The reforms meant that the emphasis would be on the improvement of the agriculture industry, led by the serfs (usually agricultural labourers). The actions of Sergei Witte were also highly beneficial to the Russian Empire. Witte wanted the modernisation of the Russian empire and to do this he needed to industrialise like Britain and Germany who had industrialised long before Russia. As a result of this, Russia had started on the back foot as their economy was poor and therefore the currency, the Rubble, was almost worthless; this meant that securing loans would be difficult. To counteract this re-launched the Rouble in 1897 meant that loans could be acquired in order to invest in industrialisation.
Under the tsar the Okrana was used defeat any political opposition, although Lenin used them the same way the name of the ‘Okrana’ was changed to the ‘Checka’ and their primary role was to imprison political opponent and send them to Labour Camps in the countryside of Russia. This was done in an attempt to make sure the Bolsheviks had complete power. I will also asses Control of the economy and how they differ between the two systems of rule. Under Tsarist rule Russia was seen as a backwards country. There were attempts such as ‘the great spurt’ spearheaded by Sergi Witte to gain Russia’s financial strength and modernise the country and it worked to some degree.
He also had a defined program to undergo major reforms. He is a historical figure on whom many debates are still ongoing. On the one hand, his supporters considered him to have been ‘Russia's last Potential Savior’ from ‘Bolshevism’. According to them his patriotism enabled him to have a harsh, but realistic stance on the current affairs of his time. Some historians even compare Stolypin to Russia's ex-president and current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin.
Therefore, Witte who was a finance Minister stepped up to achieve economic modernisation within Russia. His aim was to make Russian economy strong enough to maintain Russia’s position as a Great Power. Although Witte implemented a ‘great spurt’ which had great effects on Russia economically, there is proof that it did not last to a long extent. Witte implemented many new policies and changes to the Russian economy. He raised the taxes of peasants.
How far is it accurate to describe Stalin’s policy of Collectivisation as a failure? Collectivisation of the soviet union was the enforced process by which Russian agriculture was reformed under Stalin between 1928 and 1940. Stalin planned to merge all the small farms into large ‘collective’ farms. These new larger farms would pool the labour and resources and therefore operate more efficiently. Collectivisation can be seen as a failure as it had consequences on rural areas, industrialisation and urbanisation, and politically.
He issued his famous April Thesis, which had his promise of ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ which was cleverly aimed at the majority of Russia (peasants wanted land, everyone wanted peace and there was a bread shortage which made problems for most people). This message became more and more popular throughout 1917, especially amongst the workers in the cities which explains why Lenin’s leadership was important. However, Lenin’s promise wouldn’t have been so powerful if the Provisional Government had not consistently made serious mistakes, such as failing to resolve the problem of food shortages, high inflation and the redistribution of land. Lenin’s return to Russia helped the Bolsheviks gain power because his slogans were attractive when the Provisional Government started to fail. Therefore, we don’t know if Lenin would have been as successful if the Provisional Government were not failing.
Source A says that it was a “heroic struggle by all the soviet people” and source B says it had “tremendous human cost” which shows both the sources discussing the impact of Industrialistion on the people. However this could also be seen as a difference due to the fact that Source B suggests that it was a "heoroic struggle" and that it "gave focus for the peoples hopes and joy". This is suggesting that even though Industrilaisation was a struggle and was hard to get through the aim of the movement outweighed the negatives that seemed to arise, and it shines a positive light upon Industrialisation. This could be because the Industrial Revolution changed the ways by how the world produced its goods. During this time there were also many new technological advancements and life generally improved.
In 1898, a new party arose in Russia, the Social Democrats; their aim was to achieve revolution in Russia by following the ideas of Karl Marx. Marx, a German revolutionary, had the idea that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”; he described this as dialectic. Marx based much of his thinking about history, economics and philosophy; the French revolution had helped the German revolutionary to extend his ideas about the struggles between different classes in society. He came at a very convenient time for Russia as she was just beginning her industrial revolution, this promised revolutionaries to create the industrial conditions that would make a successful revolution possible. The 'great spurt' of the 1890s saw a formation of a new social class; the proletariats.
How far is it accurate to say that Nicholas 2nd was personally responsible for his own downfall in February 1917? It can be argued that as a leader, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was responsible for his own downfall due to his involvement in worldwide affairs like ww1 and his own personal mistakes throughout his reign over Russia. Things such as his family orientated approach to ruling effecting his stature as the “little father” or his failure to combat the German problem. However it can also be suggested that Nicholas did in fact have a mostly successful rule and prior problems such as land, the peasants and a poor economy presented problems which would be there long after his reign. Nicholas’s decisions in things such as the war and internal affairs were at the best poor.
This, along with collectivisation, was a turning point that made Russian economy one of the largest and fastest growing in the world at the time. As the abolition of the NEP meant a move towards Socialism, it would make sense that the agricultural policy would also change. Collectivisation was therefore pursued; it was the combining of all the farms in a region into one, state-controlled farm. This had the effect of pushing Russia forward in the ‘Communist’ direction as well as the more important consequence of increasing agricultural output in order to support the industrial growth. Generally, the agriculture production in this period saw a rise from the 74.5 million tonnes of grain harvested in 1913 (while Russia still operated under the Tsarist regime) to 97.1 million in 1940 [8] .