| Papers [1-16] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "GREAT OCTOBER RUSSIA REVOLUTION": |
|
|
The Great October Russia Revolution, 2005.
This paper explains that the great October Russian Revolution of 1917 would best be called the October "Riot".
1,070 words (approx. 4.3 pages), 8 sources, MLA, AU$ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that documentation has been found indicating that the great October Revolution of Russian history was nothing more or less than a bloody riot with some, but not many, murders in the fighting plus a great deal of raping and pillaging of the privileged class. The author points out that it was in February, 1917, that the people, particularly of Moscow and the army, seized power in a bloodless coup and put into place a totally ineffective "Provisional Government" forcing Czar Nicholas to abdicate the throne. The paper states that the main problem among the Social Democratic Party was that the two men leading the two main factions of the party vehemently disliked one another; Ulyanov and his faction the Bolsheviks was slightly the larger faction and Trotsky's Mensheviks were of the educated middle ground and a definite minority of the party.
From the Paper
"Back in 1898, using the Manifesto of Karl Marx, the much-acclaimed German philosopher and firm believer in the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat," two men one Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov and the other Leon Trotsky along with many others formed the Political Party known as the Social Democratic Party. This party whose main goal, actually their sole goal, was to bring as much pressure to bear as possible upon the Crown in an unsuccessful effort to gain some semblance of social justice for the masses. This they did by means of every sort of act of civil disobedience they could think of for the people to engage in such as general strikes, specific strikes, create unrest within the military and any other disruptive acts of opportunity that presented themselves."
| |
|
Russian Revolution of October 1917, 2006.
This paper examines the causes and effects of Lenin's Russian October Revolution of 1917.
2,270 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, AU$ 101.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the October Revolution of 1917 was an event that was the culmination of many years of discontent. The author points out that, although it is seen as the major revolution which changed Russia into a socialist country and brought widespread changes to Russia, it was an anti-climactic event that was really the result of many other revolts and uprisings which took place beforehand. The paper relates that, while the October Revolution was not the February Revolution which Lenin hoped for in terms of massive support and uprising by the peasantry, it was a calculated and successful taking over of the government by the Bolsheviks. However, it was not effective in bringing relief to the peasantry because political dissent among the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks ended up in another bloody civil war.
From the Paper
"Although most Russians welcomed the end of autocracy; that was the only point on which they agreed. The provisional government had little popular support, and its authority was limited by the Petrograd workers' and soldiers' soviet, which controlled the troops, communications, and transport. The Petrograd Soviet furthered the military breakdown by establishing soldiers' committees throughout the army and making officership elective. Disagreement in the provisional government set the stage for the arrival of Vladimir Lenin who returned to Russia from exile along with other revolutionaries who were exiled by the aristocratic government."
| |
|
The February and October Revolutions, 2002.
This paper describes the Russian Revolution and its major causes.
975 words (approx. 3.9 pages), 0 sources, AU$ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the causes of the February and October Revolutions of 1917 including: World War I , the social discontent of the Russian peasantry and poor government and leadership.
From the Paper
"The February Revolution?s causes can fall under the three main sections: World War I, peasant reaction to social conditions, and poor government and leadership. World War I was the most evident and serious of the causes. The beginning of World War I caused ?a public surge of patriotic enthusiasm? (37), but alas this enthusiasm could not withstand the many consequences of the war. Firstly the ?Russian Army suffered crushing defeats and loses?? (37), which could only cause patriotic morale to dwindle the more they kept losing. These constant-crushing blows took a number of soldier?s lives, which also meant a significant lose in the number of peasants because they made up a significant amount of the infantry, as a result of the implemented draft. This, to say the least, did not make the peasants and soldiers very pleased. The soldiers discontent was justified; they were not getting the equipment they needed, because most of the manpower was on the field and Russia was late to industrialize. This lack of equipment and technology cost the lives of many Russian troops. "
| |
|
French Revolution: A True Revolution?, 2002.
