Both Tsars were thoroughly progressive, bringing reform to Russian bureaucracies and institutions that had slowly stagnated. In addition, both Ivan IV and Peter I succeeded in centralizing authority around the monarchy. Indeed, Peter the Great professed himself to be an admirer of Ivan’s. But the common perception of Ivan the Terrible’s rule as truly “terrible” in comparison to Peter’s is not without base. The latter half of Ivan IV’s reign would be characterized by a bloody reign of terror by the dreaded oprichnik and drawn out military failures in the Baltic.
However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
How important is the character and personality of Nicholas II to an understanding of the reasons for the February Revolution? There are many reasons for the February Revolution of 1917, the character and personality of a Tsar who was conservative and nervous in the position that he felt, God had wanted him to take, is just one. Other factors include the feelings of hostility that arose after the revolution of 1905, growths of parties within Russia, including the ideas of both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and of course the war of 1914 and the hardships it brought to the Russian people. The view of some historians is that the revolution of 1917 was spontaneous, but when considering the conditions of the majority of Russian people during this revolutionary period, one must see that this cannot be the case, the country was ripe for change… and for revolution. This essay will aim to examine each factor in turn, before coming to a solid conclusion on the main reasons for the revolution in Russia, in 1917.
One of the main reasons why Stalin emerged as sole leader was because of how he used pragmatism to manipulate Lenin’s opinion of him to suggest that he was the most favorable leader to carry on Marxism throughout Russia. This key event that secured Stalin’s public support was around the time of Lenin’s funeral. His role as general secretary gave him the ‘grey blur’ title because of his reputation of being invisible, focusing his time on important paperwork. When Lenin released his testament, Stalin used his reputation to change it, which had previously had influential and opinionated views on Stalin, and if seen by the public, would inevitably have changed the success of Stalin’s emergence to a failure at becoming leader. Lenin’s real opinion of Stalin was highly negative.
Having this powerful position in the party made people scared of him and that he sack them so they stayed very loyal to him. On the other hand his rivals, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev and Kamenev had little power in the Party. Trotsky did have a lot of power in the Red Army but none within the Party. This shows how important Stalin’s Party position was in him emerging as leader of Soviet Russia in 1929. Another very important reason in why Stalin emerged as leader was Tactical maneuvering of Stalin and his making and breaking of alliances.
He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’. Counter-reform was partly a reaction to the murder of Alexander II, but Alexander III also believed that his fathers ‘Great Reforms’ had been a mistake, weakening Tsarism and leaving it vulnerable and insecure. He introduced political repression of opponents, counter-reform, increased central control, financial reform and the policy of Russification as the core stone of his reign. His policy was to undo the reforms as far as possible. In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had.
During this time, East Germans became fed up with the oppressive policies of the Stazi, the antics of Honecker’s government, and the hated symbol of the Berlin Wall. They reacted against the only thing they could change and tore down the wall. Poland was another major country that disintegrated from communism. Under the lead of Lech Walesa, Poland was growing a rebellious strength. With Gorbachev as Russia’s leader, reforms were putin place as well as removing many USSR restrictions of satellite countries.
HOW IMPORTANT WAS STALIN’S USE OF THE LENIN LEGACY IN EXPLANING HIS VICTORY IN THE POWER STRUGGLE IN THE YEARS 1924 – 1929? After Lenin died in 1924, a power struggle arose when he hadn’t elected a member of the party to continue in his footsteps as leader of Russia, this caused the heated climb that Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Bukharin had to face to have power. It was Stalin who won, much to everyone’s surprise, and there are many factors as to why he won. One of them was the Lenin Legacy, which he manipulated to his advantage. Stalin was able to see that he could gain credibility by using Lenin’s Legacy, since Lenin was the leader of the Communist Party and was the reason to all the great ideas and change that was brought to Russia.
Despite all that it is fair to say that Lenin was a successful leader without whom November revolution and hence the crucial change in Russia would not be possible. He played a significant role in the Russian history that Stalin wanted to inherit. To successfully revive the economy and stay in power he often used all possible means such as approval of the cold-blooded execution of the entire Imperial family, including women and children, usage of the "Cheka," to take innocent hostages at random–and shoot them, if necessary–to secure the grain supply, institutionalisation of terror as a method of state policy, establishment of both the system of deportation to concentration camps and the practice of political
Nicholas II was faced with various issues during his reign from 1894-1917. His ineffectual personality was partly to blame for his ineffectual ruling. He was not able to listen to the needs of his public, and so violent uprisings such as Bloody Sunday occurred. His response was to initiate the October Manifest and the instigation of the Russian Duma, but neither of these pleased the public and so the February revolution of 1917 occurred, which ultimately created the fall of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy.