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.
Joseph Stalin truly strengthened this nation to become a widely known superpower, although he carried out mass genocide and created a murderous dictatorship. Historians have viewed him in many different ways, including a psychotic power-driven killer, a military and communist genius, and also the man who transformed the Soviet Union into an industrial colossus. Joseph Stalin should have never taken the role of the USSR’s leader. Instead, Trotsky should have been the one to take Lenin’s place, which would have saved the lives of millions. Joseph Stalin put forth many positive attributes to the USSR, however; the only reason this was possible was through his brutal intimidation tactics used on the nation’s
Along with fears of the past came the difference of politics as the Soviet Union, also known as the USSR was a communist country and the United States was a capitalist society. These two nations became very dominant over each other and chose to start a nuclear arms race that would make both countries continue to fight in a form of competition. Unlike other countries, America made a decision to remain allies with the Soviet Union. This decision is one that haunted them for the next 46 years. David Halberstam, in “The Fifties” speaks strongly about the drastic changes that our society dealt with as a result of these hard times, and the ways in which the average individual worked with struggles in society.
He believed in ‘Socialism in one country’ where the USSR would become strong enough to survive, then would take over the rest of the world. There is no doubt that his plans were successful in many ways, but would it be logical to call this phase an overall success when we consider the human cost, chaos, un-organization and the slip in overall living conditions in everyday life? Or are those flaws completely irrelevant as Stalin was a tyrannical leader who did what was necessary for the country to move the country forward and the deaths would probably be viewed as a necessary statistic. Stalin’s first plan (October 1928 – December 1932) was extremely far fetched, the plan lacked reality and rather random enormous statistics were demanded for the factories to produce. This was largely down to the two groups involved in the construction of the plan; the Gosplan (in charge of the wider plan – not the specifics) and the Vensenka (who were in charge of the specifics e.g.
This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him. The Party Gets a New Name In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in
to declare war in the summer of 1917 was America's aspirations to become a world power. Prior to this the US was a great power but that was mainly confined to the Western Hemisphere and the Pacific regions. By entering this war between all of the world's great powers, America would emerge as a major world power at the end of the war, that is the course after winning the war and stake its claim at the bargaining table. Also, entering in such a massive global war would spur the American economy and help it grow tremendously. And provide and massive industrial boom as American factories would pump out massive amounts of war supplies including machine guns, Army uniforms, and artillery pieces to name a few.
How important was Stalin’s use of the Lenin legacy in gaining power? Stalin’s use of the Lenin Legacy helped him gain support during the years 1924-1929, eventually resulting in him winning the power struggle and gaining power in Russia. Even though in Lenin’s final testament he made it clear that Stalin was trouble and he should be got rid of, Stalin’s political cunning and his use of the Lenin legacy meant that he was able to gain people’s support and become leader of the Communist party. One of the most noticeable was at Lenin’s funeral. Firstly, Stalin had told Trotsky (who was a major rival to Stalin at this time) the wrong date for Lenin’s funeral.
Finally the failures of the Provisional Government made them vulnerable which coincidentally worked to advantage the Bolsheviks. Personally, I believe that the vulnerable position of the Provisional Government, timing of the governments mistakes, discontent of the soldiers as well as the workers and the occasional guidance from other Bolshevik leaders, was exploited by Lenin, alongside his popular policies and leadership skills he catalyzed the revolution that was inevitable, planning it in such a way that it would benefit long term and not short-term as it had done in 1905 and February 1917. In disagreement, the failures of the provisional government to make the correct decisions led to the Bolsheviks’ success because the Bolsheviks were efficient in using this time to take control of the vulnerability of the Provisional Government which had caused this upon itself. The first mistake was allowing Lenin return from Germany in April as a part of democracy terms, since Lenin, despite being
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.
How were the aims of the first three five year plans different? Russia in the 20’s and 30’s was considered a backwards country. After becoming leader, Stalin recognized that the country needed to industrialise as quickly as possible and greatly increase production. This resulted in the 3 ‘five year plans’ being designed for overall, the purpose of expanding industrial production, but in themselves, the aims of each plans were different, and were modified to become current and deal with the consequences of results of the previous plans. Each industry was set a target of production it had to meet in each of the five year plans.