what ended the Russian Revolution? and what changes were made after that? government, economy , treatys
127375
Russia succumbed to the idiocy of socialism.\n\nIt only cost millions of lives for them to realize it was a mistake.
578584
The british revolution \n\nhere is a link that might help \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_revolution
140255
Nicholas II dragged russia into WWI.russia was unprepared to candle the military and economic costs.Their military had millions in it but they were poorly trained and their supplies began to run low becuase they had so many people.The Allied forces couldn't break through the Dardanelles to get them supplies from the south and the North sea was Frozen becuase its winter.Russia was forced into a corner with loads of pressure on the Czar which forced Czar nicholas to step-down becuuase of war-related shortages and enormous casualties from the feirce german  army.By this time russia had began seperating becuase  of  the growing revolt.The Bolsheviks leader V.I. Lenin took control of the lands through force.They took control of the government and got russia out of the war through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.Actually V.I. Lenin created the treaty by giving most of russia's western border along with the people in those lands to Germany which in turn got them out of the war. Some people literally went to bed russian and woke up germans. It stopped the war on the russian front which is all the russian people really wanted.
529486
Technology.  Just look at Russia to see why socialism is a horrific idea.  A generation living under the government of the USSR has created an entire country of people with entitlement minds.  Since coming out from that government, they have no work ethic, and that is why you see all the dilapidated buildings that there are in Russia.
554195
Try these.  I did a search in Google on "Education and the Industrial Revolution"  (don't forget the quotes in the search):\n\nhttp://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/geweb/VICTORIA.htm\n\nhttp://victorianweb.org/technology/ir/4.html\n\nhttp://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/pdfs/Literacy%20and%20the%20Industrial%20Rev.pdf
677220
It has a little to do with religion, but more to do with politics.  The Greeks were the originators of Orthodox Catholicism.  The Russians adopted it later and everyone was happy for a while.  Then the Greeks declined and Russia ascended in power.  When Byzantium collapsed, the Russians essentially took over as leaders and protectors of the Orthodox religion.  Of course they made certain changes that the Greeks didn't agree with and you see your first big split.  All's cool again for a while until Russian Orthodoxy decides to make a few reforms.  Nothing major, but trying to correct some corrupted texts, slightly change a few traditions, that sort of thing.  Unfortunately, the Russian method of encouraging change has always been rather...forceful.  Whoever wouldn't change was excomunicated.  The big problem with this was that it seemed to say that all the people and saints who had gone before and practiced Orthodoxy by the old ways were irredeemably wrong.  Certain traditional Russians couldn't accept such this, and the second big split occurred.  Then you have Russia's imperial ambitions.  Russia thought of itself as the defender of the faith, with Moscow being like a '3rd Rome.' It wished to be a hegemon in Eastern Europe and used this religious mandate as justification.  The other countries would have been more or less willing to let Russia have it's way - it's nice having big friends, after all - except that as the best and the biggest, Russia expected these other countries to become like mini-Russias.  Russia thus tried to impose its language, government, religion, etc. on them.  Eventually these countries had enough and wanted to split.  Now keep in mind that religion at this time is inherently linked to power and to government.  To split from Russia but keep its religious leaders as the head of your religion is not to split from Russia at all.  So you end up seeing a lot of nationally divided splinter groups.  I'm not saying there aren't also legitimate theological differences, but they were probbly  initiated and exaggerated by political factors.
287314
1. Which of the following best demonstrates the difference between the British and Russian views of the progress initiated by the industrialization and modernization of the nineteenth century?\nb. British writers were most concerned with the social changes and problems brought about by the technology itself, but Tolstoy was focused on the spiritual effects of progress.\n\n\n2. Which of the four authors in the "Political Points of View" section (Orwell, Lessing, Chamberlain and Nehru) did NOT observe the British Empire from the standpoint of a colonizer?\nd.Jawaharlal Nehru
310990
Um, I didn't know that Russia was now a target for outside terrorism - I still remember when some country threatened them with that, and all they got was there Ambassador's ear back with a note saying, "Go Ahead and Try".\n\nThe problems in Russia are complicated, and I for one do not want another cold war, trust me.  In my opinion, they did not shift properly from communism to democracy, they should not have just given everyone the land and homes they lived on, they should have sold it to them - the government would have had an income, and people could know what it was like to earn real ownership, and all the fraud that took place, like someone selling the same home ten times, wouldn't have happened.\n\nNow Russian people are scared, and they should be until the government finds a way to handle their national problems, such as the neo-nazi and hatred crimes in St. Petersburg.\n\nThe Russian people are their own country and they will make their own decisions.  I just think they didn't shift from one economy to another correctly, and are reacting to it.
423810
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/history/russia/ivantheterrible.html\n\n Here is a link that should help you out.  Pay attention to the part that talks about the second part of his reign, when he did away with his advisors and ruled with complete autonomy. This should be what you are looking for.
