essay on russian revolution

Causes of the Russian Revolution

Photos.com / Getty Images

• European Revolutions
• European History Figures & Events
• Wars & Battles
• The Holocaust
• Industry and Agriculture History in Europe
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History
• B.S., Texas A&M University

The Russian Revolution of 1917 stands as one of the most impactful political events of the 20th century. Lasting from March 8, 1917, to June 16, 1923, the violent revolution saw the overthrow of the tradition of czarist rulers by the Bolsheviks , led by leftist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin . Perhaps more significant to the future of international politics and security, Lenin’s Bolsheviks would go on to form the Communist Party of the Soviet Union . 

Key Takeaways: Causes of the Russian Revolution

• The Bolshevik-led Russian Revolution of 1917, in overthrowing Tsar Nicholas II, ended over 300 years of autocratic tsarist rule.
• The Russian Revolution lasted from March 8, 1917, to June 16, 1923.
• Primary causes of the Revolution included peasant, worker, and military dissatisfaction with corruption and inefficiency within the czarist regime, and government control of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Primary causes of the Russian Revolution included widespread corruption and inefficiency within the czarist imperial government, growing dissatisfaction among peasants, workers, and soldiers, the monarchy’s level of control over the Russian Orthodox Church, and the disintegration of the Imperial Russian Army during World War I .

Changes in the Working Class  

The social causes of the Russian Revolution can be traced to the oppression of both the rural peasant class and the urban industrial working class by the tsarist regime and the costly failures of Tsar Nicholas II in World War I. The rather delayed industrialization of Russia in the early 20th century triggered immense social and political changes that resulted in interrelated dissatisfaction among both the peasants and the workers.

Peasant Dissatisfaction

Under the elementary theory of property, Russian peasants believed that land should belong to those who farmed it. While they had been emancipated from serfdom by Tsar Alexander II in 1861, rural agrarian peasants resented being forced to pay the government back for their minimal allotments of land and continued to press for communal ownership of the land they worked. Despite feeble attempts at land reforms in the early 20th century, Russia continued to consist mainly of poor farming peasants and a glaring inequality of land ownership, with 25% of the nation’s land being privately owned by only 1.5% of the population.

Dissatisfaction was further exacerbated by the growing numbers of rural peasant villagers moving to and from urban areas leading to the disruptive influences of city culture on pastoral village life through the introduction of previously unavailable consumer goods, newspapers, and word of mouth. 

Working Class Dissatisfaction

By the end of the 19th century, Russia’s cities were growing rapidly as hundreds of thousands of people moved to urban areas to escape poverty. Between 1890 and 1910, for example, then Russia’s capital, Saint Petersburg, grew from 1,033,600 to 1,905,600, with Moscow experiencing similar growth. The resulting “proletariat”—an expanded working class possessing economically valuable skills—became more likely to go on strike and to publicly protest than the dwindling peasant class had been in the past.

Instead of the wealth realized by workers in Western Europe and the United States, the Industrial Revolution in Russia left workers facing unsafe working conditions, low wages, and few worker’s rights. The once well-off Russian working class was suddenly confronted with overcrowded housing often with deplorable sanitary conditions, and long work hours. Even on the eve of World War I, workers were putting in 10 to 12-hour workdays six days a week. The constant risk of injury and death from unsafe and unsanitary working conditions along with harsh physical discipline and inadequate wages added to the proletariat’s growing discontent.

Despite these hardships, many workers were encouraged to expect more from life. The self-respect and confidence gained from their newly acquired essential skills served to heighten workers’ expectations and desires. Now living in cities, workers came to desire consumer products they had never seen in villages. More importantly to the looming revolution, workers living in cities were more likely to be swayed by new—often rebellious—ideas about political and social order.

No longer considering Tsar Nicholas II to be the protector of the working class, strikes and public disorder from this new proletariat increased rapidly in number and violence, especially after the “Bloody Sunday” massacre of January 22, 1905, in which hundreds of unarmed protestors were killed by Nicholas’ elite troops.

When Russia entered World War I in 1914, the vast demand for factories to produce war supplies triggered even more labor riots and strikes. Already largely opposed to the war, the Russian people supported the workers. Equally unpopular forced military service stripped cities of skilled workers, who were replaced by unskilled peasants. When the inadequate railway system combined with the diversion of resources, production, and transport to war needs caused widespread famine, droves of remaining workers fled the cities seeking food. Suffering from a lack of equipment and supplies, the Russian soldiers themselves finally turned against the Tsar. As the war progressed, many of the military officers who remained loyal to the Tsar were killed and replaced by discontented draftees with little loyalty to the Tsar.

Unpopular Government

Even before World War I, many sections of Russia had become dissatisfied with the autocratic Russian government under Czar Nicholas II, who had once declared, “One Czar, One Church, One Russia.” Like his father, Alexander III, Nicholas II applied an unpopular policy of “Russification,” a process that required non-ethnic Russian communities, such as Belarus and Finland, to give up their native culture and language in favor of Russian culture.

An extremely conservative ruler, Nicholas II maintained strict authoritarian control. Individual citizens were expected to show unquestioned devotion to their community, acquiescence to the mandated Russian social structure, and a sense of duty to the country. 

Blinded by his visions of the Romanov monarchy that has ruled Russia since 1613, Nicholas II remained unaware of the declining state of his country. Believing his power had been granted by Divine Right, Nicholas assumed that the people would show him unquestioning loyalty. This belief made him unwilling to allow social and political reforms that could have relieved the suffering of the Russian people resulting from his incompetent management of the war effort. 

Even after the events of the failed Russian Revolution of 1905 had spurred Nicholas II to grant the people minimal civil rights, he proceeded to limit these liberties in order to maintain the ultimate authority of the Tsarist Monarchy . In the face of such oppression, the Russian people continued to press Nicholas II to allow democratic participation in government decisions. Russian liberals, populists, Marxists , and anarchists supported social and democratic reform.

