Each groups strategy was very different, the liberals went on strike, while the SR's took a more violent approach. The power each group had individually was not enough to threaten the Tsar, however these differences in aims and beliefs within the 3 main groups meant that they could not combine the groups and work together to bring down the tsar. They were unable to unite their cause and were weaker because of it. Furthermore, there was discontent within the political groups. In 1903 the SD's could no longer function as a single group and split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
Why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War? It was ‘not a matter of who was the stronger but, rather, who was less weak’. These were the words of Victor Shklovskii in his book Sentimental Journey. This simplistic view fails to incorporate the many factors which contributed to the ‘Reds’ victory over the ‘Whites’ but it establishes the essence of the argument. Both the Bolsheviks and the opposition White forces were ravaged by internal weaknesses and hugely influenced by external conflict and conditions.
• Lack of communication within Russia due to the sheer size. • Russification Policy may of caused people to feel victimised and therefore despise the government. • Due to the Geographical landscape that Russia possesses, it was hard to get trade supplies into Russia. • There we many different tribes in Russia, most of which spoke different languages and followed different religions. This would cause inhabitants to refuse to help or converse with each other, due to
Was the Tsar’s personal inadequacy that led to the revolution of Feb/March 1917? Essentially, Tsar Nicholas II was a lacking ruler, he was unwilling to get rid of autocracy which then resulted to no reforms in government which was often corrupt mainly due to the fact that it was an autocracy. This led to the demands of the people being ignored causing there to be universal discontent all over the land of Russia, logically Nicholas’s inadequacy as a Tsar would be a reasonable consideration for what led to the 1917 revolution, however there were other reason not just Nicholas lacking strength in leadership which resulted to the revolution. For example, there had been lingering discontent growing especially with the industrial workers and peasants beforehand concerning their conditions of work. This led to an increase in strikes.
Possibly the greatest vulnerability was 'the weakness within' - the constitution gave the President, the states and the military too much control, whilst proportional voting meant that the Reichstag was separated and weak. There was no single party in complete control and parties had to join together to form a government. However, each party had different goals which caused in-fighting and instability making it difficult for the Reichstag, with its many changes in power, to govern effectively. This was reflected in 376 political assassinations up to 1923. From the start there was economic instability because of the cost of World War One and there was widespread disillusion within the German people.
Peasants felt disappointed and disillusioned and many rioted. There were 1159 in 1861, affecting 1176 estates and requiring the army to restore order on 337 estates. This reform was not as successful as intended and did not create a ‘modern’ society. General Dmitri Milyutin was Minister of War in 1861, he aimed at
Nicholas II was faced with various issues during his reign from 1894-1917. His ineffectual personality was partly to blame for his ineffectual ruling. He was not able to listen to the needs of his public, and so violent uprisings such as Bloody Sunday occurred. His response was to initiate the October Manifest and the instigation of the Russian Duma, but neither of these pleased the public and so the February revolution of 1917 occurred, which ultimately created the fall of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy.
The whites had no true leader after the death of Kornilov, and the three generals in charge often disagreed. However, there were also many other factors that could make the Discipline contrast less of a factor. Firstly, the whites were not helped very much by their foreign allies, who formed a decent chunk of the White forces. Secondly, the whites lacked a lot of unity, due to them all fighting for a different cause, which caused divides and arguments in the army, while all of the Bolsheviks had a common goal and were close to each other. The whites did not help themselves as far as gaining support from the peasants, white were brutal to peasants, as mentioned in Source C, they often whipped ‘entire male populations’, which made them unpopular.
Collectively known as the ‘Whites’, these interventionist forces fought the Bolshevik ‘Reds’ in the Civil War. The Whites suffered a military defeat. Laver says: “The Communists had won power mainly because their opponents had been weak and poorly led”. At this point in time it
The war had affected the trigger of the revolution by the weak army with a large lack of ammunition for their weapons, therefore they were unable to fight and fend for themselves, therefore Russia had to depend on the Allies such as Great Britain and France had to help them, also the tactics the Russians had used were very old fashioned therefore it had seemed they weren’t ready for war at all. This was seen as embarrassing for the Russian people and a hint for the people they needed change in Russia, if they were going to survive in the modern world. The war was a rather large mistake for the Tsar, although Russia had obtained slight success at the beginning they were facing harsh Germany and had badly equipped Generals, who were unsuccessful and not well trained this showed more signs of not being at all ready for the war. Furthermore, the Tsar had left Petrograd the capital of Russia to become the Commander of Russia’s army, this was a huge mistake for the Tsar as he had no military experience whatsoever and from then on, the Tsar was blamed for