How are the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution similar?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

There were a lot of similarities, almost uncanny parallels.

Both Revolutions had at their core the introduction of a major new political doctrine. Both doctrines had their respective literary heros. For French Republicanism, it was Voltaire. For Russian Communism, it was Karl Marx.

Both found their seeds in the peasant classes that were struggling for survival under a regime that had held the crown for hundreds of years. Although unrest was present in both France and Russia for many years prior to 1789 and 1917, and plenty of little sparks had gone off here and there, the catalyst that ultimately led to total insurrection was hunger.

The winter of 1788-89 was brutal, and famine was rampant across France. Marie Antoinette's legendary words "Let them eat cake!" perfectly reflects the regime's effectiveness in dealing with the food shortages.

For Russia, the year 1917 was also one of terrible hardship. Russia was deep in the quagmire of WW1, and the strain on resources brought hunger to a peasantry that was already struggling. Think how effective those small tenant farms were when all the men went to war.

In both cases, the unrest was directed at the nobility and the monarchy itself, which lived in a state of disgusting opulance while the vast population subsisted in abject poverty. The immediate bloody aftermath was horrendous. Not just the royal family. No duke, count or earl was safe. Nor were his children (legitimate or not), brother, sister, cousin, or anyone that might have a claim to a noble house.

The entire ruling class was all but eliminated; along with it any bureaucratic infrastructure. (eg: how do you collect taxes? Who collects taxes? Do we need taxes? You can imagine the kind of conflicts that arise.) So both countries sank into a power vacuum that various factions tried to fill, degenerating into civil war. A couple of governments came and went. Eventually, after a few years, a group finally managed to form a stable government in the name of that original political ideal.

But the important thing to look at is what happened after the Revolutions.

The toppling of the Bourbon dynasty sent shock waves through the royal houses of Europe. Sure, George III had some troubles in America and lost some 13 of his little colonies. But that incident a third of the way around the world wasn't that alarming. The Hapsburgs and Romanovs might well have had a good chuckle about it.

But the fall of the House of Bourbon, right in their midst, was a really scary event. This Republican bastard had to be stopped. So the crowns of Europe gathered their coalitions of armies together to deal with this problem. They attacked France.

What happened in Russia? The Democracies of the world found this new Communist idea as a threat to their hold on power, which in the new world order is capital (ie: money). So they got their coalition together and invaded Russia! (The Russians have a long history of good reasons to be fearful and distrustful of foreigners.) That intervention failed, mostly because the west was pretty sick of war by this point, having just fought a very long and bloody war with the Germans. But then the Germans rose their ornery heads again, looking out at those beautiful grain fields of Poland and the Ukraine. And suddenly this fascist threat now faced the Revolution.

As a result of this threat of foreign intervention, the people turned to a strong leader.

In Russia, that leader was Stalin. In France, it was Napoleon. I am not drawing a comparison between these two men except that they were both very clever politicians who managed to peacefully take dictatorial power over a 'representative' form of government.

Napoleon was not the evil monster we have come to know in our Anglo-American education. He was the savior of the Revolution. The Napoleonic wars were a direct result of the attempt of the monarchies of Europe to crush the revolution.

Without a brilliant strategist to lead them, the French Republic would have been quickly crushed, and then the American Revolution would perish also. After all, do you think if the British were not involved in a bitter fight with Napoleon's armies in Spain, they would have failed to take back the American colonies in 1812-14? The French Republic was the bigger threat.

Napoleon was finally crushed a couple of years later, and the Bourbon dynasty was restored for a brief period, as three million soldiers lay dead across the face of Europe. But the idea of a Republic had taken root and eventually flourished. It took another foreign invasion by the Prussians in 1871 to finally give the Republic its firm foundation.

Similarly, without a brutal leader like Stalin, could Russia have held Hitler off? Hitler made his own mistakes, to be sure, but some might argue that Russia needed Stalin just as France needed Napoleon. Stalin saved the Communist revolution. The price: 20 million dead Russians.

The Russian experiment with Communism also failed, though the Romanovs were never heard from again. The Russians now have a Republican form of government, as is vogue for the day. But I wonder if those roots are still there. Is the Revolution really dead in Russia?

Or even more intriguing: what will be that radical political doctrine at the core of the next revolution? Where will the upheaval occur? Africa? China? Indonesia? California? Mars? One thing to be sure, if history is any lesson. Blood will be shed. The existing order will fight back. A new Napoleon will rise up. It will not be pretty. How many will die? Go ahead and speculate...

I hope that gives you some things to think about for your paper.

Answer 2

they are both revolutions

Answer 3

they were both revolutions

Answer 4

The Russian Revolution was the most important revolution of the 20th century, and was one of the most important revolutions in the history of the world. I would place it as the third most important revolution after the American and French Revolutions. Like the American Revolution, and most other revolutions, the Russian Revolution was a revolution against economic oppression. In addition to this, the Russian Revolution started out as a revolution for democracy.So, if the Russian Revolution started out being for democracy then what happened?

Basically Russia came into the 20th century as an extremely oppressed country that was ruled by the Czars. Russia was a feudal dictatorship. The people of Russia were horribly oppressed, poor, starving, cold, and without any real direction or hope. Essentially, Russia had never undergone the liberal revolutions that took place in Europe (starting with the French Revolution), which had established liberal democracy and capitalism there. Russia remained as one of the last vestiges of Medieval European society.

Through acts of “terrorism” and rebellion a small group of revolutionaries overthrew the Czars. Then Russia went into a stage of anarchy and turmoil, out of which the Bolshevik Party of Lenin emerged as the dominant political force.

Lenin and many of the Bolsheviks were not in Russia at the time of the Revolution. Some of them were from Russia originally but had left, while some were not from Russia at all. They were all Marxists and socialist revolutionaries that had been living in Europe studying science, economics, sociology, history, etc. from a Marxist perspective. The Bolsheviks did not cause the overthrow of the Russian government; they came in after the overthrow with the plan of putting Marxist revolutionary theory to practice. Their plan from the beginning was to develop Russia in such a way as to spread social revolution throughout Europe and eventually the world. The biggest political opponents of the Bolsheviks in Russia, aside from the Czars, were the Mensheviks and Social Democrats, both Marxist groups who also supported Socialism, but were less militant. What is important to understand about the Russian Revolution is that some of the biggest opponents to the Bolsheviks were other Communists. The "brand" of Communism that was promoted by the Bolsheviks was by no means representative of all Communist ideology. Bolshevik ideology was the least tolerant and most revolutionary form of Marxist ideology.

Source(s):

www.therussianrevolution.com

Answer 5

in both cases the lower class rose up and took over. the russian revolution resulting in communism, french i believe came out of monarchy and into socialism