A study on whether the French Revolution was a true revolution or not, through a discussion of revolutions in general and the French Revolution in particular.
831 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 2 sources, MLA, AU$ 42.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the issues which can lead to a revolution, and illustrates how these issues were prevalent in France prior to the outbreak of the revolution. The paper outlines the social, economic and political problems in France in the years preceding the revolution. The writer also explains that through all the horror and bloodshed, there were also positive and far-reaching effects of the revolution for France as well as for Europe. The French Revolution brought about great long term changes in the society and government.
From the Paper
"The French Revolution is known as one of the bloodiest revolutions in all of history, it claimed the lives of thousands of Frenchmen. The question that remains to be answered is, what was the cause for all this carnage?? It was during the years of 1789-1795 that turmoil arose and an outcry came from France, and in place of one of the oldest civilizations stood a new one filled with uncertainty, and the need to reform and build what remained of France. To reflect upon the reasons as to why such a revolution occurred, one must focus upon the main aspects troubling the country and it?s people at this time."
| |
|
The American Revolution: Revolution of the People, 2001.
This paper examines the sociological roots of the American Revolution and argues that John Adams was completely right when he said "The revolution was effected in the minds and hearts of the people?"
2,192 words (approx. 8.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay traces the sociological attitudes of the American colonists throughout the pre-revolutionary period, as well as the American Revolution itself. Included are the reactions to British injustices such as the stamp act, sugar act, and quartering act, as well as more general trends in the thinking of the colonists. The paper also examines the way the colonists used John Locke's ideas to justify their actions. In addition, it traces how some colonial newspapers looked at the crisis, and the influence they had. This paper is a comprehensive examination of the emotions and attitudes of the colonists that led to and spurred on the American revolution.
From the Paper
"The protection of private property was considered imperative by Locke, and he reasoned that tyranny originated from government invading the natural rights of man. Despite the fact that these views were originally established in a time period well before the revolutionary period was at hand, the colonists applied them very effectively to their own situation. A number of Locke?s other beliefs and ideologies were bought into by the colonists. His doctrine of the supreme power of legislature, by which he meant to suggest that the British Parliament would have power over the crown, was used by the colonists to justify the idea of implementing Colonial legislatures that would have powers over the crown."
| |
|
"How did the American Revolution contribute to the outbreak of the French revolution?", 2002.
This junior level paper is on "How did the American Revolution contribute to the outbreak of the French revolution?"
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, AU$ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This junior level paper is on "How did the American Revolution contribute to the outbreak of the French revolution?" It includes that what independent factors propelled the French to the revolution? Sources.
| |
|
The Russian Revolution, 2007.
An analysis of the changes that occurred in Russia following the Russian Revolution of 1917.
2,885 words (approx. 11.5 pages), 13 sources, APA, AU$ 123.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the events leading up to and following the Russian Revolution in 1917. The paper specifically discusses whether the Russian Revolution changed Russian society on fundamental levels. It concludes that it is an excellent example of a nation that suffered through the blood and destruction of revolution, and yet, emerged unchanged on fundamental levels. The paper describes why this is the case.
From the Paper
"Russia is an excellent example of a nation that suffered through the blood and destruction of revolution, and yet, emerged unchanged on fundamental levels. The basic principles of Russian autocracy remained self-evident under communist rulers like Stalin. Tsarist society, with its largely immobile masses, held in thrall by the power of the state, continued to exist in the form of the voiceless workers of Communist times. The collectivized economy, and top down economic control of the Imperial period had its counterpart in the collective farms and five-year-plans of the Soviet communist party dictators. Culture too, conformed to the same patterns of state-endorsed propaganda and accepted forms, set against the rebellion of individuals. Crane Brinton's theory on Revolution applies to Russia as it applies to so many other places and times, showing as it does, the difficulties, and near-impossibilities of completely transforming a nation in a short period of time."
| |
|
The Notion and Practice of Revolution, 2008.