Heritage Images / Getty Images

The people’s dissatisfaction with the autocratic Russian government peaked after the Bloody Sunday massacre of January 1905. The resulting crippling worker strikes forced Nicholas II to choose between either establishing a military dictatorship or allowing the creation of a limited constitutional government. Though both he and his advising minister had reservations about granting a constitution, they decided it would tactically be the better choice. Thus on October 17, 1905, Nicholas issued the October Manifesto promising to guarantee civil liberties and establishing Russia’s first parliament —the Duma. Members of the Duma were to be popularly elected and their approval would be required before the enactment of any legislation. In 1907, however, Nicholas disbanded the first two Dumas when they failed to endorse his autocratic policies. With the loss of the Dumas, quashed hopes for democracy fueled a renewed revolutionary fervor among all classes of the Russian people as violent protests criticized the Monarchy. 

Church and Military

At the time of the Russian Revolution, the Tsar was also the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which played an integral role in the autocratic government. Reinforcing the Tsars’ authority, Official Church doctrine declared that the Tsar had been appointed by God, thus any challenge to—the “Little Father”—was considered an insult to God.

Mostly illiterate at the time, the Russian population relied heavily on what the Church told them. Priests were often financially rewarded for delivering the Tsar’s propaganda. Eventually, the peasants began to lose respect for the priests, seeing them as increasingly corrupt and hypocritical. Overall, the Church and its teachings became less respected during the rule of Nicholas II.

 The level to which the Church was subservient to the Tsarist state remains a topic of debate. However, the Church’s freedom to take independent activity was limited by the edicts of Nicholas II. This extent of state control over religion angered many clergy members and lay believers alike.

Feelings of Russian national unity following the outbreak of World War I in August 1914 briefly quelled the strikes and protests against the Tsar. However, as the war dragged on, these feelings of patriotism faded. Angered by staggering losses during just the first year of the war, Nicholas II took over command of the Russian Army. Personally directing Russia’s main theatre of war, Nicholas placed his largely incapable wife Alexandra in charge of the Imperial government. Reports of corruption and incompetence in the government soon began to spread as the people became increasingly critical of the influence of self-proclaimed “mystic” Grigori Rasputin over Alexandra and the Imperial family. 

Under the command of Nicholas II, Russian Army war losses grew quickly. By November 1916, a total of over five million Russian soldiers had been killed, wounded, or taken prisoner. Mutinies and desertions began to occur. Lacking food, shoes, ammunition, and even weapons, discontent and lowered morale contributed to more crippling military defeats. 

The war also had a devastating effect on the Russian people. By the end of 1915, the economy was failing due to wartime production demands. As inflation reduced income, widespread food shortages and rising prices made it difficult for individuals to sustain themselves. Strikes, protests, and crime increased steadily in the cities. As suffering people scoured the streets for food and firewood, resentment for the wealthy grew.

As the people increasingly blamed Tsar Nicholas for their suffering, the meager support he had left crumbled. In November 1916, the Duma warned Nicholas that Russia would become a failed state unless he allowed a permanent constitutional government to be put in place. Predictably, Nicholas refused and Russia’s Tsarist regime, which had endured since the reign of Ivan the Terrible in 1547, collapsed forever during the Revolution of February 1917. Less than one year later, Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family were executed.

Nationalist and Revolutionary Sentiments 

Nationalism as an expression of cultural identity and unity first arose in Russia in the early 19th century and soon became incorporated into pan-Slavism—an anti-Western movement advocating the union of all Slavs or all Slavic peoples of eastern and east-central Europe into a single powerful political organization. Following Nicholas II’s doctrine of “Russification,” Russian Slavophiles opposed allowing the influences of Western Europe to alter Russian culture and traditions.

In 1833, Emperor Nicholas I adopted the decidedly nationalistic motto “Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality” as the official ideology of Russia. Three components of the triad were:

• Orthodoxy: Adherence to Orthodox Christianity and protection of the Russian Orthodox Church.
• Autocracy: Unconditional loyalty to the Imperial House of Romanov in return for paternalist protection of all orders of social hierarchy in Christianity. 
• Nationality: A sense of belonging to a particular nation and sharing that nation’s common history, culture, and territory.

To a large extent, however, this brand of state-proclaimed Russian nationalism was largely intended to divert public attention from the inner tensions and contradictions of the autocratic Tsarist system after the enactment of Nicholas II’s October Manifesto. 

Expressions of Russian nationalism all but vanished during the nation’s disastrous experience in World War I but reemerged following the Bolshevik’s triumph in the 1917 Revolution and the collapse of the tsarist Russian empire. Nationalist movements first increased among the different nationalities that lived in the ethically diverse country. 

In developing its policy on nationalism, the Bolshevik government largely followed Marxist-Leninist ideology. Lenin and Karl Marx advocated for a worldwide worker revolution that would result in the elimination of all nations as distinct political jurisdictions. They thus considered nationalism to be an undesirable bourgeois capitalist ideology.

However, the Bolshevik leaders considered the inherent revolutionary potential of nationalism to be a key to advancing the revolution envisioned by Lenin and Marx, and so supported the ideas of self-determination and the unique identity of nations. 

On November 21, 1917, just one month after the October Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of the People of Russia promised four key principles:

• The equality and sovereignty—the principle holding that source of governmental power lies with the people—of all peoples of the Russian empire. 
• The right of self-determination for all nations.
• The elimination of all privileges based on nationality or religion.
• Freedom of cultural preservation and development for Russian ethnic minorities.

The newly formed Communist Soviet government, however, resisted the implementation of these ideals. Of all the different countries which had at least perilously coexisted in the tsarist Russian empire, only Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia were granted independence. However, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia lost their independence when they were occupied by the Soviet Army in 1940.

Soviet leaders had hoped the 1917 Revolution would trigger what Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky had called a “Permanent Revolution” spreading socialist ideas from country to country. As history has proven, Trotsky’s vision was not to become reality. By the early 1920s, even the Soviet leaders realized that most developed nations would, by their nationalistic nature, remain autonomous. 

