“BLOODY SUNDAY WAS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CAUSES OF THE 1905 REVOLUTION” To what extent do you agree? Although Bloody Sunday marked the breakdown of the Tsar and autocratic government, there were many other long and short term causes that provided the build up of tension and ultimately led to the revolution of 1905; Bloody Sunday was the final straw for the peasants and the other groups in Russian life, rather than a key cause. The most significant causes were mostly long term. Firstly, there was the terrible work and living conditions of the peasants, alongside the low wages they received. The lack of usable land in Russia and the subdivison of land between families both resulted in an incredibly low income, especially for larger families.
Some peasants left to work in the cities as the Tsar wanted Russia to be an industrial power, however the living conditions there hardly improved, which matched their dreadful working conditions. This poor treatment is what led to the 1917 strikes that helped force the Tsar to abdicate from the throne. This was an important factor in bringing down the Tsar because with so many people opposing him (over the years, because of food shortages and war failures, they were supported by women and army members, and the number of workers on strike rose to 250 000), he had no choice but to give up. However, I believe there is more causes behind this so I wouldn’t label it the most important factor of the Tsar’s abdication. Russia’s poor performance in WW1 played a very significant role in bringing down the Tsar too.
How far do you agree that the main reason for the failure of the Provisional Government was the decision to continue fighting in the First World War? With only seizing to last 8 months, the Provisional Government was faced with many burdens from the very beginning of their reign. The government had economic and political problems resting on their shoulders, with having to effectively take over the running of the country, due to Nicholas leaving Russia in shambles. Political unrest, lack of authority and general discontent in the people of Russia meant the Provisional Government could be seen as doomed from the very beginning. However, although these factors were important in contributing to the decline of the Provisional Government, it was ultimately their internal decisions, one deciding to continue fighting in the war, that lead to the failure of it.
Food shortages were a key problem in Russia as it meant the people were starving and desperate. It has consistently been a problem to the rulers of Russia such as the Provisional government. The people wanted change but they also wanted grain to feed themselves and their family. It was important that the food crisis would be solved by the Bolsheviks in order to gain the support of the people; however, due to Russia’s poor transport and little fertile land, it was simply an impossible job for any party or rulers of Russia especially due to the high demand of the huge populace. The demand for food has always been high in Russia which meant that no matter what reforms or radical changes a party can bring in, if they can’t feed the people there will always be bitterness which can and did result in opposition to Lenin and his Bolsheviks.
The World War brought up a huge range of different issues, which plummeted an already shaky country, into a desperate country. One such issue was the economic strains that the war put on the country. The urgent need for weapons and specialised equipment drove the Russian economy into overdrive, leaving the poorest Russians without food and with an inflation rate which rose around twice as fast as wages went up. The huge numbers of men armed by Russia also meant that industries all across Russian began to slow their production rapidly, most notably of all being agriculture. This meant trade to other countries went down bringing the economy to yet another low and this lack of agricultural workers meant a lack of food across Russia, especially in towns and cities where there was no easy access to farms; and as is with most things in demand, the prices went through the roof, leaving peasants starving on a mass scale.
When Nicholas mobilized troops in Germany, the Kaiser, the German equivalent of the term ‘tsar’, became uneasy and warned him that he was nervous. Although the two had agreed their nations were friendly the day before, the Kaiser was worried. His fears were confirmed the day after when Nicholas, in a spout of his trademark arrogance, continued to move his troops, angering the Kaiser and entering Russia into World War I. This led to many grievances. Conscripted peasants had begun to lose interest, and their welfare was harmed with the conscription of animals, meaning beasts of burden and the like were deposed to military use.
How far was the impact of World War One the crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. This essay will argue that the impact of World War One was a very crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. The events in the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 also show that Nicolas II was not a good leader and these events led to the fall of the Romanovs. World War One caused many problems for the Government, the army and the people at home. Having a war caused inflation, government spending rose from 4-30 million, taxation increased, and money became practically worthless and the price of food and fuel quadrupled.
Therefore many had returned from the war only to then find that they had lost their jobs as well, so they directed their anger towards the new government who had signed the treaty. In conjunction with this, the majority of those returning from the front kept their weapons due to poor organisation, which led to the creation of the Freikorps. Armed and and angry with the new government, they were poised to take the country by force if it was not for the Ebert-Groener 1918 whereby Ebert promised to protect the status of those in the army and give them supplies, if they prevented other uprisings. This showed how fragile the
The great depression and the dust bowl brought a new myth to the 1930’s which was the misconception of self-blame and personal responsibility which evolved from the earlier self-made man myth. “Most Americans were taught to believe that every individual was responsible for his or her own fate, that unemployment and poverty were signs of personal failure” (CD; B, 662). Many men were ashamed and blamed themselves for their loss, some even pretended to still go to work during the day because they were too ashamed to let down their family. (CD; B, 663) Some Americans also blamed the president himself and named their poor crumbling neighborhoods. “Many Americans held the president personally to blame for the crisis and began calling the shantytowns that unemployed people established on the outskirts of cities “Hoovervilles” (B, 676; CD) The 1930’s also show examples of our continuing inequality in America.
One factor that added to the Tory party’s trouble was that in 1830 there was more outbreaks of social unrest. This was due to high bread prices following a poor harvest in 1829 and sudden slump in exports leading to unemployment in the Midlands and North of England. This was encouraged by thoughts back to the French revolutions and labourers destroyed machinery that was taking over their jobs. Wellington needed to take immediate and firm action, but the Tory government just was not strong enough to combat this