A discussion of the commonalities and similarities between the Russian Revolution and Mexican Revolution.
1,707 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores similarities and differences as they relate to three aspects of the Russian and Mexican Revolution: ideology; antecedents or contributing factors; and outcomes or a changed social order. The paper presents the ideology that influenced and determined the Russian Revolution, followed by ideology and a comparison for the Mexican Revolution. The paper then discusses the antecedents to revolution in Russia, and compares it to Mexico. The paper also demonstrates how the ideology which inspired revolution actually instigates that revolution. In conclusion, the outcomes for both Russian and Mexican society are discussed and compared.
Outline:
Introduction
Ideology - Russia
Ideology - Mexico
Antecedents - Russia
Antecedents - Mexico
Outcomes - Russia
Outcomes - Mexico
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Ideology has played a central role in revolution with innovative social ideas and the vision of a new social order inspiring the revolution. Strong national feeling was a very important factor in the Mexican revolution. According to Vanderwood (204) the situation in Mexico was an authentic social revolution that tended between "authoritarian rule and the endeavor to give peasants and workers a meaningful voice in government". By the time of the Cold War, Americans began to "interpret Mexico's experience largely in terms of the Communist revolution in the former Soviet Union" (Vanderwood 204). During the Mexican Revolution, the individual who was similar to Lenin in influence and vision was Villa."
| |
|
Was the First World War the Cause of the February Revolution?, 2001.
A detailed analysis of the causes of the February Revolution in Russia (1917) - a paper which asks whether the Revolution was inevitable, or whether it only occurred because of WWI.
3,500 words (approx. 14.0 pages), 6 sources, APA, AU$ 142.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An essay which discusses the different causes of the February Revolution. It argues that severe wartime conditions played a major role in the events of 1917, as did the actions of the Tsar himself. However, it also argues that the Russian people were modernizing faster than the regime itself, and suggests that change was necessary, with or without the war.
From the Paper
"Relatively few people in Russia felt that the 'constitution' of 1905 was adequate. Although at the time it had represented a major concession by the Tsar, in practise it did little to appease the Russian people. Stolypin's arbitrary use of Article 87, and the electoral law of 3 June 1907 caused many workers and peasants to lose interest in the Duma, as it no longer seemed to effectively promote their interests. Thus, before war broke out in 1914, workers, peasants, liberals and socialists all still sought political reform, and, as reform seemed unlikely through the Duma, revolution suggested a more viable means. The revolutionary intelligentsia was a lot more organised than it had been in 1905, particularly helped by relaxed censorship laws. An increase in primary education brought Pushkin, Tolstoy and Dostoevskii to the peasantry for the first time, and their ideas on nationhood were no longer restricted to the obshchestvennost, or 'public sphere'. Russian society was showing obvious signs of modernisation, while the regime was not. Certainly Russia was not on the brink of revolution in 1914; nevertheless, had war not broken out, it still seems likely that revolution would have happened at some point regardless. What the War provided was the weakening of the Tsarist regime, and thus the encouragement to defy it. The authority of the Tsar was paramount to the survival of the regime; hence, traditionally 'peasants had often responded in an excitable and rebellious way to the authorities' perceived weakness' . This was an echo of 1905, when war with Japan had led to revolution. Furthermore, the War changed the character of the Revolution, as it was no longer solely about political and social reform, but about the survival of the nation. In some respects this delayed the Revolution, as many potential revolutionaries felt that a revolution during wartime could lead to the loss of the War. Others felt that unless the Tsar was overthrown quickly the War would be lost, which added a sense of urgency to the revolutionary movement. Finally, the War introduced a new element among the ranks of the revolutionaries: the army. Soldiers and workers had failed to work together in 1905, and this partly explains why the Tsar managed to survive for a further twelve years. In 1917, however, mutinous troops played a pivotal role, and their involvement empowered the revolutionaries, especially the more radical elements. Hence, although revolution seemed inevitable to many contemporaries, the First World War added new impetus to the revolutionary movement, radicalising its protagonists, and thus shaping its very outcome."
| |
|
The Bolshevik Revolution, 2005.