Today, Russian extremist nationalism often refers to far-right and a few far-left ultra-nationalist movements. The earliest example of such movements dates to early 20th century Imperial Russia when the far-right Black Hundred group opposed the more popular Bolshevik revolutionary movement by staunchly supporting the House of Romanov and opposing any departure from the autocracy of the reigning tsarist monarchy. 

• McMeekin, Sean. “The Russian Revolution: A New History.” Basic Books, March 16, 2021, ISBN-10: 1541675487.
• Trotsky, Leon. “History of the Russian Revolution.” Haymarket Books, July 1, 2008, ISBN-10: 1931859450.
• Baron, Samuel H. “Bloody Saturday in the Soviet Union.” Stanford University Press, May 22, 2001, ISBN-10:‎ 0804752311.
• Gatrell, Peter. “Russia's First World War: A Social and Economic History.” Routledge, April 7, 2005, ISBN-10: 9780582328181.
• Tuminez, Astrid. “Russian Nationalism and Vladimir Putin's Russia.” American International Group, Inc. . April 2000, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/pm_0151.pdf.
• Kolstø, Pal and Blakkisrud, Helge. “The New Russian Nationalism.” Edinburgh University Press, March 3, 2016, ISBN 9781474410434.
• List of Current Communist Countries in the World
• 5 Key Causes of World War I
• Biography of Czar Nicholas II, Last Czar of Russia
• Bloody Sunday: Prelude to the Russian Revolution of 1917
• Execution of Czar Nicholas II of Russia and His Family
• Causes of the Russian Revolution Part 2
• The Russian Revolution of 1917
• The Duma in Russian History
• Biography of Anastasia Romanov, Doomed Russian Duchess
• Russian Revolution Timeline
• Timeline of the Russian Revolutions: 1905
• The 10 Most Important Russian Czars and Empresses
• A Timeline of the Russian Revolution From 1914 to 1916
• Timeline of the Russian Revolutions: 1906 - 1913
• Timeline of the Russian Revolutions: 1918

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Russian Revolution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 27, 2024 | Original: March 12, 2024

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the most explosive political events of the 20th century. The violent revolution marked the end of the Romanov dynasty and centuries of Russian Imperial rule. Economic hardship, food shortages and government corruption all contributed to disillusionment with Czar Nicholas II. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks, led by leftist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, seized power and destroyed the tradition of czarist rule. The Bolsheviks would later become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

When Was the Russian Revolution?

In 1917, two revolutions swept through Russia, ending centuries of imperial rule and setting into motion political and social changes that would lead to the eventual formation of the Soviet Union .

However, while the two revolutionary events took place within a few short months of 1917, social unrest in Russia had been brewing for many years prior to the events of that year.

In the early 1900s, Russia was one of the most impoverished countries in Europe with an enormous peasantry and a growing minority of poor industrial workers. Much of Western Europe viewed Russia as an undeveloped, backwards society.

The Russian Empire practiced serfdom—a form of feudalism in which landless peasants were forced to serve the land-owning nobility—well into the nineteenth century. In contrast, the practice had disappeared in most of Western Europe by the end of the Middle Ages .

In 1861, the Russian Empire finally abolished serfdom. The emancipation of serfs would influence the events leading up to the Russian Revolution by giving peasants more freedom to organize.

What Caused the Russian Revolution?

The Industrial Revolution gained a foothold in Russia much later than in Western Europe and the United States. When it finally did, around the turn of the 20th century, it brought with it immense social and political changes.

Between 1890 and 1910, for example, the population of major Russian cities such as St. Petersburg and Moscow nearly doubled, resulting in overcrowding and destitute living conditions for a new class of Russian industrial workers.

A population boom at the end of the 19th century, a harsh growing season due to Russia’s northern climate, and a series of costly wars—starting with the Crimean War —created frequent food shortages across the vast empire. Moreover, a famine in 1891-1892 is estimated to have killed up to 400,000 Russians.

The devastating Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 further weakened Russia and the position of ruler Czar Nicholas II . Russia suffered heavy losses of soldiers, ships, money and international prestige in the war, which it ultimately lost.

Many educated Russians, looking at social progress and scientific advancement in Western Europe and North America, saw how growth in Russia was being hampered by the monarchical rule of the czars and the czar’s supporters in the aristocratic class.

Russian Revolution of 1905

Soon, large protests by Russian workers against the monarchy led to the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1905 . Hundreds of unarmed protesters were killed or wounded by the czar’s troops.

The Bloody Sunday massacre sparked the Russian Revolution of 1905, during which angry workers responded with a series of crippling strikes throughout the country. Farm laborers and soldiers joined the cause, leading to the creation of worker-dominated councils called “soviets.”

In one famous incident, the crew of the battleship Potemkin staged a successful mutiny against their overbearing officers. Historians would later refer to the 1905 Russian Revolution as ‘the Great Dress Rehearsal,” as it set the stage for the upheavals to come.

Nicholas II and World War I

After the bloodshed of 1905 and Russia’s humiliating loss in the Russo-Japanese War, Nicholas II promised greater freedom of speech and the formation of a representative assembly, or Duma, to work toward reform.

Russia entered into World War I in August 1914 in support of the Serbs and their French and British allies. Their involvement in the war would soon prove disastrous for the Russian Empire.

Militarily, imperial Russia was no match for industrialized Germany, and Russian casualties were greater than those sustained by any nation in any previous war. Food and fuel shortages plagued Russia as inflation mounted. The already weak economy was hopelessly disrupted by the costly war effort.

Czar Nicholas left the Russian capital of Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in 1915 to take command of the Russian Army front. (The Russians had renamed the imperial city in 1914, because “St. Petersburg” sounded too German.)

Rasputin and the Czarina

In her husband’s absence, Czarina Alexandra—an unpopular woman of German ancestry—began firing elected officials. During this time, her controversial advisor, Grigory Rasputin , increased his influence over Russian politics and the royal Romanov family .

