Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of Stalin in Russia
Political effects of world war 2
Joseph stalin influence on russia
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of Stalin in Russia
World War I's Responsibility for the Collapse of the Provisional Government in 1917
The Provisional Government assumed control of Russia following the
abdication of the Tsar Nicholas II. It only had a brief period in
power lasting about seven months. Historians have disputed the main
cause for its failure, Marxist historians, such as John Reed, have
rewarded it to the Bolshevik's effective propaganda machine, whilst
more revisionist historians, such as Christopher Read, take a more
encompassing position on the issue. They lay blame at a range of
factors such as the First World War and the dual authority in relation
to the Petrograd Soviet. Revisionist historians have also benefited
from the post-glasnost era and hence have both greater access to more
sources as well as the advantage of hindsight. To understand the
reasons for the collapse of the Provisional Government it is crucial
to be aware of the events leading up to the October Revolution and the
atmosphere politically and socio-economically at the time.
The year 1917 was a turbulent year of strikes, bad harvests and
inflation. 'Week by week food became scarcer'[1] and any that was
available usually went to the soldiers. Russian agriculture was
primitive and machinery was rarely used hence production was not
efficient. The War worsened problems further since the excessive
printing of money led to inflation and the economy could not sustain
such a demanding conflict. The political situation was no better.
Democracy had been imposed on a country in which masses did not
understand the concept. Furthermore, greater freedoms were given at a
time of war, which were not available...
... middle of paper ...
...lt of a variety of factors and reasons but the
far-reaching effects of the war were to have devastating results in
both social and economic quarters. Moreover, the war on help increase
the opposition to the government and led to their downfall in October
1917.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] John Reed, Ten Days That Shook the World (1919)
[2] Maxim Gorky, letter to his son (April, 1917)
[3] E.H. Wilcox was very impressed with Kerensky and praised him in
his book, Russia's Ruin (1919)
[4] Morgan Philips Price, My Three Revolutions (1969)
[5] Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams
[6] Extract from an interview of Alexander Kerensky by Harold Williams
[7] Leon Trotsky, statement made to the Petrograd Soviet (24th
October, 1917)
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. 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 defeats.
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 temporally 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. Shortages of basic human necessities led to countless subsistence riots and the eventual power struggle between the ruling body and its people. From the beginnings of WWI to 1916, prices of essential goods rose 131 percent in Moscow and more than 150 percent in Petrograd. Additionally, historian Walter G. Moss stated that in September 1915 that “there were 100,000 strikers in Russia; in October 1916, there were 250,000 in Petrograd alone.” Moss continues to exemplify the increasing evidence of social unrest and connects the riots to a lack of resources when he goes on to point out that “subsistence riots protesting high prices and shortages… also increased.” ...
Around the early 1920’s, Stalin took power and became leader of Russia. As a result Russians either became fond of Stalin’s policies or absolutely despised them. Stalin’s five-year plans lured many into focusing on the thriving economy rather than the fact that the five year plan hurt the military. The experience of many lives lost, forced labor camps, little supply of food, influenced the Russians negative opinion about Stalin. Having different classes in society, many Russians had different points of views. For the Peasants, times were rough mainly because of the famine, so they were not in favor of Stalin and his policies; where as the upper classes had a more optimistic view of everything that was occurring. Stalin’s policies affected the Russian people and the Soviet Union positively and also had a negative affect causing famine for the Russian people.
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.
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.
It may seem like wars start abruptly, with little cause, but usually there is a bigger story. New policies, lack of equality, military influence, and too much government involvement usually stir up the peace initially. These turn the country or area into a ‘powder keg’, ready to explode into war at the smallest spark. Although the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand was the spark of World War I, policies at the time like nationalism and militarism were the underlying causes of the war.
In August of 1914, the war to end all wars began. The First World War saw incredible amounts of casualties because of new fighting techniques and technology, among other reasons. While it is clear who the victors of the war were after the battles had been fought and the Peace of Paris signed, what is not clear is who started this war. Historians have debated this question since the very early stages of the war and it is one that still remains without one concrete answer. A common elementary history textbook will explain the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria as the sole cause for World War one, but further research seriously brings this statement into question. I feel as though it was not one single person, or even a single country who/that caused the war, but rather a series of events and situations which include the following: the allying of countries and preparing for war which preceded the fighting itself, the actions of the Black Hand as a message of Serbian nationalists, the persuasion of Austria-Hungary by Germany for a swift retribution for this act, and Russia's swift mobilization of troops along the Central Powers' eastern border in the early stages of the war.