This paper argues that the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia came not from the power and influence of the masses, but instead from Lenin and other top political leaders.
1,448 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper evaluates the arguments of three different authors on the question of how the Bolsheviks gained and sustained power. The paper maintains that the argument by Diane Koenker appears to have overextended herself in her belief of the role of the people, claiming them to be the source of the revolution.. The paper supports Richard Pipes' theory of the revolution from above, combined with Jeffrey Brooks' examination of the influence of the media on the revolution. The paper concludes that it was the actions of Lenin and the other leaders from above, not the masses, that chartered the revolution's course and successfully explains how the Bolsheviks gained power in Russia. The paper includes MLA style footnotes but does not append a bibliography.
From the Paper
"The pivotal question in the discussion of how the Bolsheviks were successful in gaining power is whether the revolution came from above (the Party leaders) or below (the people). Diane Koenker, in her book From Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution, suggests that the revolution indeed came from the people. After the fall of the Tsar, the dominant form of revolutionary activity for the workers was the rally. Koenker claims that the thousands of resolutions that came out of these workers' meetings faithfully reflect the active and articulate participation or ordinary workers in the revolution, and in essence, shaped the direction and actions of the Bolshevik Party and the Revolution. However, this view poses a couple of problems."
| |
|
?Revolution from Above?, 2003.
Explores the effects of Joseph Stalin's 1927 "Revolution from Above" in Russia.
939 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, AU$ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Joseph Stalin set out to change the strictly agricultural Russia into an industrially powerful nation. In November 1927, Stalin launched his "revolution from above" by setting two extraordinary goals for Soviet domestic policy: rapid industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. This papers examines the effects of Stalin's Five-Year Plans. It shows that although Russia reached new economic and industrial levels and became more modernized, Stalin was a brutal, single minded dictator who exploited the workers, allowed millions to die in slave labor and kept the populace in a constant state of fear and paranoia.
From the Paper
"Stalin focused particular hostility on the wealthier peasants, or kulaks. About one million kulak households were deported and never heard from again. Forced collectivization of the remaining peasants, which was often fiercely resisted, resulted in a disastrous disruption of agricultural productivity and a catastrophic famine in 1932-33. Although the First Five-Year Plan called for the collectivization of only twenty percent of peasant households, by 1940 approximately ninety-seven percent of all peasant households had been collectivized and private ownership of property almost entirely eliminated. Forced collectivization helped achieve Stalin's goal of rapid industrialization and modernization, but the human costs were incalculable.1"
| |
|
Foundations of the Russian Revolution, 2005.
Describes the social, political and economic events that created a climate for revolution in Russia.
3,220 words (approx. 12.9 pages), 9 sources, APA, AU$ 161.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the social, political and economic events and issues that created a climate in Russia from 1905 to 1917 that was conducive to Revolution. It argues that multiple causes led to an inevitable overthrow of the autocracy.
From the Paper
"The foundations of the Russian Revolution were laid in the ..."
| |
|
The Industrial Revolution and Beyond, 2004.
Examines the many ways in which the Industrial Revolution and the information revolution changed society.
4,574 words (approx. 18.3 pages), 15 sources, MLA, AU$ 171.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the impact that the Industrial Revolution and the information revolution had on society. The paper considers not only how the Industrial Revolution affected the amount of work people do and the amount of goods produced, but also the type of goods produced and how the machine age virtually eliminated the uniqueness and aesthetic qualities of the products. The paper looks at how the Industrial Revolution eventually led to the Arts and Crafts Movement, modernism, rationalism, and other aesthetic philosophies. The paper then examines the impact that the information revolution has had on society. How the information revolution affected democracy, power, the concentration of wealth, production, and new postmodernist philosophies is discussed as well.