Russian nobles eager to end Rasputin’s influence murdered him on December 30, 1916. By then, most Russians had lost faith in the failed leadership of the czar. Government corruption was rampant, the Russian economy remained backward and Nicholas repeatedly dissolved the Duma , the toothless Russian parliament established after the 1905 revolution, when it opposed his will.

Moderates soon joined Russian radical elements in calling for an overthrow of the hapless czar.

February Revolution

The February Revolution (known as such because of Russia’s use of the Julian calendar until February 1918) began on March 8, 1917 (February 23 on the Julian calendar).

Demonstrators clamoring for bread took to the streets of Petrograd. Supported by huge crowds of striking industrial workers, the protesters clashed with police but refused to leave the streets.

On March 11, the troops of the Petrograd army garrison were called out to quell the uprising. In some encounters, the regiments opened fire, killing demonstrators, but the protesters kept to the streets and the troops began to waver.

The Duma formed a provisional government on March 12. A few days later, Czar Nicholas abdicated the throne, ending centuries of Russian Romanov rule.

Alexander Kerensky

The leaders of the provisional government, including young Russian lawyer Alexander Kerensky, established a liberal program of rights such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the right of unions to organize and strike. They opposed violent social revolution.

As minister of war, Kerensky continued the Russian war effort, even though Russian involvement in World War I was enormously unpopular. This further exacerbated Russia’s food supply problems. Unrest continued to grow as peasants looted farms and food riots erupted in the cities.

Bolshevik Revolution

On November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar, which is why the event is often referred to as the October Revolution ), leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the Duma’s provisional government.

The provisional government had been assembled by a group of leaders from Russia’s bourgeois capitalist class. Lenin instead called for a Soviet government that would be ruled directly by councils of soldiers, peasants and workers.

The Bolsheviks and their allies occupied government buildings and other strategic locations in Petrograd, and soon formed a new government with Lenin as its head. Lenin became the dictator of the world’s first communist state.

Russian Civil War

Civil War broke out in Russia in late 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution. The warring factions included the Red and White Armies.

The Red Army fought for the Lenin’s Bolshevik government. The White Army represented a large group of loosely allied forces, including monarchists, capitalists and supporters of democratic socialism.

On July 16, 1918, the Romanovs were executed by the Bolsheviks. The Russian Civil War ended in 1923 with Lenin’s Red Army claiming victory and establishing the Soviet Union.

After many years of violence and political unrest, the Russian Revolution paved the way for the rise of communism as an influential political belief system around the world. It set the stage for the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power that would go head-to-head with the United States during the Cold War .

The Russian Revolutions of 1917. Anna M. Cienciala, University of Kansas . The Russian Revolution of 1917. Daniel J. Meissner, Marquette University . Russian Revolution of 1917. McGill University . Russian Revolution of 1905. Marxists.org . The Russian Revolution of 1905: What Were the Major Causes? Northeastern University . Timeline of the Russian Revolution. British Library .

Photo Galleries

HISTORY Vault: Vladimir Lenin: Voice of Revolution

Called treacherous, deluded and insane, Lenin might have been a historical footnote but for the Russian Revolution, which launched him into the headlines of the 20th century.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Sign Up Today

Start your 14 day free trial today

The History Hit Miscellany of Facts, Figures and Fascinating Finds

• 20th Century

What Were the Key Causes of the Russian Revolution?

02 Nov 2020

The Russian Revolution of 1917 marked the end of the 300-year Romanov dynasty and the start of a communist system of government. Rather than being triggered by one event, the Revolution was the result of a number of different economic, military and political factors that had been developing over decades.

Changes in society

For much of the 19th century, Russia remained relatively backward, with few roads and limited industrialisation, and a wide class divide. Following the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, agriculture remained in the hands of peasants and former landowners, relying predominantly on traditional methods.

Toward the end of the century, Russia experienced a large population increase, and its late and rapid industrialisation resulted in hundreds of thousands of people moving to urban areas out of financial necessity. This led to overcrowding and poor working conditions, with low wages, unsafe practices and few rights.

Nevertheless, acquiring new skills gave them a sense of self-respect and confidence, increasing expectations and exposing them to new ideas. After 1905’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre, strikes and public disorder from this new proletariat rapidly increased, no longer seeing the Tsar as their champion.

The Tsar’s incompetence

Tsar Nicholas II was a deeply conservative autocratic ruler. He believed he had been granted the power to rule by divine right and assumed this gave him the unquestioning loyalty of his people.

Detached from their plight, Nicholas refused to allow progressive reforms or accept any reduction in power. Religious faith was used as a means of political authority, exercised through the clergy and later through the Cossacks and secret police.

Tsar Nicholas II (Image Credit: Public Domain).

However, Bloody Sunday forced Nicholas to create the October Manifesto, making a number of concessions to decree limited civil rights and a democratically elected parliament, the Duma. Nevertheless, he worked to limit these to preserve his authority, dismissing the first two Dumas.

Nicholas was unprepared for the outbreak of World War One, but he was keen to restore Russia’s prestige after the Russo-Japanese War in 1904/5, and use the war to create national unity. However, he failed to choose skilled leaders, was disorganised in ensuring adequate supplies, and made poor strategic decisions throughout the war, leading to huge losses.

In Autumn 1915, Nicholas declared himself Commander in Chief of the army and departed for the Eastern Front, believing this would inspire the soldiers to fight with renewed vigour. By removing himself from a political role and now in sole command, he consequently bore more personal responsibility for any military failure. His absence also left a weakened government.

The Tsarina and the war

Nicholas’ departure left his wife, Tsarina Alexandra, in control. She wasn’t popular, and as a German princess, raised suspicions as to where her true loyalties lay.

Alexandra gained increasing influence over the appointment of ministers to the government and determined that no member should be in a strong enough position to challenge her husband’s authority. Consequently, the government tended to be filled with increasingly weak and incompetent men – leading to rumours she was a German collaborator.

Empress Alexandra Feodorovna with Rasputin, her children and a governess.

