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.
Leaders from the communist party worked to claim power and weren’t born into it. By definition of the two types of rule it should be suggested that Russian government ought to have been completely different with no similarities. However, it can be strongly argued that this was not the case. All Russian leaders during this period were motivated by the need to maintain their power and their ideological views which is shown to be one of the main similarities between them. Asides from the obvious ideological differences between the Tsars and the communists, they do not differ all that much in other ruling aspects such as use of repression and the role of themselves as a ruler.
Due to the larger size of the Ohio Constitution, there are many amendments that appear to be unusual, in other words, are parts of the document that you wouldn’t expect to be part of their constitution. In summary, the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution compare and contrast within either/or their rights, amendments, and governmental structures. During the process of researching both Constitutions, there were numerous similarities and differences within the documents’ “Bill of Rights” as
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. It can be argued that the implementation of the Zemstvos under Alexander II paved the way for the full legalisation of opposition, as this allowed the spawning of political ideas. However, under Nicholas II this was more prevalent, as the October Manifesto allowed for the full legalisation of opposition through the implementation of the Dumas. Though the Dumas acted as unsuccessful opposition to the Tsar – as he declared the Fundamental Laws almost immediately after the Dumas came into existence – this was important as it allowed the opposition groups to burgeon. Unlike the regimes of both Alexander II and III, political discussion was allowed, and as such it developed more so than at any other time in the period.
The long-term policies of Russification imposed by the Tsar in the 1880s, caused a lot of political unrest within Russia and these contributed to the 1905 revolution. Russia was the only country within Europe with no elected national parliament. The only form of elected representation (what the Tsar referred to as ‘senseless dreams’) was the “Zemstva”. The Union of Liberation demanded in December 1904, that a parliament should be set up because they felt the Russian population needed an outlet to express their views. At the time, the formation of political parties was illegal but despite this, they still existed.
Due to this, we can see that the source may be of good reliability but may also contain errors (Guedalla may have over-exaggerated Churchill’s views to make his book more popular.) The source’s content predominantly focuses on Churchill’s strong, opposing views against Bolshevism in Russia. The writer explains, ‘Churchill’s waking vision is haunted by constant fantasies of sinister little communist figures.’ This suggests that Churchill has strong opinions on the Bolshevik’s in Russia, and it depicts that his thoughts consisted of Bolshevism in Russia alone, which suggests he almost has an obsession with dealing with the problem of Communist Russia as quickly as possible, as he is shown in source A as having nightmares about Communist Russia. Source E, Churchill’s sequel to his history of the First World War and events which led to it which consists of his views of Communist Russia, reinforces the quote ‘Churchill’s waking vision is haunted by constant fantasies of sinister little communist figures’ written in Source A. This is applicable when Source E, written by Churchill himself says, ‘the Revolution in Russia
This led to the taking over of railway stations, and post and telegraph offices, meaning that the PG was left totally defenseless, allowing the Bolsheviks to seize control. The most crucial factor, however, was timing, where the Bolsheviks were able to take this power behind the veneer of Soviet control, minimizing chance of opposition. It is arguable, nonetheless, that even without this planning, seizure would still be within easy reach, due to the infamy of the Provisional Government and the other political parties, such as the Kadets, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, failing to act. But nevertheless, this organizational brilliance from Trotsky was an assured way for secure control, as the Bolsheviks were only relatively known in the cities, compared to most of rural Russia, where their support dwindled in the wake of more popular
The White Armies had outnumbered the Red Armies but the Red Army still managed to win the Civil war. How did that happen? The Bolsheviks had some advantages which led them to their success while the Whites who had some disadvantages had led them to their fall. One of the advantages of the Bolsheviks from the Whites is that they are united and disciplined by Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky, who was in control of the Bolsheviks by that time, had magnificently handled them.
Assess the reasons for the Bolshevik victory in the Russian civil war Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War of 1918 -1920 would not have been certain without the strong, determined and intelligent leadership provided by Trotsky and Lenin. The fact that the Bolsheviks were led by two individuals, who combined had tremendous political, social and military skills had a direct result on the outcome of the war. There were other significant contributing factors that led to the Bolshevik victory, in particular their supreme political policies that completely offered the Russian people what they wanted. For me the main reason why the Bolsheviks did so well and won was due to the Whites were incompetent, disorganised and highly inefficient. The success of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War was due to Lenin, Trotsky and their combined political, social and military capabilities as they were experts.
A variety of long term and short term factors caused this revolution. The Tsarist autocratic rule was a key factor in the revolution. Most Russians lived in medieval conditions with all the diseases that poverty brings whilst the Tsar and aristocracy lived in opulent luxury. The people were enforced to pay heavy taxes whilst living in desperate poverty, famine and were at best badly educated. Some felt that other countries were progressing at a faster pace and the Tsar should embrace their way of thinking.