How are Source L and Source K different about Nicholas II? Nicholas II, last Tsar to reign over Russia, is portrayed very differently through the two sources, with Source L giving off the impression of a strong, democratic leader whereas Source K shows us his doubts towards reigning over Russia and how he felt he was unable to do so at this time. Through source L we see Nicholas II’s quotation of reinforcing the laws of autocracy and the Tsarist system is being told to the people of Russia, making him appear powerful and willing to make the same extreme decisions his father had put into place. However, due to source Ks context of it being a confidential diary entry, we are enabled to see his emotions concerning becoming Tsar and how he is not equipped to rule after his rather, Alexander III. Furthermore, the sources also have varying times they come from, whereas source K is imminent after the discovery of him being the new Tsar, source K is later on once he had experience ruling Russia for some time, although both are taken from 1895.
Jesse Osborne Block 4; World Studies Louis XIV vs. Peter the Great Peter the Great and Louis XIV had very different approaches to power during their reigns. Louis XIV wanted to please nobles and higher power people, and focused on war and peace, religion, and economic oversight. Meanwhile, Peter I took a drive to modernize the nation of Russia, taking initiative to tame the nobles and reduce their power, achieve secular control of the church, reorganize internal administration, develop an economy and make it powerful. Peter the Great laid the foundations of a modern Russia. He ruthlessly decreased the power on the boyars and demanded they serve his state.
Stolypin was the cheif minister at this time and a huge supporter of autocracy so by his influence - due to his high power, was able to help strengthen the regime, as he was such a strong supporter of it. He was a very strong character and seemed to be the leader Russia needed at the time, being under the control of a weak and confused leader, Nicholas II, the hard line, strict, knowledgeable Stolypin was a welcome sight in rebuilding the crumbling foundations of Russia. He was suited to the job, and had a vision of how to move Russia forward, but without losing the autocratic power of the Tsar as he so strongly supported this, however he was not particularly popular due to his hard line tactics. He dominated the government until he was assassinated in 1911. One of Stolypins main priorities was to get rid of opposition he has stated ‘repression first and then and only then reform’ so we know he felt in order to be able to move Russia forward, opposition needed to be out ruled.
He was an able general, whose greatest strength was his aggressiveness. This aggressiveness was put to good use, as his determination to take the enemy by surprise characterised his victories over the armies of Emir Kerbogha of Mosul and Ridwan of Aleppo. Byzantine aid contributed greatly to the
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? Divisions among the Tsars opponents were important to the survival of Tsarist rule. However other elements also affected it, such as the belief in the Russian Orthodox Church and the belief that the Tsar was divinely appointed, poor communication across Russia this included the large the number of different languages and nationalities and the Cossacks which stayed loyal to the Tsar. The growing political opposition to the Tsar affected the stability of the Tsarist regime. Many Russian intellectuals were rising up against the Tsar; they believed that the regime was oppressive and that European countries had more freedom and felt that many Russians lacked basic freedoms seen in other European nations.
In a leadership position where he could have so easily become corrupt Washington did his best to remain constitutional. After his commanding role in the revolution Washington was looked up to as a leader and had an army that was loyal to him. He could have easily assumed a role as a dictator. It was his strong character though, that allowed him to be satisfied with a more modest republican office. It is evident that Washington won over the hearts of U.S. inhabitants not only by the means of his strong character.
Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms after the 1905 Revolution. After the 1905 Revolution, the Tsar still had to face the above problems. In order to prolong his rule, he was forced to reform Russia. At first, he agreed to set up parliament, Duma. It made Russia became a constitution country like Britain.
The Helsinki agreements recognised Soviet control over Eastern Europe because it dictated confrontation and expansion abroad. Russia promised to respect human rights but Brezhnev didn't have the intentions for honouring the human rights but the U.S needed Détente to occur because they believed the Soviet Union was strong and going to get stronger. During these agreement SS20s were being targeted at Western Europe Salt II lasted from 1972 to 1979. It was a progression from Salt I trying to provide limits on weapon systems and to put restraints on future developments. MIRV systems were finally limited for both the U.S and Soviet Union.
These small changes met with considerable protest, but over time many would be converted. 17 Peter proved to be quite the remarkable leader and reformer of the nation. Upon his death Russia was still behind the rest of Europe in many areas and some of his reforms would be fought tooth and nail, but unlike Ivan he had a vision of what his nation could be he strove to make it so. The body count on his watch was much less than Ivan's and that alone is cause for celebration for the Russian
After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically to allow it to maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring. The answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar, who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial, making little change in particular to the Russian political system. Any law that the Lower House (the elected body) wanted to pass had to be agreed by the Upper House and then the Tsar, this meant that although it is giving the illusion that the people are picking their way of life and the rules in which they abide by, the Tsar still has complete control over them and therefore the extent to which they had undergone reforms was less than what it seemed to the naked eye. While the peasants began to see higher wages in the cities seeming positive it meant that many people moved causing an over-crowding in cities and 4/5 people were still peasants despite the wage increase.