions were much alike, basically twin revolutions.
Now, even though they started out similarly, they also did have some differences from each other. The American Revolution was the first significant revolution of the century, and it was also the first to be successful. The main reason it was successful was that it did not start out being “rebellious” in nature, but rather conservative. In another words, it was not a rebellion against the Government, but rather against having too much government controlling them. (American Revolution) The French revolution was a true rebellion against the King and the government in general. The French were the ones on the offensive, fighting to gain new freedom starting with the Storming of the Bastille. (French Revolution)
The French and American Revolutions were both revolutionary then and still today. There are still lasting effects from both the French and American Revolutions. The French Revolution had lasting effects such as the birth of Nationalism and making a huge move away from Monarchism. To us Americans the lasting effects are obvious from the American Revolution. We still live in freedom with the same system of government set up by our early political leaders.
Both of the main characters in the story are dealing with internal conflicts of identity that has been bestowed upon them from other parties. They are impelled to comply with the normality and custom of their surroundings in addition to living up to certain expectations. Spear and Jing-Mei, the main character’s of these stories, are different in the sense of how they dealt with their conflicts and their individual reactions, but simultaneously they are predominately simila...
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.