After reading about the Russian Revolution of 1905, I was struck by the similarities between that revolution and both the American Revolution and the French Revolution. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Russian Revolution all involved challenges with distant and somewhat incapable governments. The American colonists of the 1770s made peaceful yet direct efforts with the English king and Parliament overseas to communicate their desires for actual representation through petitioning. After they were repeatedly ignored, the Americans issued one last treaty, the Olive Branch Petition, proclaiming their loyalty to Great Britain in an
effort to refrain from war. After King George of England disregarded that treaty as well, the colonies declared war on Britain. Clearly, One of the major contributing factors of the conflict between England and the American colonies was the lack of communication between the two throughout the period of British rule. Both physical and virtual distance played a part in the conflict, because the British government adapted an "out of sight, out of mind" policy to some degree while ruling them. The distance also created separation between the king and his people, disturbing national unity. Because of the distance between America and England, the king perhaps did not feel threatened by the colonists and assumed that he could continually ignore their pleas without conflict; thus, a feeling of virtual distance as well from the monarch was apparent in the colonies and contributed to the drive for revolution.
In the French Revolution as well, distance and division between the wealthy class of nobility and government officials and the poor third estate created contention among the people. As the poor citizens of France were struggling to make ends meet with rising bread prices and economic crisis, the rich insisted upon living in complete opulence without regard to the plight of the poor. War crisis as well played a significant part: with peasants uprising in the country to avoid drafts, chaos ensued. However, like King George of England, King Louis XVI of France failed to meet his people’s needs, which added to the distance between the king and his people. This total disconnect between the stark reality of the poor and the blind decadence of the powerful and rich served as a motivational factor for the ‘levée en masse’ of the oppressed as they united against their negligent king.
And in Russia, too, a definite distance between the king and his people was apparent. National unity was already damaged after the crushing defeat of Russia by Japan in the war. The defeat on the battlefield was reflected in the defeated attitudes of the Russian people after the war. The fact that Russia had been defeated in the war not only lowered the citizens’ confidence and pride in their nation, but as a result also lowered their confidence in their king, Tsar Nicholas II, as well. Morale was low, and people looked to the tsar as a leader to boost their spirits. His distance from the people added to his incompetence. The lack of unity and defeated attitude of the populace and royalty as well made the nation more susceptible to a revolution, and sure enough, one took place. The Russian citizens, like the American colonists, wanted to express their desires for a more modern representative government through petition. On January 9, 1905, some citizens peacefully marched to the tsar’s Winter Palace in St. Petersburg to petition the king. The tsar and his ministers had an army waiting for the protesters when they arrived. As the citizens were marching peacefully, the Russian soldiers opened fire on the innocent citizens and shot 92 people. Several more were injured. As a result of that infamous day now called Bloody Sunday, the people that were unsure about revolution now had more interest. Angered from the deaths of innocent people, they projected their anger towards the tsar. This example of the government turning on its own people and subsequently stirring others to revolt is reminiscent of the Boston Massacre of the American Revolution. In it, the British Army opened fire on (supposedly) innocent Bostonians. Although not as large-scale of a massacre per se, the people that had not seen a reason to combat the British now could have a reason. Like the Russian Revolution, the outcome of the Boston Massacre motivated reluctant revolutionaries to fight harder. The deaths of their fellow citizens moved them. Although these revolutions were all different, they were similar in ways. All three dealt with incompetent leaders that distanced themselves from their citizens and thus gave them the opportunity to revolt. The time of national weakness (under an incompetent, useless leader) made a revolution more able to happen. The consequences after and during a time of war were clearly important as well. Therefore, although these revolutions were each different in their own way, some similarities can be expressed between them. One could say that history does indeed tend to repeat itself!
image sources: wikipedia
emersonkent.com
