When analyzing the events of the February Revolution, it is clear that Russia suffered due to a collapse from within. Tzar Nicholas was a selfish leader who cared more about his own credibility and power than the stability of the motherland Russia and the people within it.
My first piece of evidence is going to be the Russo-Japanese war. Entering into this war was one of the many mistakes made by Tzar. The war ended in 1905 with the Japanese defeating Russia. This defeat helped start the list of Tzars bad choices because it made the credibility and leadership go down since Russia lost to the Japanese, in which the Russians perceived it to be an easy defeat. I mean yes it by Tzar stepping up and entering into the war showed courage and faith but the lose brought shame. Shame on the military and leadership because the Japanese were seen as being defeatable without a doubt in anyones mind. If a country has faith in their military and trusts that they are under a good leadership program that will guide them to victory, and they lose to a team that sucks, there is going to be problems. Had not Tzar made the decision to enter into this war, his creadibility and the stability of the motherland would be more stable.
On another note, This brings me to the Bloody Sundays. This was when the people started to critisize and speak out against tzar about his leadership, which resulted in the military killing. This would lead him to that would show us selfish and desprite Tzar was through his creation of the Duma. The Duma was supposed to be made so that he could keep in tune with the people and their opinion. But we all know that Tzar only created the duma because he knew that if he didn’t do something prevent or decrease the critisism that was being thrown towards him, he would be taken from power. However, even though the dumas ideas and purpose pleased the people, in the end it became a promise that wasn’t met. This is because tzar could care less about what the people thought or said. He only wanted to build up his credibility and build trust of the people so that he could presurve his own power. According to his writings in source 1 he said it himself when he referred to the Duma as being “A load of nonsence, that (he) won’t even bother to answer.” (source 1) How can a country become stable if the leader could care less about their stability or instability?For instance, if a basketball team has a coach that whose heart and focus isnt in the team there is going to be a downfall because there is no guidance; even if the players are busting their butt off to win. This is because they are lacking the leadership that is setting them a step back. This will eventually lead to revolts and people speaking out about the problem. Duh Tzar! “I mean why wouldn’t it.”
My first piece of evidence is going to be the Russo-Japanese war. Entering into this war was one of the many mistakes made by Tzar. The war ended in 1905 with the Japanese defeating Russia. This defeat helped start the list of Tzars bad choices because it made the credibility and leadership go down since Russia lost to the Japanese, in which the Russians perceived it to be an easy defeat. I mean yes it by Tzar stepping up and entering into the war showed courage and faith but the lose brought shame. Shame on the military and leadership because the Japanese were seen as being defeatable without a doubt in anyones mind. If a country has faith in their military and trusts that they are under a good leadership program that will guide them to victory, and they lose to a team that sucks, there is going to be problems. Had not Tzar made the decision to enter into this war, his creadibility and the stability of the motherland would be more stable.
On another note, This brings me to the Bloody Sundays. This was when the people started to critisize and speak out against tzar about his leadership, which resulted in the military killing. This would lead him to that would show us selfish and desprite Tzar was through his creation of the Duma. The Duma was supposed to be made so that he could keep in tune with the people and their opinion. But we all know that Tzar only created the duma because he knew that if he didn’t do something prevent or decrease the critisism that was being thrown towards him, he would be taken from power. However, even though the dumas ideas and purpose pleased the people, in the end it became a promise that wasn’t met. This is because tzar could care less about what the people thought or said. He only wanted to build up his credibility and build trust of the people so that he could presurve his own power. According to his writings in source 1 he said it himself when he referred to the Duma as being “A load of nonsence, that (he) won’t even bother to answer.” (source 1) How can a country become stable if the leader could care less about their stability or instability?For instance, if a basketball team has a coach that whose heart and focus isnt in the team there is going to be a downfall because there is no guidance; even if the players are busting their butt off to win. This is because they are lacking the leadership that is setting them a step back. This will eventually lead to revolts and people speaking out about the problem. Duh Tzar! “I mean why wouldn’t it.”
I agree with the statement about how the Czar was not in it for the right reason and the basketball scenario is perfect. i can see where the lack of leadership will eventually lead to revolts, attitudes, and people speaking out about the leader and their problems. if the leader is in it for the wrong reason which for czar it was to build up his credibility, that means he is satified with not giving his all. And for czar since he was in it for himself and not the country he didnt care about the peoples voice. so therefore, if the people want certain things to be done and their leader isnt listening or even considering their thoughts its going to be problems. you cant be a leader over a larger amount of people and not make them happy.
ReplyDeleteBased on the evidence you provided, the Russian Revolution does not seem to be only a collapse from within. Bloody Sunday is a force outside of the government that forced the Czar to make poor decisions. The protest advocated "down with the tsar!" Therefore this factor contributes to the claim that the revolution was at least partly an overthrow from without. However, the protest on Bloody Sunday was based on prior decisions by the Czar that angered the people. Could the actions the Czar took prior to Bloody Sunday actually make Bloody Sunday an overthrow from without forced by a collapse from within?
ReplyDelete(source three)
ReplyDelete