Rasputin and his influence over the Tsarina

Alexandra became strongly influenced by a Siberian monk, Rasputin , who was a mystic and self-proclaimed holy man. Although infamous for his drunkenness and womanising, Rasputin also gained a reputation as a healer who could perform amazing feats.

Nicholas and Alexandra had 4 daughters and a son, Alexei, who had haemophilia. Rasputin was summoned by Alexandra to pray for Alexei after he had an internal haemorrhage in spring 1907. After Alexei recovered, Alexandra became convinced Rasputin could control Alexei’s illness, and his influence over the Tsarina became considerable, advising her on government appointments and important decisions.

Rasputin soon became a controversial figure, bringing ridicule on the royal family. He was accused by his enemies of religious heresy and rape, and was rumoured to be having an affair with the Tsarina.

After Rasputin’s murder in December 1916 by Russian aristocrats, Alexandra’s behaviour became more erratic, and she failed to even attempt to address the challenges posed to government in Nicholas’ absence.

Impact of the First World War

Instead of restoring Russia’s prestige, the First World War led to the deaths of almost 2 million Russian soldiers and multiple military defeats.

When Russia entered the war, it was distinctly less industrialized than its allies, with a weakened navy following the 1904 Russo-Japanese War. The addition of the Ottoman Empire to the Central Powers cut off essential trade routes, contributing to munition shortages. Military defeats such as the 1914 Battle of Tannenberg sapped morale, as did the superior German army’s shift of focus to the Eastern front in 1915.

As the war progressed, many officers loyal to the Tsar were killed and replaced by discontented conscripts, with little loyalty to the Tsar. Soldiers were ill-equipped and staggering losses increasingly led to mutinies and revolts.

Tsar Nicolas II reviewing Russian troops. When Russia entered World War One, its army was the largest, but least modern of the major European powers. (Image Credit: Everett Collection / Shuttershock).

Economic problems

The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers resulted in labour riots and strikes, as did conscription, which took skilled workers from the cities, replacing them with unskilled peasants.

Conscripted peasants were also a large part of the Russian army. This led to a shortage of farm workers, hugely impacting production. By the end of 1915, there were signs the economy was breaking down due to wartime demand. The government attempted to address this by printing more money, but this led to high inflation. Underdeveloped railway systems led to food shortages and rising prices, with workers increasingly abandoning cities to seek food.

The Tsarina failed to address strikes and protests in late 1916 and by the time revolution hit, Russia’s economy was near collapse.

Peasant and worker discontent

The scorched earth policy during the 1915 Russian army retreat destroyed large areas of peasant farmland, ruining their livelihoods. Meanwhile living conditions deteriorated, with shortages in shops and a severe lack of food. This was made worse by peasants hoarding grain for themselves, and the railways being committed to the war effort, unavailable to transport supplies to the cities.

These shortages exacerbated social unrest, creating a powder-keg of despair and anger. Revolutionary groups continued to attract support, aided by the Bolshevik newspaper, Pravda. They believed a worker-run government should replace Tsarist rule, and the shortages provided the ideal opportunity to gain support.

In January 1917, to commemorate Bloody Sunday, thousands of workers went on strike in St Petersburg. In February, further rioting broke out, initially in response to an announcement on bread rationing. Strikers from the Putilov Engineering Plant joined the crowds at the celebration of International Women’s Day.

Meeting in the Putilov Works in Petrograd during the 1917 Russian Revolution. In February 1917 strikes at the factory contributed to the February Revolution. (Image Credit: Shuttershock).

As numbers increased, some of the Tsar’s forces opened fire. Angry protestors broke into the barracks of the city’s Pavlovsky Regiment, yet the Cossack soldiers refused orders to fire on the crowds, joining the protestors and mutinying against the Tsar.

Seize of Power

Dismissing this as short-lived, Nicholas attempted to return to St Petersburg to reclaim authority, but his train was diverted by revolutionaries to Pskov. Isolated and powerless, he was forced to abdicate.

A Provisional Government replaced Nicholas (after his brother refused the crown), but carried on fighting the war. Lenin claimed the government was imperialist in doing so, and undeserving of Socialist support. As the Provisional Government’s power waned, Bolshevik influence increased. As shortages and military defeats continued, Lenin and the Bolsheviks determined to seize power in the name of the Soviets.

Vladimir Lenin during the Russian Revolution of October 1917. (Image Credit: Alamy).

In October 1917 they stormed the Winter Palace, and arrested the Provisional Government, putting themselves in charge.

A year later the Tsar and his family were executed. Russia had changed forever.

You May Also Like

Mac and Cheese in 1736? The Stories of Kensington Palace’s Servants

The Peasants’ Revolt: Rise of the Rebels

10 Myths About Winston Churchill

Medusa: What Was a Gorgon?

10 Facts About the Battle of Shrewsbury

5 of Our Top Podcasts About the Norman Conquest of 1066

How Did 3 People Seemingly Escape From Alcatraz?

5 of Our Top Documentaries About the Norman Conquest of 1066

1848: The Year of Revolutions

What Prompted the Boston Tea Party?

15 Quotes by Nelson Mandela

The History of Advent

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project - Origins to the Present

Course: world history project - origins to the present   >   unit 7.

• READ: What Caused the First World War
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Britain and World War I
• WATCH: Britain and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: How World War I Started
• WATCH: How World War I Started
• READ: The First World War as a Global War
• READ: World War I — A Total War
• READ: The Mexican Revolution

READ: The Power of One — The Russian Revolution

• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Armenian Genocide
• WATCH: Armenian Genocide
• READ: Capitalism and World War I
• World War 1

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

• Why does the author suggest that Russian peasants would have been excited upon hearing about the Russian Revolution?
• How were the tsar’s actions one of the causes of the revolution?
• Why did Russia have a different experience with nationalist fervor than its European neighbors?
• After the tsar stepped down, why did the Provisional Committee eventually lose power to the Bolsheviks?
• How did the Bolsheviks change both production and distribution as well as communities in Russia?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

• At the end of the last era, you learned about socialist responses to the changes of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of capitalism. Based on your reading of this article, do you think World War I would have been different if Russia and other nations had embraced communist systems before 1914?
• What evidence from this article supports or challenges the idea that World War I was a total war?

