For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia. Alexander III just wanted to retain his power and keep in control to avoid the same fate as his father. Similarly, the communist rulers were not uniform either as they had different core aims, for example Khruschev’s main aim was destalinisation whereas Stalin’s was to create his own legacy. The Provisional Government and Lenin were alike in their policies in the fact that they both completely changed the system. In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same.
Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855-1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? During this period the biggest change that happened was the move from Tsarist autocracy to communist dictatorship as well as the short lived provisional government, which was a form of democracy. Furthermore there were changes to economic policy, which had a great impact on society. The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change.
History How far did the growth of internal opposition threaten the Tsarist regime in the years 1881-1904? Alexander III took over as the Tsar of Russia shortly after his father’s assassination (Alexander II) with the intention to rule Russia with brute force to assert the autocratic power back into control of the people. This was done with the use of secret police and the tightening of censorship. Nicholas II shortly took over after his father died from medical reasons. He was generally described as a smart man with great manners however lacked those qualities of a practical man.
How accurate is it to say that Lenin’s leadership was the most important reason for the Bolsheviks’ success in the revolution of October 1917? The Bolshevik party on 25th October 1917 seized control of Russia with Lenin viewed to many as the icon of the revolution since his policies were quickly widespread amongst the people of Petrograd and his impressive leadership skills mobilized his ideas and the Bolshevik planned events to gain power. However, many would disagree, arguing that Lenin is not as significant because other leading Bolsheviks, such as Trotsky, were far more effective than Lenin in carrying out the revolution. Secondly, the weaknesses and underlying issues of the Provisional Government proved that they were destined to fail regardless of their attempts to keep power through repression, already placing the Bolsheviks in a good position for taking control. Finally the failures of the Provisional Government made them vulnerable which coincidentally worked to advantage the Bolsheviks.
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. Also, the October Manifesto in 1905 promised the establishment of fundamental civil freedoms and the State duma, with participation for those deprived of voting powers and a powerful legislative role. The October Manifesto was the first time during Russian history that the tsar was willing to share political power in national government, and the Manifesto suggested that a national parliament was created. To many liberals, this was a crucial breakthrough. The Dumas were the government’s response to the 1905 revolution, and the tsar’s granting of a duma in the October Manifesto was the most striking of the concessions made to the liberals.
And lastly the regency crisis of 1788 meant that Pitt could use this to gain favour with the king and gather support from his own party and draw it away from the opposition. These circumstances proved effective in propelling Pitt’s domination but without his own skill he would not have been able to dominate, for example his financial skill ensured that Britain benefitted from the industrial revolution as was the handling of the regency crisis which completely favoured Pitt but he
Both Russia and China's revolution began as a struggle for a change in power. The initial revolution of China in 1911 was for the ousting of the Qing dynasty. Similarly, the 1917 revolution in Russia was instigated by the Bolsheviks revolution against the Tsarist government. The outcomes of Russia and China's revolution were similar as were the goals to establish a new government because both eventually led to the formation of a communist country. However, China's revolution differed because the initial democratic establishment led to opposition from the Communist party while the formation of the U.S.S.R faced minimal opposition.
How far did the introduction of Western Style reforms and the use of foreigners assist Peter the Great in strengthening his absolute rule? Peter the Great was influenced by the instability in Russia he had witnessed in Childhood, and was determined to expunge the subversive element of his population which could precipitate a resurgence of this anti-authoritarian violence. Further aims included the unification of Russia, extension of territory and its defence against the Poles, Tatars and Swedes. This required securing his absolutism, as internal security is a prerequisite of an effective foreign policy. Although foreigners and western-style changes did not cover the entire scope of his developments, they certainly appear to have been a fundamental
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. However in the long term Lenin's Bolsheviks had seized power in the October Revolution. This was a significant turning point as the totalitarian Government of the Communist party were little different to the autocratic regime of the Tsar to some extent, especially under Stalin. His version of communism differed from that of Lenin before him which resulted in Stalin effectively being a 'red Tsar', devoted to his vision of Russia no matter what the cost
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.