To begin with, both Lenin and Stalin had some similarities in their ideology. They both followed Marxism theory and they wanted to improve Russia’s wellbeing. They both followed Marxism theory which claimed that all industry which is inside Russia has to belong to the state, for instance banks, fabrics, heavy industry has to be centralized and passed to the state. Also, they both thought that one man can rule the state, and so they did: Lenin led the country for 6 years and Stalin for almost 30 years. On the other hand, these two supreme leaders had ideological differences, which were used during the time, when they were in power.
From this prospective Russian expansionism was a key factor in the developments of the cold war. To the West Stalin was perceived as the “Red Tsar” seeking to extend the Soviet Union’s border and influence, the reason for this perception was because of the Soviet union’s: rigging of elections forming a communist government
Although it unified, it also brought about separation, with the division of Germany and of Berlin. After World War 2 Russia unified all surrounding countries with communism. It began with the setting up of satellite states surrounding Russia later becoming commonly known as the ‘Iron Curtain’. They were set up to protect Russia because they believed the allies would invade, just as they did after the First World War. Russia’s main national interest after setting up other communist republics was to further spread communism.
The workers of the world had to be “liberated” from bourgeois exploitation. As the principle communist nation of the world, Russia had a duty to spread the revolution begun in 1919 to the rest of Europe. The view of many Marxist scholars was that the proletariat had been brainwashed by the rich, and thus were not capable of instigating a workers’ revolution themselves – therefore Communism had to be introduced by force. Stalin realised that the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was a rare opportunity for Russia to act as this vanguard. Perhaps less importantly, though still a significant point in the domination of Eastern Europe, was the desire of Stalin to
Lenin was a pivotal figure in the Bolshevik consolidation of power. His actions towards social, political and economic issues as leader were unparalleled in effectiveness and number. From 1917, the beginning of the Bolsheivik reign, to 1924, the year of his death, Lenin undertook significant measures to establish, maintain and gain control over Russia as the head of the Bolsheivik party. Important actions include the Land Decree and the Decree on Peace, the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, fighting the Civil War, starting the ideologies of War Communism, starting the Red Terror and introducing the New Economic Policy (NEP). The cumulative effort of theses actions, among many other less noted ones, was the Bolshevik consolidation of power.
When the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in October 1917, communism came to the fore as an issue in international relations. In January 1918 Woodrow Wilson issued his “Fourteen Points”. Although the Fourteen Points were a list of specific aims, they also presented the U.S. ideological framework for international relations. The Fourteen Points promoted the principles of self-determination, open markets and collective security. Self-determination was a criticism of European imperialism but also an attack on the seizure of power by small armed groups like the Bolsheviks.
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.
How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 revolution? The most notable reformist groups that had an impact on the 1905 revolution were the national minorities, the army and the revolutionary parties. The national minorities leapt at the chance of changing autocracy, ending Russification and a democratic government by using Russia’s confusion against itself. It consisted of Jews who wanted civil rights, Polish and Finnish people (and other parts of the Russian empire) who wanted independence and many others. This turned into great violence across the empire, with peasants even attacking officials.
There were two views on the Tsarism regime, the Liberal theory where they believed things were getting better and the regime could have survived and the Marxist theory where they believed the Tsarist regime was outdated and could no longer work and the masses would rise up. Although these two views were debated amongst the people of Russia it was not what made the revolution inevitable, different factors such as the war, food shortages, working conditions, etc.... are what mad the revolution inevitable as they showed the Tsar’s weaknesses and made him vulnerable. The main reasons why it was inevitable that Russia would face a revolution in 1917 was the War. This was one of the main reasons as the Tsar was over ambitious once he got to the Front, he thought they could win the war which meant pro-longing the suffering back in Russia, as the people thought the war was dragging on and that they were unlikely to win, therefore even more soldiers would die leaving the women and children without husbands, fathers or brothers. This made the people more frustrated with the Tsar as 10 million soldiers had already died, therefore they did not want the suffering to go on longer if they were not going to win.
This gives us insight into the economic and social aims of the government, that they sought to achieve through industrialization. One such document worth researching is a memorandum that Witte wrote that was addressed to Nicholas II. This memorandum has since been critiqued by historian T.H, Von Laue, in his article entitled, A Secret Memorandum Of Sergei Witte On The Industrilaization of Russia. In his article, Von Laue analyzes different plans, and is most importantly interested in how this memorandum reflects