The Power of One: The Russian Revolution

Imagine this …, backstory of the russian revolution, the russian revolution of 1917: what happened why does it matter, after the russian revolution.

• The Bolsheviks began as a workers' party that wanted socialist reforms for Russia. Lenin led this branch of the socialist party and called for the public ownership of the means of production (factories) and the elimination of capitalism, or the private ownership of businesses. The Bolsheviks would later become the Russian Communist Party. Communism is a political ideology that advocates for public (state) control of the economy. In theory, communism calls for the community to own all properties, including businesses, and the people share in the profits based on their contributions and needs.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

Home — Essay Samples — History — Russian Revolution of 1905 — Interpreting the Russian Revolution: Perspectives and Debates

Interpreting The Russian Revolution: Perspectives and Debates

• Categories: Russian Revolution of 1905

About this sample

Words: 2880 |

15 min read

Published: Oct 11, 2018

Words: 2880 | Pages: 6 | 15 min read

Revisionist

Works cited.

• Carr, E.H. (1950). The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Fitzpatrick, S. (1982). The Russian Revolution. Oxford University Press.
• Hill, C. (1961). The Russian Revolution. Jonathan Cape.
• Hosking, G. (2011). The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within. Harvard University Press.
• Lenin, V. I. (1917). State and Revolution. Marxist Internet Archive.
• Pipes, R. (1997). Russia under the Bolshevik regime. Vintage Books.
• Service, R. (2000). Lenin: A Biography. Harvard University Press.
• Trotsky, L. (1930). The History of the Russian Revolution. Marxist Internet Archive.
• V.I. Lenin Institute (1963). Lenin on the State. Lawrence and Wishart Publishers.
• Woods, A. (2017). Russia’s Revolution: Essays 1989-2017. Wellred Books.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2.5 pages / 1229 words

2 pages / 998 words

3 pages / 1500 words

4 pages / 1713 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

The history of the Czarists system lasted more than 300 years, only to come crashing down during the reign of Czar Nicholas II. One of the most significant events that preceded the Bolsheivik revolution of 1917 that ended the [...]

The revolution of 1905, in Russia, was not a complete revolution at all. To be able to respond to this statement accurately, it is firstly advisable, to look at what a revolution is. It is then best to observe what the Russian [...]

In Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago there is an adulterous love affair between Yurii Andreievich Zhivago and Larisa Feodorovna Guishar that is carried on throughout the novel. Although the affair is essential for the movement of [...]

As psychologist Rollo May once said: “The opposite of courage in our society is not cowardice, it's conformity.” Throughout Khaled Hosseini’s novel, The Kite Runner, the reader is exposed to the dueling themes of conformity [...]

Both Karl Marx and Charles Darwin used classification to enhance their ideas; human classification in particular. Marx classifies humans in a society as either part of the bourgeois or the proletariat while on the other hand, [...]

The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, has become one of the world's most influential and significant pieces of political propaganda ever written. It contains the viewpoints and ideology of the [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Friday essay: Putin, memory wars and the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution

Professor of History, The University of Western Australia

Disclosure statement

Mark Edele receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

University of Western Australia provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

One hundred years ago, the Romanov dynasty fell in the February Revolution of 1917. This centenary haunts Russia’s current government. “In the Kremlin,” wrote journalist Ben Judah in his important analysis of Vladimir Putin’s “Fragile Empire”, “they have nightmares about Nicholas II”.

In the middle of a terrible war with Germany, a revolutionary crisis had started in late February (according to the Julian calendar then in force in Russia). The Tsar, under pressure from the street, the parliamentary opposition, his own ministers, and the army command, abdicated on 2 March. A Provisional Government of liberals and moderate socialists took over the affairs of state and the war effort.

Eventually, the revolution radicalized in the Red October. Historians continue to debate if this uprising of the Bolshevik party was a “revolution” or a “coup.” The former interpretation stresses the fact that Lenin’s party had significant support among the working class, in particular among workers and soldiers of the capital, Petrograd (today St Petersburg).

The takeover of power was relatively unbloody, with only few victims initially. And Bolshevik slogans (land to the peasants, peace to the soldiers, and political power to the working class), were popular far beyond the immediate constituency of the party. At the same time, the Bolsheviks had little support among the peasantry, still the overwhelming majority of the population. The uprising was not spontaneous like its February equivalent, but planned by a small group of conspirators around Lenin. And once in power, the Bolsheviks built a one-party dictatorship, which quickly alienated even many of its initial followers. Lenin’s government had to fight armed resistance in what soon escalated into a complex but devastating civil war.

Together, the two revolutions of 1917 led to military defeat, the destruction of the state, and disintegration of the empire. Many non-Russian regions broke away, often forming precursors to nation states which would only come into their own after the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nicholas II would not survive the incredibly brutal civil and international wars of succession that followed in 1918-22: the Bolsheviks executed him together with his family in 1918.

These high-profile executions were only the most prominent examples of the “Red Terror” Lenin unleashed to frighten his many enemies into submission. Members of the former upper classes, clergy, nationalists fighting for the independence of non-Russian successor states, and real or presumed defenders of the old regime (“Whites”) were singled out for imprisonment or execution.

In the end, by 1922, the Bolsheviks had won this many sided war, presiding over an exhausted and mutilated country set back for decades by the destruction of war, revolution, and civil war. Eventually, under the brutal leadership of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union would win the Second World War in Europe and establish itself as one of the two Superpowers to rule the world during the Cold War.

Putin’s dilemma

Putin’s government faces a dilemma regarding this past. The Revolution can neither be fully embraced nor fully disowned. Revolutions are anathema to Putin, who does not want to be swept away by a successful uprising similar to the Ukrainian Euromaidan in 2013-14. At the same time, Russia both legally and ideologically claims to be the successor state to the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union’s founding event happens to be a revolution. The centenary cannot be simply ignored.

