During the beginning of the 1900s, there were plenty of revolutions and violence that took place. The Chinese revolution in 1911 and Russian Revolution in 1917 shared similar goals, they wanted to end the power of their current leader and establish a new one. For Russia, it was Tsar Nicholas II and for China it was the Qing Dynasty, Russia wanting a functioning communist government and Chinese revolutionaries wanted a democratic government. The first outcome is different in that China relied on agriculture to maintain its economy and Russia relied on industry to fuel its economy. The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries.
Both soldiers and civilians blame the defeats in the war and the growing crises on the home front on Tsar. Even the Tsars only army stated it wouldn’t support him if a revolution occurred. Explain the importance/significance of World War 1 to the downfall of the Tsar WWI was a very significant event on the rule of Tsar Nicholas 11. Although it initially bolstered his position, it then became a large factor that contributed to Nicholas’ downfall. The Country was ecstatic when the Tsar made the announcement that Russia was going to fight against Germany in WWI.
All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions. Political change was expected in Russia during this period, particularly during the Tsarist regime where the growth of the revolutionary intelligentsia, ironically an effect of the Great Reforms, led many to question the need for a Tsar or a royal family at all. The first main success of political opposition is widely considered to be the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of the People’s Will in 1881. Although they assassinated their Tsar, it is very likely this did not actually lead to their desired outcome, it being greater political freedom/democracy. Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia.
Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855-1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? During this period the biggest change that happened was the move from Tsarist autocracy to communist dictatorship as well as the short lived provisional government, which was a form of democracy. Furthermore there were changes to economic policy, which had a great impact on society. The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change.
If Russia’s economy was relatively healthy in early 1914, how did it manage to be in such a sad state of affairs by 1917? There are many factors that contributed to this: the decision to go to war, the direction of the Russian war effort between 1914 and 1917, economic and social factors as well as political developments. So how did the Russian Empire manage to collapse so quickly? The answer lies in the changing nature of warfare after 1914, as well as the social and economic strains that a war of that magnitude imposes. This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case.
Weltpolitik or “world policy” was the Kaisers attempt at dominating the political scene worldwide, a policy which is often cited as one of the reasons behind WWI. Despite the obvious flaws in the policy, the Reichstag approved it, indicating that the Kaiser held the ultimate power, making Germany an autocratic state. The second example of the Kaisers domination is his control over Domestic policy. Sammlungspolitik was the Kaisers answer to the threat of socialist uprisings. This policy built up an alliance of conservative interests including the Junkers, élites, industrialists, conservatives and liberals.
These tensions started to disrupt their dual alliance with Austria-Hungary, even with a ‘Blank Cheque’ being given to them. With the Kaiser believing that foreign policy and civil war was increasingly the same, it can be assumed that aggressive foreign policy may have been set to distract the German public away from things at home and more onto how to become a strong world power. A factor that both strengthens and weakens the argument of aggressive foreign policy being the reason for the outbreak of war in 1914 is that of encirclement. Source V mentions ‘They felt encircled not merely by the Triple Entente, but also by the forces of change.’ First of all, Germany became sceptical about the alliance between Britain, France and Russia, the Triple Entente, they thought it was not going to work and did not fear it until they tried to cause problems between France and Britain with the ownership of the Balkan islands, which was unsuccessful. When Germany realised that the entente was a
Julio Serrano EN-102 Prof. Ignacio Arana 4-22-09 Fascism: Unity through Power In our modern times, the word “Fascism” makes allusion to a specific period of time, in the last century, when the world was submerged in struggles and war. Although, this term is surrounded by controversy, the theoretical government created by the Fascist ideology could be a model to follow in different conditions. The Fascist movement rose at the beginning of the 20th century, and created a nationalist system using unity through strength. Fascism is often confused with racism, because radical fascist ideas suggest that strength is a quality of superior races. For a better analysis of the topic it is necessary to understand the theory of Fascism, its roots, the people, and how it has influenced the 20th century.
RUSSIA NOTES: OPPOSITION Themes: Division, strength of govt., disorganisation OR Intelligentsia, minorities, peasants The Russian Revolutionary Tradition Westerners Liberals (Intelligentsia etc.) look towards European ideas: Want Liberal democracies, Middle Classes, want industrialisation and technology, create a WC Socialism and Marxism led by intellectuals Russia is morally weak and outdated Humiliation in war (Crimea, RT, RJ). No longer “great power”. Modernisers (Libs, Marxists) Technocrats (With, Stolypin) support govt. and opponents Slavophils Looked towards Russian history Peasant communes (Mir) say socialisms already there (PC) Agricultural society (land) Religious purity/ racial purity of Russia Russia
They argued that Imperialism played a major role in the war. Lenin stated that “Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism”, this thesis was further supported by Emil Ludwig which stated that war was caused due to incapable leaders. On the other hand, many revisionist historians argue that the war was caused by nationalism, imperialism, militarism and the system of alliances. In Britain, the historian A.J.P. Taylor wrote a book called “The Struggle for Mastery in Europe”, in this book A.J.P.