328051
To answer your questions in order:\n\nYes, the Soviet Union (which included Russia) was an ally of the US and the British.  The USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, also called the Soviet Union.  Russia was a part of the USSR, but wasn't called Russia then), led by Stalin, signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler (leader of Germany).  This was in force until Hitler broke it and invaded the Soviet Union.  Stalin was taken unawares and unprepared, so Hitler did well at first.  Stalin therefore allied with the British and the US to fight the Germans.  The "cold war" didn't start until after WWII During the jostling for control over the states freed from the Nazis. \n\n*****\n\nThe USSR and the Japanese didn't work together.  The war in Europe against Germany) ended sooner than that in Japan (May 8, 1945 for Germany’s surrender and August 15, 1945 for Japan’s) and the USSR was free to declare war on Japan, which it did.  This was one of the reasons that the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan.  It wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union forces entered the fighting, who would then stay and have control in that country and region.  \n\nAfter WWII Germany was divided into two halves, appropriately called West and East Germany.  The US, the United Kingdom (the British) and France controlled the West.  The Soviet Union controlled the East.  Germany was two different countries.  The US, UK and France set up a democracy in the West and then left (although the US left troops to guard against an attack from the Soviet Union, and many are still stationed there.  Now the bases are used as staging grounds for operations in the Afghanistan and Iraq).  The country they created was called the Federal Republic of Germany.\n\nThe Soviet Union established a country in the Eastern half, called the German Democratic Republic. This was not democratic though – it was communist.  The Soviet Union had many troops stationed there as well, and had a lot of influence in the Eastern half.  Vladimir Putin, the current President of the Russian Federation, worked in East Germany as a spy when he was part of the KGB (this isn’t a secret – he admits it freely and uses his excellent German in speeches).\n\n*****\nGermany played a very strong role in the War.  They were allied with Japan, but because they had some common enemies in their efforts to expand their territories.  In Europe, the war started when Germany annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, claiming to be uniting the Germans who lived there (Austrians speak German and there were a lot of Germans in Czechoslovakia.  The moved there in the centuries that it belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Austrian Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, which were all names used at different times to describe the same Empire ruled from the Austrian city of Vienna). At this point there was a lot of nervousness in Europe, as Hitler was using rhetoric such as “Germans need more land to live, which is their birthright.” But the British made a deal with Hitler that they would let him keep those countries if he didn’t go any further.  Hitler agreed, but he invaded Poland anyway, and kept going from there. He took France, Bombed England and wanted to invade, and moved through Eastern Europe.  He also invaded the USSR, as mentioned above.\n\nThe US at this point wasn’t involved.  Hitler made an alliance with the Japanese, who were engaged in their own war of expansion, because both were fighting the British and French (the British had a lot of Colonial holdings in the Pacific, and the French had some, too).  \n\nThe US became involved when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese wanted the US to withdraw from the pacific, but instead the US declared war on the Japanese.  The Japanese and the Germans were allied, so Germany declared war on the US, which then also entered the European war.  It was already helping the UK and the USSR with equipment and logistical support,
348942
here are two:\nhttp://theamericanrevolution.org/ipeople.asp\nhttp://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/revolutionary_people.html
282200
Ok, here goes (just a sec)\n\nLooks like France, Italy, Greece, Romania, and Yugoslavia gained territory, and Poland, Czecheslovakia, and the Baltic States were pretty much built entirely.  Anywhere territory was lost, somebody else gained it.\n\nYour losses list is good.\n\nYour settlements question sounds good.\n\nThink about it, who would be pissed by these changes?  Looks like Austria-Hungary was hammered the hardest, but Russia couln't have been pleased.
144958
http://english.pravda.ru/    here you go!! russian newspaper, English edition..good luck with your assignment!!
118775
The Russian state was destabilised by World War 1 and the Tsar was overthrown by a popular revolution in spring 1917. There was a brief attempt at a provisional government led by liberals, but during 1917 Lenin was smuggled back into Russia from exile in Europe and his Bolshevik party eventually headed the October revolution and established the Soviet Union in the civil war of 1917-1922, eliminating the "Whites" (the old aristocratic government), the anarchists and the rival socialists.
583477
Basically, by the end of the industrial revolution, cities had taken over rural areas, and their habits.\nIt's like saying, the country's society switched from the suburban, country bumpkin, square dancing, cousin marrying (lol) lifestyle, and moved to a new society. One with Manhattan-like quality.  Big cities grew larger, money began to be made more with investments, banking, that sort of thing, and less with farming and agriculture.
118679
Where and when did that revolution happen?\n\nDO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK!
17078
The "Great War" as it was known at the time was the seminal tragedy of the last century.  All other events, the Russian Revolution, the Second World War, the Cold War, all flow from it.  It was the one event that made it impossible to reconstruct the world on the old basis, thus creating "modern times."