History, in Putin’s Russia, is not a mere academic pursuit. It is part of what La Trobe political scientist Robert Horvath calls “preventive counter revolution” : an attempt to nip in the bud any potential for a popular uprising. The past which Putin and his Minister of Culture, the maverick historian Vladimir Medinsky, most frequently deploy to this end is the “Great Patriotic War” against Nazi Germany.

As I argue in an article forthcoming in the journal History & Memory , their self-confident, patriotic rendering of the Soviet Second World War serves as ideological glue attaching the population to the government.

Could one do the same with the Revolution: write it into a positive history of contemporary Russia? It would be possible to embrace the February revolution as a legitimate, potentially democratic uprising, which also freed the nations of the empire from imperial control: a decolonizing as well as democratizing event. The Bolshevik revolution could then become an illegitimate coup bringing a criminal regime to power, which re-erected by force of arms the old empire under a new guise.

Such a narrative de-legitimizes much of the Soviet period, while celebrating the breakdown of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states in 1991 as the historical fulfillment of the promises of February 1917.

Such a version of the past finds few enthusiasts in today’s Russia. As historian Geoffrey Hosking has written , most formerly Soviet peoples experienced 1991

as national liberation. For Russians, however, who had lived in all republics and thought of the Soviet Union as ‘their’ country, it was deprivation.

This perception “still rankles today” and “underlies the current Ukrainian crisis.”

‘Reconciliation’

Nostalgia for the good old Soviet times is better served by a different version of this past: the February revolution as treason. In such an alternative narrative, liberals and other elites were stabbing the legitimate government in the back at times of war. Imperial breakdown and defeat in war followed.

The Bolshevik revolution, then, was the start of a re-building of the state and the re-gathering of the empire. According to this way of telling the story, the Bolsheviks were state builders who fixed what others had broken. The Soviet Union was the legitimate successor of the Romanov empire and the 1991 breakdown a geopolitical catastrophe, another setback for “Russian statehood”.

This second narrative implies a neo-imperialist stance guaranteed to alienate Ukrainians or Latvians, or any other non-Russian successor nations to the Soviet Union. It will also prove unpopular with a significant minority of Russians at home and abroad: monarchists and those who embrace the anti-Bolshevik “White” movement as their historical ancestry. Hence, the government performs something of a fudging act: “reconciliation”.

“Reconciliation” implies that the warring sides in revolution and civil war can be remembered as parts of a positive history of the fatherland. This move requires reducing the revolutionary process to a “Russian” event.

Rather than multi-national wars of succession to the Romanov empire, what happened in the period 1917-1922 becomes a struggle between “White” and “Red” Russians. Ukrainian, Polish, Baltic, or Central Asian actors are either ignored, assigned to the one or the other side in this conflict, or declared pawns of foreign interventionists. Popular resistance to both Whites and Reds by Russian rebels in peasantry, army, and working class is waved away as an inconvenient complication.

Attempting to construct such a narrative has kept Putin’s history warrior Medinsky busy. In 2013, he stated that it was “meaningless” to decide which party of the civil war was “right” or who was “guilty.”

Instead, one needed to understand that both Reds and Whites “loved Russia.” Both sides had their own truth and were ready to die for it. “We have to approach this with respect,” he added. Monuments to Whites had the same legitimacy as monuments to Reds. They were both needed.

In 2015 Medinsky built on this beginning in a lecture to students of the elite Moscow State Institute for International Relations. We have two versions of what he said, both distributed through semi-official websites. Different in some details, they both make an attempt to come to terms with this revolution by taking a philosophical view of events.

Both Reds and Whites, Medinsky stated, were subjects of the same historical moment of catastrophic breakdown of “Russian statehood in the Romanov version” which led to a time of “troubles” . He lined up the Whites with the February revolution on the one end and liberal post-1991 Russia on the other – a breathtaking simplification, but a useful one, as we shall see.

The historical role of the Reds is central in Medinsky’s account. Independent of their own radical socialist motivations, they ended up re-building Russian statehood (and implicitly, the Russian empire). It was “the logic of history” which worked through the Bolsheviks, and led to the re-creation of “the united Russian state, which they started to call USSR.”

Thus, the real victor of the revolutionary upheavals was

a third force, which did not participate in the civil war: historical Russia, the same Russia which existed for a thousand years before the revolution and which will continue to exist in the future.

So far, so sophisticated: By declaring “Russia” the real subject of history and the human beings who fought over it the mere executors of a higher will they did not know themselves, Medinsky seems to have found a way out of the polarizing interpretations of the revolution.

Upon closer inspection, however, his is just a well-camouflaged version of the second interpretation outlined above: February as destruction, October as re-creation, the Bolsheviks the virtuous state builders implicitly linked to the current government. Medinsky’s fusion of the Whites with post-1991 liberalism is instructive. While the Bolsheviks re-built the Russian state in 1918-22, the liberals triggered, in 1991, the “destruction of the united historical-cultural and economic space… the breakdown of the Soviet Union.”

It appears to be this negative assessment of the Whites that has kept Vladimir Putin from fully embracing his Minister of Culture’s historical scheme. The President accepted reconciliation but rejected Medinsky’s supporting interpretation of events.

A divisive event for Russians

Putin’s reluctance could be seen as careful tactics in a historiographical minefield. The history of the revolution is much more divisive among Russians than the history of World War II.

As University of Sydney historian Sheila Fitzpatrick points out in a forthcoming essay, the “real problem” of the centenary for Putin’s government is the lack of consensus about the meaning of this event among the population of Russia.