From the Paper
"It is difficult for anyone now alive to appreciate the radical changes that the Industrial Revolution brought to humanity. We imagine that we know what it was like before this shift in economics, in culture, in society: We think of farmers tilling fields and of their children piling hay into stacks for winter forage, or of trappers setting their snares for the soft-pelted animals of the forests, or of fishers casting their hand-woven and hand-knotted nets into the seas from the hand-sewn decks of ships. We imagine the hard physical work that nearly every person in society once had to do in the era before machines substituted their labor for ours ? and this exchange of human (and animal) labor for machine-driven labor is indeed one of the key elements of the Industrial Revolution."
| |
|
The American and French Revolution, 2000.
This paper compares the French Revolution and the American Revolution.
1,500 words (approx. 6.0 pages), 2 sources, AU$ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper gives a general history of the American and French Revolutions. The author compares and contrasts these two significant pieces of history. A discussion of the causes for both revolutions and how the enlightenment played a major role in both of them. In addition the author gives the course of events that made these revolutions occur and their consequences.
From the Paper
?All men are born free, but everywhere they are in chains.?This and other statements from the enlightenment played major roles in the American and French Revolutions. The American Colonists felt that Britain was not giving them fair representation in parliament and that they were being deprived of their basic human rights. The people of France were starving and being treated harshly by their government. Both the French and the Americans rose up against authority and gained their freedom. When the fighting was over both countries formed a republican form of government and had a major effect on many different countries around the world."
| |
|
Revolution In the 20th Century, 1999.
An overview of major revolutions (Russia, China and Third World liberation movements), globalism, politics and economics (industrialization, capitalism and communism), WWI and WWII.
2,475 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 7 sources, AU$ 126.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The divisions visible in the contemporary world are not surprising. Social divisions have existed for centuries, whether based on class, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other factors. The global, interactive, and homogenous aspects of the contemporary world would have been less predictable, even fifty years ago.
From the Paper
"The Emergence of the Contemporary World
Introduction
The divisions visible in the contemporary world are not surprising. Social divisions have existed for centuries, whether based on class, gender, ethnicity, religion, or other factors. The global, interactive, and homogenous aspects of the contemporary world would have been less predictable, even fifty years ago. There was a great deal more isolation, separation, and difference during the World War II period and its immediate aftermath. Yet, there were indications of movement toward the present situation."
| |
|
The Russian Revolution and Its Aftermath, 2007.
This paper discusses the Russian Revolution and its aftermath and explores whether or not this caused a dramatic change.
1,172 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, AU$ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer opens with the theory that few nations have been so convulsed by revolutionary change as early twentieth century Russia. The writer then notes that Crane Brinton theorizes that revolutions generally do not produce the kind of complete alteration in national structure and outlook that might have appeared to have been the outcome while the revolution was in its active phase. The writer maintains that revolutions, especially violent revolutions, tend to be highly ideological in outlook. The writer argues that Russia changed as a result of the great Revolution of 1917, but in a startling number of ways it remained true to its history and traditions. The writer concludes that Crane Brinton's theory on revolution applies to Russia as it applies to so many other places and times, showing as it does, the difficulties, and near-impossibilities of completely transforming a nation in a short period of time.
From the Paper
"Continuity in the underlying theories of political power meant also a continuation of previous ideas in regard to ideas about the proper organization of society. On the surface, pre-Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary society could not have appeared more different. Tsarist society was nearly medieval in its organizational scheme. All Russians were carefully grouped according to hierarchical classes that were largely hereditary in origin. Some movement between classes was possible, but on the whole, the vast majority of Russians remained peasants with little hope of ever leaving the land. Though serfdom had been ended decades before, the peasant, even in 1917, was unlikely to be the possessor of much in the way of private property. In late Imperial Russia, the mir had seen to it that peasant villages functioned as collectives. Collectivization was one of the mainstays of Stalin's policies. The collective farm, or kolkhoz, was, in so many ways, the mir by another name."
|
|
|
