Umme Rahman December 11, 2014
Global History Essay Section 9E Citizens who appreciate and agree upon their ruler have no reason to act upon or rebel against the ruler, which explains why Russian civilians rebelled against Tsar Nicholas Iain 1915, Tsar Nicholas II too complete control of Russia. He was not the ruler the people hoped he would be. By 1917, most Russian civilians lost hope in him, which led to the February Revolution which happened after World War I. The Russian military continued to face humiliations. People could not take any more of Tsars continuous disappointments, which was affecting the Russian nation. Eventually, the Tsar was abdicated on March 2, 1917, after all the chaos he caused and left behind. Some may …show more content…
This is a valid argument because indeed the World War I disasters had an effect on how people felt about their society and how they believed it should run. They believe that if the disasters if World War I was avoided, then Russians would not have revolted against their government. But to disagree, the current situation in Russia at the time was already intolerable and was eventually going to get worse with the help of the Tsar. Tsar Nicholas II had no idea on how to run a military, not to mention a country. As is states “Unfortunately, the Tsar knew little about the command and organization of large military forces, and the series of defeats and humiliations continued” (The Cause if the Russian Revolution). Politically, the Tsar was unaware of the command tactics. Anything could have gone wrong with the full authority in his hand. As aHe was inexperienced and due to the lack of experience in the field, he continued to lead the military force to disappointment and humiliations. Battle after battle was lost due to the Tsar. If the leader is not strong in political ideals, then eventually there will be certain unwanted situation, which for the Tsar was the Russian
Global History Essay Section 9E Citizens who appreciate and agree upon their ruler have no reason to act upon or rebel against the ruler, which explains why Russian civilians rebelled against Tsar Nicholas Iain 1915, Tsar Nicholas II too complete control of Russia. He was not the ruler the people hoped he would be. By 1917, most Russian civilians lost hope in him, which led to the February Revolution which happened after World War I. The Russian military continued to face humiliations. People could not take any more of Tsars continuous disappointments, which was affecting the Russian nation. Eventually, the Tsar was abdicated on March 2, 1917, after all the chaos he caused and left behind. Some may …show more content…
This is a valid argument because indeed the World War I disasters had an effect on how people felt about their society and how they believed it should run. They believe that if the disasters if World War I was avoided, then Russians would not have revolted against their government. But to disagree, the current situation in Russia at the time was already intolerable and was eventually going to get worse with the help of the Tsar. Tsar Nicholas II had no idea on how to run a military, not to mention a country. As is states “Unfortunately, the Tsar knew little about the command and organization of large military forces, and the series of defeats and humiliations continued” (The Cause if the Russian Revolution). Politically, the Tsar was unaware of the command tactics. Anything could have gone wrong with the full authority in his hand. As aHe was inexperienced and due to the lack of experience in the field, he continued to lead the military force to disappointment and humiliations. Battle after battle was lost due to the Tsar. If the leader is not strong in political ideals, then eventually there will be certain unwanted situation, which for the Tsar was the Russian