In the short-term it is clear that Trotsky had a huge significance in the development of Russia, shown clearly through both his letters and documents, and the opinions of those close to Trotsky. The significance is obvious through his role in the build up to the October Revolution, his negotiations with Germany through the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, his contribution to Bolshevik success in the civil war and his attitude towards terror and his failure to out maneuver Stalin to succeed Lenin. Trotsky was hugely significant in the build up to and during the October Revolution. The first reason was his ability to convince many of the Social Democrats that the revolution was a real possibility, not just a theoretical concept. This is evident through much of Trotsky’s work as the leader of the Petrograd Soviet in September 1917, which saw Trotsky re-invent the Bolshevik plan to seize power, curbing Lenin’s ruthless ambition as he aimed for the swift overthrow of Kerensky.
Outbreak of World War I and Germany's Responsibility The War Guilt clause has been called the 'historical controversy par excellence[1]'. At the end of the war article 231 explicitly placed the guilt for 'all loss and damage' of the war on the defeated Germany and her allies. This clause was bitterly denied by Germany and has been a subject of keen debate ever since. The issuing of the 'blank cheque' to Austria in 1914, their strong "will to war", the aggressive
This played well with the workers and soldiers and made it difficult to criticise the new government. As a result, Lenin’s introduction of the Cheka (1917) and the emergence of the Red Terror (1918) ensured his rule was absolute not only within the party but across the Soviet Union. It is the accumulation of these factors that highlighted Lenin’s leadership and practicality following the seizing of power as well as changes to society with War Communism and the NEP and the use of terror which were all vital to consolidating Bolshevik power.
In 1905 , Russia had a prerevolution that was put down of the Czar. Instead of learning from this prerevolution, Czar Nicholas II, made a very big mistake by in not introducing some reforms to correct the problems. So because of his actions, the situation grew worse. In 1917, the Russians were fighting in World War 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. A temporary government was set up to decide on what kind of government Russia was gonna set up. Two political parties were set up. The Bolsheviks were one of the two. The leader of the Bolshevik party was a man named Lenin. Lenin was a firm believer of the theories and ideas of Karl Marx. So with his slogan of "Bread, Peace and Land", Lenin gained the support of the peasants and gained control of Russia and setup a communist state.
...ro to solve them, the war was straining all their resources, the workers were in constant rebellion and the army were no longer under the Provisional Government?s control, also the polarisation of political Russia was worrying. Kerensky came to be a leader because he was a bridge between the right and left, but that bridge burned and Kerensky was left alone with no support. His handling of the Kornilov affair was his biggest downfall, personally I think he should have never appointed Kornilov as Command in Chief, he was reactionary and had a past record of disregarding rules, Brusilov was a better option because of his democratic appeal. When Kornilov came into the picture the left support of Kerensky disappeared as well as the right, at this moment the Provisional Government was over. Kerensky didn?t give the Bolsheviks power but made it exceedingly easy for them.
"Provisional Government and World War I: Could the Provisional Government have Survived if it had Pulled Russia Out of World War I?" History in Dispute. Ed. Paul du Quenoy. Vol. 21: Revolutionary Russia, 1890-1930. Detroit: St. James Press, 2005. 100-106. World History in Context. Web. 17 Dec. 2013.
Welcome fellow Senators. We are here today to discuss what the United States should do following Germany’s announcement of unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the three American merchant ships. A resolution is put forth in front of the senators. The first section of the resolution says that: The U.S. Government authorizes President Wilson to use the Armed Forces of the Unit6ed States to wage war against the Nation of Germany. The second section says that: The U.S. Congress supports the president’s request for a declaration of war against the Nation of Germany. I fully agree with this resolution 100%. I agree with war against Germany, as I have said ever since the sinking of the Lusitania.
Over the next few years, Russia went through a traumatic time of civil war and turmoil. The Bolsheviks’ Red Army fought the white army of farmers, etc. against Lenin and his ways. Lenin and the Bolsheviks won and began to wean Russia of non-conforming parties eventually banning all non-communist as well as removing an assembly elected shortly after the Bolshevik’s gain of power. Lenin’s strict government, however, was about to get a lot stricter with his death in 1924.