| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "RUSSIAN REVOLUTION": |
|
|
Russian Revolution, 2005.
An overview of the Russian Revolution.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is on the Russian Revolution, its causes, its aftermath, and the rule of Stalin through the first half of the twentieth century. The paper notes that the Russian Revolution in 1917 was based essentially on principles espoused by Marx and Engels and then reshaped by Lenin and others in the era prior to the onset of the revolt. The revolution was an expression by the Russian people that they wanted a change in leadership, in economic structure, and in how society was ordered.
From the Paper
"The Russian Revolution put the ideas of Marx to the test, but ideology was not the cause of the revolution but only one of the tools brought to bear in a social situation that had already deteriorated to an intolerable degree. The revolution was directed in part at correcting the ills of the serfdom that marked the agricultural sector. (Keep 3). Marx and Engels never wrote directly about the situation in Russia in any depth, but they did make certain references to it that would demonstrate to us how they viewed the matter."
| |
|
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, $ 85.95
»
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 Russian Revolution, 2004.
A paper that questions the inevitability of the Russian Revolution of 1917.
2,120 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This work first addresses the idea that the Russian Revolution of 1917 was inevitable, given the charged events that had occurred in and around Russia preceding the event. It then looks at the issue from the opposite angle, describing ways in which it might have never happened. Given the extreme nature of the events and the almost unavoidable idea that the way history has occurred is the only way it could have, in hindsight, there is a need to better understand the concept from what happened and what could have happened. It states that it is also an accepted fact that understanding Russia is impossible without a clear understanding of her history, both as a Soviet state and as an imperial power. The paper states that change was inevitable, but also asks if that is true of the Russian Revolution of 1917 as well.
From the Paper
"Clearly the Russian Revolution or something equally extreme was in the works inside the politically charged environment within Russia during these times. (Riasanovsky 435-460) Though it is clear that the powers associated with the February, and especially the October revolutions where in many ways caught unprepared, as many of the main figures, Lenin included were organizing in exile. (Gunther 43-44)
Within the years preceding it many events shaped the future of the Russian government, including the first Russian Revolution, mentioned above, in 1905. The reasons for which were largely associated with a growing rural crisis, associated with falling grain international prices, archaic technology in agriculture, and drastic increases in the rural population that due to many factors could not be supported by the land."
| |
|
China 1920-1949 and the Russian Revolution, 2002.
A comparative analysis of specific events during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and China from 1920-1949.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a detailed discussion about the Russian Revolution of 1917 and China from 1920-1949. The two nations are compared and contrasted and specific events are outlined. The author strives to give the reader an understanding of the history that led up to and then followed these time frames.
| |
|
The 1917 Russian Revolution, 2002.
This paper discusses the fundamentals of the 1917 Russian Revolution.
2,655 words (approx. 10.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains the reasons for the 1917 Russian Revolution, which had its roots much earlier in the beginning days of the 19th Century. The author describes the revolution by starting with the love the peasants had for the Tzar and concluding with the adoption of the Western ideas of Karl Marx. The author believes that Russia faces the same struggles today: To sacrifice their identity for Western?s ideas of prosperity or to retain their uniqueness by going their own separate way.
From the Paper
"No one could have predicted the events that led to the revolution. The affair was twisted, with each episode mounting into a feverish climax that would change world history. Yet, to the observant eye, telltale signs of discontentment hung in the air. No one event brought down a government that had ruled for so many years. The crisis began many years before, with its roots deep into the nineteenth century. The storm clouds gathered very slowly, as a front of despondency blew in from the west. It chilled the people to the notion of contentment and forced them to seek shelter under Marx?s beliefs. The Tzar and his government brought the cloudburst upon themselves, as their policies added fuel to its furry. So why did the humble people of Russia throw themselves into revolution?"
| |
|
"Animal Farm" - An Allegory of the Russian Revolution, 2002.
A comparison of the Russian Revolution to the plot and characters in George Orwell's "Animal Farm".
1,405 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 13 sources, MLA, $ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares characters, factions and plot in "Animal Farm" to political figures, political groups and events in the Russian Revolution. It also discusses the difficulties of revolutions and summarizes the plot of "Animal Farm."
From the Paper
"George Orwell?s Animal farm signifies the Russian Communist Revolution and shows that the evils of man will always prevent successful revolutions from occurring. ?By giving the farm animals easily recognizable animal qualities? (Hollis 503), Orwell is able to relate the story of the Russian Communist Revolution to a story about an animal revolution. Orwell insults Russian leaders such as Stalin by identifying them with pigs, filthy animals. Orwell?s purpose in Animal Farm is to tell a story about how humans react to rebellions and events surrounding these revolutions (Hollis 503)."
| |
|
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, $ 40.95
»
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."
| |
|
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, $ 70.95
»
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."
| |
|
Events Leading up to the Russian Revolution, 2002.
A paper which deals with the political and economical events leading up to the Russian Revolution in 1917.
2,800 words (approx. 11.2 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 83.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper which asserts that it was repeated wars, culminating with devastating internal effects of World War I that made it possible for the process of bringing Russia into step politically and economically with the rest of the world to be interrupted, and for Russia to go off in a new and more startling direction: the world?s first country governed by Communist totalitarianism.
