Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
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.
These views are expressed in his two key works, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (published in 1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (published in 1994). Pipe’s believes that Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, even though Pipe’s recognizes Lenin’s role as the most important, he still hypocritically called Lenin’s April Theses “totally out of touch with reality, if not positively mad” despite the fact that this theses played a huge role in the Lenin and Bolshevik uprising. Pipe’s also believes that Trotsky just carried out Lenin’s commands. However the role or Trotsky and his actions before the October revolution were very evidently done on his own accord, with Lenin accompanying Trotsky in his decisions. In early October, 1917, Trotsky was elected
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. The communist regime were just as authoritarian as the Tsars before them.In terms of ideology the fall of Tsarism in 1917 was a significant event as Tsarist belief in total control and centralisation of power was replaced by the Provisional Government, who had introduced liberal reforms and aimed for a democratic Russia. Ideology came to have a far more significant impact under the communists. It was not completely absent under Tsarist rule as the Russification policy of Alexander III shows, however it had virtually no effect in comparison to Stalin's purges. Even though the ordinary Russian citizen initially saw little difference between Nicholas II and the new Provisional Government, the authoritarian regime of the Tsar had not simply been exchanged for another in the short term.
Stalin used factionalism , bonapartism and Trotskyism to his advantage . Moreover , I believe that Stalin undercutting Trotsky’s influence was a contributing factor to him being able to emerge as the leader of the Soviet Union by 1929. Stalin’s ideological methods was central to his success of emerging as the leader of the Soviet Union by 1929. As his presence on many senior committees secured him a position at the highest level of government, Stalin had enormous personal authority . He used ideological methods such as making accusations of Bonapartism.
Arguably Russia’s transformation from an autocratic state to a communist one was the greatest modification in the whole period 1855 to 1964, however, despite differing ideals there was in fact a large amount of continuity between the idealistically different styles of governance. Under Tsarist leaders, Russia experience differing levels of autocratic rule, interspersed with sporadic detours to democracy, yet upon the Communist takeover, there was a decisive shift towards autocratic dictatorship. Taking all this into consideration, the October Revolution can be seen as the most significant turning point in the development of Russian government, as the ideological shift influenced all subsequent decisions taken by the government of the USSR. Ideologically, the October Revolution in 1917 represented a unique turning point from Russia, as a 300 year old regime was unceremoniously discarded in favour of Marxism. Condemning the provisional government in his April Thesis, Lenin moved quickly to ensure the Bolshevik takeover was complete, consolidating
To what extent was the leadership of the Bolsheviks the reason for their success in the Civil War in Russia from 1918-21? The Bolshevik’s new government was still in its infantry stages when the Civil War broke out, threatening the foundation they had created for their socialist state. It is to a critical extent that the leadership of the Bolsheviks was the reason for their victory in the Civil War in Russia from 1918-1921. Lenin’s introduction of the severe policies under war communism dealt with the disastrous economic and military situation that the Bolsheviks were facing with the onset of the Civil War, and although exasperating social problems it ensured the survival of the industrial areas under Red control and kept the Red armies fed and supplied. Lenin’s skilled use of propaganda and the importance of the cause of ‘mother Russia’ harnessed the support of the peasants and working class in the face of another revolution.
In contrast the war took a toll on the Soviet Union, their lands were in ruin but they still had a formidable military (Davidson, 2005). The two super powers were rivals and enemies. America feared the Soviet Union would spread communism throughout Europe
However, a major contribution to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty was the views of the Tsar in regards to the war. When war was declared between germany and russia in August 1914, it seemed that the conflict would save the Romanov throne, not destroy it. At first it looked like a huge success, in the south the Austrians were pushed back in Galicia while in the north the germans were defeated at Gumbinnen. But then came the Germans response. At Tannenburg in August 1914 the Germans inflicted a heavy defeat on the Russians which resulted in masses of prisoners, stores, and guns taken off the Russians.
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.