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.
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.
Lenin’s contribution to the Bolshevik Party was an essential factor in their consolidation of power during 1917-1924, however; Lenin’s role was not the only factor contributing to their success. The Bolsheviks were regarded as a “minor feature of Russian political life” and it was not until Lenin’s return to Russia that the party became a key player. It can be seen that Lenin played a pivotal role in the consolidation of power due to his background which allowed Lenin to be influenced by a revolutionary upbringing. Through his upbringing, Lenin was able to develop a strong leadership, political insight and determination allowing the Bolsheviks to be lead into power. Whilst the Bolsheviks were in power, Lenin’s role in dealing with uprisings and anti-communist groups was significant as it allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
However it could be argued that Wilhelm II’s aims to crush socialism in response to Caprivi’s tolerance for Socialism in his years as chancellor disagree with this view as it suggests he is aiming for more of an autocratic state where he holds state control. Another notable factor which suggests Germany was a parliamentary democracy is Wilhelm II could ignore the views of the centre party; failed attempts to previously dismiss them such as the Kulturkampf were a failure because the party’s strong political views are extremely influential, and they have always had a substantial amount of seats in the party. This in turn meant the government was influenced by the parliament. However, there were many events which demonstrate the Kaiser
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.
Why did Stalin emerge as leader of Soviet Russia? Observing Stalin’s background and other personal factors, Stalin was indeed a weak contender for the leader of Soviet Russia and lacked a strong, powerful past that people such as Trotsky had. However from 1924 to 1929, Stalin with the use of manipulation, determination and tactical strategies managed to emerge as leader of Soviet Russia. The reason as to why he created such an outcome is quite clearly impressive, but what really worked for him? An important factor as to why Stalin was able to emerge as leader was due to the advantages that he had as a result of his position within the communist party.
Ali Adenwala 12J Due: 5/1/15 Why did the Bolsheviks succeed in 1917 whilst other political parties failed to gain power? [2nd Draft] The Bolshevik’s seizure of power was due, significantly, to the external environment of deterioration festering around them at the time, the most incremental and significant being the failure of other political parties to act and distance themselves from the Provisional Government. This directly heightened Lenin’s role in the revolution, allowing him to exploit these weaknesses, with the help of Trotsky, whom he appropriated successfully to achieve the parties main end: a socialist, Bolshevik government, Sovnarkom. Lenin placed Trotsky as the leader of the Petrograd Soviet’s Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC) on September 25th 1917, to carry out a planned uprising, where Trotsky, between October 24th and 25th, ordered the Bolshevik Red Guards to seize key positions in Petrograd. 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.
It would push Russia further onwards in terms of a state free from private trade and ownership. However ideology is often seen as Stalin’s weak point however, since he is often thought of as frequently changing policies to further his political aspirations. The leadership challenge of 1925 – 1928 showed how Stalin changed his policies to decimate both the left and right wing of the party and strengthen his position over the party, by varying his beliefs in order to outmanoeuvre his political opponents. On the other hand, some historians (such as Viola) argue that the NEP was causing extensive discontent within the party, and that rather than being as capricious as is often presumed, he can be seen as a pragmatist in the face of the will of the party. His “Great Turn” can be seen as a realistic and attractive policy, suited to the rank and file of the party, that he did not adopt earlier in the 20’s since it was not a fitting policy at the time.
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
Despite his Menshevik past, Trotsky was close to Lenin and had played a key role in the communist party. In fact, it was Trotsky who masterminded the October revolution which saw the communists seize power in 1917. He also organised and controlled the ‘red army’ during the Civil War of 1918-1921. He possessed many good qualities needed in a leader, such as; he was a good leader, a good speaker and could be independent minded. Lenin described Trotsky as “...personally perhaps the most capable man in the present C.C...’ However, Trotsky also had weaknesses and made mistakes that Stalin was able to use to his advantage.