Despite all its authoritarianism, the Putin regime is very alert to popular opinion, and given the divisiveness of the memory of 1917-22, the best possible solution is to fudge the issue. In his annual speech to Parliament on 1 December 2016, the President refused to take sides, asking his compatriots to let sleeping dogs lie. The “lessons of history” were needed:

first of all for reconciliation, for the strengthening of the social, political, and civil harmony we have achieved today. It is not permissible to drag the schisms, malice, insults and bitterness of the past into our contemporary life, to speculate on the tragedies which have engulfed practically every family in Russia, in order to advance one’s own political or other interests. It does not matter on what side of the barricades our ancestors found themselves. Let us remember: we are a united people, we are one people, and we have only one Russia.

Putin’s position on the revolution, however, might be rooted in more than just tactics. During a meeting of the All-Russian People’s Front (an organization uniting the ruling party with selected pro-government NGOs), the President was asked for his opinion about Lenin, the Bolshevik leader during the Revolution and civil war, who led the Soviet Union until his death in 1924.

The question does not appear to have been scripted: it was so rambling that Putin needed to ask for clarification, and his answer was no less convoluted. It seemed improvised, ambiguous and contradictory.

First, the President recalled his past membership in the Communist Party and that he “liked and still like[s] communist and socialist ideas.” He listed the successes of the planned economy, most importantly the victory over Nazism in World War II.

At the same time he mentioned mass repressions under the Soviets. Did the children of the Tsar really have to be executed? Or the Romanovs’ family doctor? Why did the Soviets kill clergymen? And what about the role of the Bolsheviks in disorganizing the front in World War I? The revolution, in effect, made Russia lose the war to the losing side (Germany had to capitulate less than a year after the Bolsheviks signed a punishing peace treaty), “a unique event in history.” Clearly, the Bolsheviks’ role was not all positive.

Putin kept his most biting comments to the end of his monologue. By creating the Soviet Union as a federation made up of republics with the formal right to secession, Lenin (against the advice of Stalin) planted “a mine under the building of our state:” in 1991, the Soviet Union would break down along the borders of the republics. Ultimately, then, Lenin was responsible not only for the defeat of the Romanov empire in World War I, but also for the breakup of the Soviet empire in 1991 – hardly a positive evaluation.

These rambling remarks stand in sharp contrast to Putin’s well developed and unambiguous line on World War II as well as Medinsky’s sophisticated pro-Bolshevik dialectics. It appears that the President, like the country as a whole, is much more confused about what to make of the revolution. The President has much more time for the Whites than his Minister of Culture. In the memory wars, as elsewhere, he is an independent actor in a complex political game.

There is another interpretation of the dissonances between Medinsky and Putin, however. What better way to unify the country over this contentious past than to give slightly different emphases to the reconciliation message?

Effectively, the President appeals to monarchists and White forces while his Minister of Culture caters to Red nostalgia.

We shall see throughout the centenary year, if this division of labour continues or if the one or the other line will prevail. The first test will be if and how the anniversary of the February Revolution will be commemorated; the second will be what public events will mark October. By the time of writing, it is unclear what these events will look like. It will be fascinating to watch.

La Trobe University’s Ideas & Society Program will host a conversation between historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, one of the world’s leading historians of the Soviet Union, and Mark Edele on February 23 at 6:15 pm . Their conversation will concern the role the Russian Revolution of 1917 played in shaping the history of the 20th century. It will be live streamed here

• Vladimir Putin
• Russian revolution
• Vladimir Lenin
• Russian history
• Imperial Russia

Head, School of Psychology

Senior Lecturer (ED) Ballarat

Senior Research Fellow - Women's Health Services

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes Essay

The Russian Revolution refers to one of the most significant historical events in the world history. It left a print on the territory of Europe and USA and influenced social life of the whole Russian Empire. This event covered two revolutions rooted in Russia: the February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917. Both of them appeared to be influential and global covering almost all the spheres of life and activities.

The February Revolution a spontaneous movement concentrated around Petrograd. The effects of this event were suppressive though not so unbearable as those caused by the Bolshevik Revolution happened in October 1917. It gave a start to the communism spread fulfilled by the Bolsheviks or the Bolshevik Party. They represented the interests of the working class. The leader of the Revolution was Lenin whose actions were directed against Provisional Government which appeared to be ineffective. This revolution influenced social, political and economic relations in the society.

In order to define the methods of revolution prevention it is important to stress its main causes:

• Political insufficiency and backwardness covering weak position of the leadership;
• Economic instability covering the whole Empire at that period;
• Warlike relationships of the country with other lands and national participation in the war events.

It can be seen that all the reasons for the revolutionary events are too global to solve them simultaneously. Nevertheless the weak position of the Provisional Government is considered to be one of the main causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The representatives of the Government could prevent the events of the revolution. They worked out wrong program to follow which was aimed against the interests of the society, to be more exact against the working class which contained the majority of the population.

The first step was to improve the economical position of the Empire. Poor working conditions for people were followed by little salary. The government should have taken under control all the aspects of social life and invested more means into the working and living conditions of people to satisfy their needs and provide better general norms.

The second step aimed at the revolution prevention concerns constant international conflicts of Russia Empire which made people live in the conditions of warrior atmosphere. Czar’s politics was aimed at personal interests’ satisfaction. The conditions for life were terrible because people had to live and work in constant fear of global war. The government should have worked out political strategies which could help to establish piece and stability in the country.

Further on, Provisional Government had to take a row of labor reforms in order to avoid global conflict. It was necessary to find a half way with the leader of the Bolshevik Party and meet all possible requirements of the rebellions. Such position could help to avoid suffering losses caused by the Russian Revolution. The Government was to sign an agreement which would satisfy both parties.

Thus, it was possible to prevent the events of the Russian Revolution which changed all the aspects of social life of that time. Bolshevik Revolution became the important event in the life of Russian Empire.

• Long-term impact of the revolution on economic development
• Imperialism and Its Negative Consequences
• Mexican and Russian Revolution: Comparative Analysis
• War Purposes and Possibility of Its Eradication
• The Development of Europe Burial Practice
• Conflicts of the 20th Century: Roles of Civilizations
• Comparisons Between the Assyrians, Persians, and Athenian Armies
• The Dispute Over Israel
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, September 27). The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/

"The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.