From the Paper
"Allen (2002) quotes a biographer about Lenin?s comments regarding the revolt of 1905. According to this source, Lenin said, ??It [the revolt of 1905] was the great rehearsal, a blueprint for the revolution of 1917.?? This seems an accurate description. The growing Communist movement learned how to maneuver politically and how to capitalize on the fallout that comes from war. Although this revolt by itself did not overthrow the Czarist aristocracy, Nicholas II gained only temporary control over the revolutionaries. His failure to recognize this fully was another contributing factor to the Communist success in 1917."
| |
|
Russian Revolution, 1992.
An argument that the recent Russian Revolution, like that of 1917, is an attempt to restructure Soviet society. It states that new revolution attacks complex bureaucratic structure and the stagnation and personal invasion created by it.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 4 sources, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Russian Revolution in 1917 was accomplished through the violent overthrow of the existing government, followed by the complete restructuring of Soviet society. The recent revolution in the Soviet Union was largely bloodless up until the aborted hard-liner response, an attempt to retake the government from the liberal forces then in power. The result of this aborted take-over was quite the opposite of what was intended. Instead of returning conservatives to power, the attempt assured power to even more liberal forces. Once again, Russian society is being restructured, along with the dissolution of the union of the various Russian republics. The seeds of this new revolution can be found in the society of the Soviet Union over its history, a society that was tightly controlled by a growing and complex bureaucracy which intruded into every facet of life. The new..."
| |
|
Russian and French Revolutions, 2006.
A comparison between the French revolution of 1789 and the Russian revolution of 1917.
2,301 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at the French and Russian revolutions, highlighting the similarities and differences. According to the paper, the French revolution was very much influenced by the earlier American revolution. The paper further discusses how the Russian revolution was influenced by the rest of the world in a philosophical manner.
From the Paper
"The French Revolution had been brewing for some time. The wealth of the monarchy compared to the relative poverty of the lower classes had caused a dissatisfaction that was growing exponentially. When Louis XVI took over the throne in 1774, he inherited some powerful problems such as "a peasantry bitter in its grievances; a bourgeoisie restive under its many restrictions; privileged class and corporate interests at odds with each other but united in their parasitism upon the nation; a government discredited by its ruinous foreign policy, its financial extravagances, and its administrative inefficiency and corruption; and a powerful public opinion that scourged the government for its weakness and its errors of policy and assailed the very theory of absolutist government" (Gershoy 3). The peasants had suffered under the yoke of a feudal system for years that gave the ruling classes control over their land and their lives. Because France was such an agrarian society, the condition of the peasantry involved in agriculture is a vital part of the discontent that led up to the revolution. "
| |
|
The Russian Revolution of 1917, 2008.
A comparative book review of John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook the World', Edward Carr's 'The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923,' and Robert Service's 'Lenin: A Biography'.
2,339 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This comparative book review compares and contrasts three books about the Russian Revolution of 1917: John Reed's 'Ten Days That Shook the World', Edward Carr's 'The Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1923,' and Robert Service's 'Lenin: A Biography'. The writer notes that these books have been selected for comparative review because they provide a broad range of perspectives on the revolution. The writer points out that all three authors agree that successful revolutions require leaders of charisma who can personify the ideology, revolutionary sentiments, and political aspirations of the citizenry. They agree as well that in the critical autumn of 1917, Lenin possessed these qualities in abundance. The writer concludes that despite their different perspectives, all three authors agree that through his leadership, Lenin forced his political enemies and rivals to react to what he was doing instead of vice versa, and in turbulent and unpredictable revolutions, that is a decisive advantage.
From the Paper
"But because Lenin recognized that political, economic, and social conditions in Russia had not developed enough to attempt a proletarian revolution, he focused his efforts on developing a class consciousness in the Russian proletariat. Lenin and Russian Marxists understood that once this proletarian consciousness was developed, the proletariat would understand the need to destroy bourgeois culture elements such as religion, private ownership of property, the corrupt legal system, and the capitalist economic system. Consequently, they knew that many political, economic, and social changes would need to be made in the aftermath of a successful proletarian revolution, and that this would require ruthless determination because strong resistance would be inevitable."
| |
|
Interpreting the Russian Revolutions of 1917, 2002.
This paper examines the discrepancies and differences in the way historians have reported on the Russian Revolutions of 1917.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 6 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The portrayal of the Russian Revolutions has at times proved so markedly different, that it is hard to believe that authors or observers are discussing the same event. This paper focuses on this discrepancy in representation, highlighting the various factors which determined the way in which 1917 has been portrayed by first-hand observers, and later, by professional historians. In a case like that of the Russian Revolutions, where the generation of ensuing scholars and interpreters of other kinds were constrained by political ideology, we will see that history became the handmaid of the totalitarian regime, particularly under Stalin and his supporters.
| |
|
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, $ 111.95
»
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 Russian Revolution: 1917-1932" by Sheila Fitzpatrick, 1993.
An examination of the stages of the Revolution, including its causes, aims, the author's approach and the outcome and impact on society.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 1 source, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"Author Sheila Fitzpatrick examines in her book, The Russian Revolution: 1917-1932, the most basic aspects of the revolution--causes, the aims, social support, the impact on the Russian society, the political outcome, and the time span of the revolution itself. Her essential theme is that the Russian Revolution differed from other revolutions in that it peculiarly has been described by various historians as ending at different times. Fitzpatrick treats the February and October Revolutions of 1917, the Civil War, the interlude of the New Economic Policy and Stalin's initial Five Year plan as successive stages in the overall revolution (p. 3).
Fitzpatrick compares her view to that of Crane Brinton in Anatomy of Revolution, suggesting that revolutions have a form of their own, passing through the stages of enthusiasm for radical..."
|
|
|
