A study of Russian governments in the period 1855 – 1964 suggests that Russia simply exchanged one form of autocracy for another after 1917. How far do you agree? When the February revolution brought an end to Tsarist rule, there was a strong belief that the instatement of the Provisional Government would lead to a more democratic Russia. However in deposing the Provisional Government, the October Revolution had removed any such hope. The totalitarian Government of the Communist Party continued and intensified many aspects of the Tsarist regime including use of the secret police and an intolerance for opposition and democracy in general.
Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change. Therefore war was an important catalyst and factor to significant changes but was not the sole cause of change. The war that caused most change was Word War One due to its role in the February revolution in 1917 and the fall of the provisional government in the October revolution. The defeats of the war dwindled support from liberals and Octobrists for the Tsarist regime, which was further worsened by criticism from organisations including the Central War Industries committee and the union of Zemstva. This formed support and reason for the Progressive Bloc.
There were many short and long term effects of the Russian revolution. Firstly the short term effects following the Russian revolution were that Lenin hoped the constituent assembly (parliament) would show the rest of Russia how good the Bolsheviks could be for the Russian nation and how popular their leadership was. However they only gained 161 seats, compared to the social revolutionaries who won 267 seats. Obviously the Bolsheviks had become popular in Petrograd, but beyond the capital the population hadn’t been more in favour of the social revolutionaries and hadn’t been convinced by Lenin’s promise yet. In reaction to this, he shut down the assembly in order to keep power for himself.
Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the Communist regime from 1917 to 1964. The opponents of the Tsars were more successful – as they achieved vastly more change – than those of the Communists for a number of reasons, not least because of the legal status of opposition, the strength of the regime, the nature of the opposition, the repression imposed by the leader of the day, and the unity and organisation of the opposition. Indeed, this question is being asked simply because the Romanov dynasty was ousted in February 1917; the Communists, on the other hand, were not. However, this question is slightly misleading: not all of the opponents of the Tsars were in fact successful – the Poles, the Peoples Will and the Narodniks all failed when attempting to attain change in Russia; indeed, it can be seen that, in reality, the only regime in which opposition was truly successful was that of Nicholas II. One reason why the opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those of the Communists was the fact that, under the Tsars, opposition attained a legal status.
How Successful Were The Russian Governments In Promoting Economic Change And Modernisation Between 1881 and 1904? When Alexander III came into power, he made sure that industrialization was at the forefront of his plans. So under Vyshnedgradsky and Witte, various measures were imposed to help kick start industrialization, which led to significant economic change The improved transport system, which resulted from government investment in infrastructure like the railways, helped to vastly improve Russia’s economic situation. This is evident through the clear positive correlation between railway improvements and increases in Russia’s industrial output. The length of railway tracks in Russia increased form 31219 miles in 1891 to 58392 miles by 1904.
How far do you agree that Sergei Witte’s policies were successful in modernising the Russian economy in 1892-1904? During Tsar Nicholas II’s reign, he decided he needed someone to improve the Russian economy, so he appointed a Financial Minister; Sergei Witte. Witte introduced a number of reforms that both improved and further damaged Russia’s economy, and believed that the only way Russia could modernise itself and catch up with the more industrialised West was through State Capitalism. Witte was very enthusiastic about the expansion on the Trans-Siberian railway, which, when completed, stretched across Russia from St. Petersburg in the West to Vladivostok in the Far East. Witte believed that the construction of this railway was crucial to the economic growth of Russia, because it would make it possible to take advantage of the economic potential of Siberia.
The Tsar had advisers, but he was not bound to listen to their advice, and laws were made by imperial decree. This total power made the Romanov dynasty, which ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917. There are some factors to take into account that say that Russia did begin to move in the direction of a parliamentary system of government, including the fact there was an elective local government called the zemstva. The zemstva was created during the reign of Alexander II, and consisted of elected officials – 74% of which were nobles. Even so, the zemstvo did allow the greater population more say in the ways they wanted a small part of their lives to be run.
Scott martin – extended essay - liberal reforms Question – how successfully did the Liberal government (1906-14). Tackle the problem of poverty? Many historians argue the liberals effectively tackled the problem of poverty once elected in 1906 in their landslide victory. Once the party was elected however it was still very much in favour of its laissez-faire policy and social reform was not high in its parties priorities, it took significant time and pressure also some very notable individuals such as Lloyd George or Winston Churchill to change the course of Britain’s welfare system and unwittingly perhaps set up the foundations of the welfare state in the future. This essay will show how the liberals aimed to tackle the problem of
This was a dramatic change from the Bolshevik party's position in 1917 when the party enjoyed widespread support amongst the peasants, workers and soldiers who saw in the Bolshevik's the best hope for popular revolution. By the early 1920's however this had all changed. The Bolshevik's had lost the majority of its popular support after a ferocious Civil War and several economic disasters, political failures and mismanagement. Throughout the period 1917 to 1924 the Bolshevik's tried desperately to consolidate their power and regain control of the Country. Lenin’s contribution to the Bolshevik Party was an essential factor in their consolidation of power during 1917-1924, however; Lenin’s role was not the only factor contributing to their success.
Nicholas IIʼs regime survived the Revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917 because the oppo- sition faced in 1917 was much stronger and more organised and united than in 1905, be- cause World War One had destructive effects on Russia, evident particularly when con- trasted with the lesser negative effects of the Russo-Japanese War, and most importantly because by 1917 Nicholas IIʼs reputation had been severely damaged and he had lost the support of the army and could therefore not act against the opposition he faced. Nicholas IIʼs regime survived the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917 most importantly because of the personal role of the Tsar and due to his loss of support of the army: In 1905 Tsarist authority was still highly respected by the Russian population, having the support of the Church, his ministers and the army. Excluding the naval mutiny that occurred in Potem- kin, where sailors mutinied after being served rotten meat and the captain ordered that the ringleaders be shot, but the firing-squad threw him overboard and sailed off to Romania, all signs showed that the Tsar had the full support of the loyal army, and this was particularly useful when suppressing the 1905 revolutionaries. On Bloody Sunday, the Cossacks and the army defended the Winter Palace against the revolutionaries. The support of the army was also evident during the Russo-Japanese War.