The incompetence of Tsar Nicholas II surrounding and leading up to the events which caused the outbreak of the 1917 Russian Revolution can be said to be the main cause of this event as all the main causes can be traced back to the Tsar’s lack of the leadership skills required to run Russia successfully through times of war and national reform. Tsar Nicholas’ failure to adapt to the changing politics of European society and command his country with the strength and skills needed led directly to the causes of the 1917 February/March revolution through his neglect during the 1905 revolution as well as contribution to the causes of those uprisings, the lack or incompletion of social and economic reforms throughout Russia at the turn of the 20th century, Russia’s involvement in World War 1 (WW1) and the Tsar’s incompetence in military leadership, and the failing of the backward thinking Romanov rule as Russian civilians became disillusioned by their Tsar by the suffering indirectly implemented on them by his mistakes. The 1905 revolution is one of the main events which led up to the revolution in 1917. This uprising was caused primarily by the Russo-Japanese war, the political policies of the Tsar, the Bloody Sunday massacre, the failure of modernisation and industrialisation, and the October manifesto. Russia’s involvement in a war with Japan in 1904 was a fatal mistake for the Tsar as he misjudged the strength of the Japanese and because of this Russia went through
Edward Gibbon, was a Modern historian of ancient Rome, his work has some extreme biases against Christianity but other than that he is thesis seems a little clouded to me besides the fact blaming Christianity for the on stability brought on to the ancient Romans. However, The point of view that he is trying to get across I also see his theories as being true just as much is Heather 's theories. Giddon, may not have brought up significant reasons behind the economic reasoning behind the loss but he did see barbarian tried as a force that needed to be dealt with early and often. But he does explain as well that the loss of the Roman military power was a major reason behind their lack a fight against these border tribes. Like Heather he brings up how the Roman Empire had to outsource their fighting in the military this he points out the loss of military
He gave bigger autonomy for Finland and Poland. What’s more, his reform from the beginning seem to be liberal but indeed there didn’t change anything radically. Even if they had some liberal elements it was minority. At the same time, he enforced both types of reform, which took effect that both conservatism and liberals were against him. Son of Nicholas I saw the Russian difficulties and he wanted to improve Russia functioning, however he had any intention in limitation of his power.
Previous grievances, social, economic and political, that had bubbled just below the surface for so long, were now catapulted back into the public conscience. Combined with the horrors of war, these problems proved a burden too many for the Russian people to bear. The combination of these factors provided numerous, social, economic and political causes that brought about the Russian Revolution in February 1917. Problems of social discontent, both of the peasant farmers and urban workers, coupled with harsh economic difficulties, exacerbated the political instability brought about by a weak Tsar and the failure of the Duma, made Russia rife for revolution. The hardships of World War 1 served as a bellows to the already smouldering problems in Russia, causing the eventual collapse of the old autocratic regime, and reduced the Romanov dynasty to ashes.
They also suffered massive losses. The land was destroyed, partly due to Stalin 's 'scorched-earth ' policy. It was impossible to calculate the number of dead, but it is estimated at several million. However, Churchill was very suspicious of Stalin, and believed a powerful Russia could be just as big a threat as a powerful Germany. Churchill wanted to 'shake hands with the Russians as far to the east as possible, ' to stop them gaining more land.
One reason others feel differently is because of the unsightly part of humanity. For example, in the beginning of the Crucible, Miller explains how Parris “cut a villainous path” to become reverend and how “there is very little good to be said for him” (1100). People similar to Parris exist everywhere which roots the argument of inner conflict constantly tieing with humanity. However, one couldn’t openly act in such a way, it would ruin an important reputation in society. In fact, Joseph McCarthy himself suffered this consequence: “It was his clash with the Army that would lead to his downfall” (Robert 3).
Landowners also lost land due to the zamindari system (introduced by the British), which said that zamindars were the landowners and that they had to collect the rent from peasants. Craftsmen were ruined by the large-scale rush of cheap British manufactured goods into India, which made their handmade goods uneconomical, closing their business. People who made a living by following religious pursuits lost their livelihood due to the withdrawal of royal patronage. These issues resulted in shortage of food for the Indians as they could not grow enough food, leading to health problems such as famine and
The British and their East India Company came to India, motivated by political, economic, and social interests. They desired land, raw materials, money, and control. This left the Indians in starvation and poverty, fighting for the independence of their people. British rule served the English with a government designed to control Indians, taxing them when they were dying from famine caused by British economic cash crop policies, leaving remaining Indians illiterate, and never giving them a chance to benefit from trade links. British imperialism had a negative impact on the politics of India because the British taxed Indians even when they were starving, as well as established a government with an army, police force, and justice system that favoured Englishmen.
An elected and political head of state is sure to upset large section of the electorate a lot more than an uncontroversial one who is above politics and institutions (Monarch). The importance of continuity, customs and traditions, and of a focus for Britain’s patriotism are difficult to observe and analyze. The reality is that the monarchy does not causes much harm and does not proves much good, but it is accepted and welcomed by most Britons. Over throwing the monarchial system doesn’t worth the
The terms of the Treaty of Versailles contained 6.6 billion pounds of reparations. This suffocated and drained the German economy dry, leading them to hyper-inflation and the Ruhr Crisis. Most of Germany’s population was against signing and agreeing to the treaty. The agreement had also disadvantaged Germany's resources and wealth, losing 75% of its iron resources and was forbidden from the Rhineland which was their main source of industry. Because of this and the reparations to pay, the German money system had broken down.