However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
The Weimar Government, whilst built in opposition to the wartime ideologies, was unable to detach itself from the power of the German military between the years of 1919 and 1934. The Weimar Republic was formed in 1919 after the abdication and exile of Kaiser Wilhelm II left the country leaderless and the Reichstag switched from imperial politics to democratic politics, a form which the German army famously did not support. As such the impact of the German Army upon the Weimar Republic was largely to support their own political – generally right-wing – agendas. This can be directly linked to the interference of military groups and military groups in the political sphere of Weimar Germany. The involvement of the German Army and other military groups in Weimar politics served to strengthen the Republic in the early years but later lead to its downfall.
Albeit the difference in leadership and basic ideology there appears to have been little change in the nature of government in Russia as the structure of government throughout the period remained centralised around one individual despite the pivotal change from Tsarism to Communism in 1917. Furthermore, similar tools were used by the governments to retain power insofar as they were all repressive and differed only in scale and/or justification. In terms of ideology, on paper it would seem as though there should be a big change in the nature of government as whilst Tsarist autocracy meant ruling as an absolute sovereign using the power granted by God, Communism was meant to allow for the control by the ‘people’ and eventually the (a bit confused- dictatorship of the proletariat was the stage before full communism. It was how Lenin justified his dictatorship…for and on behalf of the people)dictatorship of the proletariat wherein the workers could rule over the bourgeois. However in reality this was not the case, as because Lenin believed he was speeding up the dialectical phase of Marxism he adopted the ideology of ‘dictatorship’ rather than ‘communism’ due to his belief that he was the only one capable of leading the country to communism.
Germany was still a very young country in the 20th century, as it only became unified in 1871 it was unknown whether they would succeed or fail as a country after their initial success against France. The unification of states lead to a constitution, which was created by Otto von Bismark, whose main aim, was to preserve the power of the elite in Germany. This meant that the Kaiser was given a large amount of power over the people, shown by the fact he had complete control over the Reichstag and the Chancellor. Although, there were signs of democracy taking place through the creation of the Bundesrat and Reichstag, which would argue against an authoritarian monarchy, the political structure was unclear and the two parliaments had limited power. The Kaiser of Germany, who was the King of Prussia, could be the main reason why Germany was conceived as an authoritarian monarchy, due to the Kaiser having such a powerful constitutional position that no-one could challenge him.
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. Over the 100 year period between 1855 and 1964 all Russian leaders used state repression to some extent. From the definition of Communism it would be suggested that post 1917 Russia would have become less repressive as it would have formed a democratic society however this was not the case which indicates that Russia did simple exchange one form of autocracy for another. The secret police, although used under various names by the Russian rulers, was a reoccurring factor of repression used by all the Russian leaders over this period. Nicholas was debatably the least repressive Russian
A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows. This point is further emphasized by Alexander III’s belief that change was a risk and not necessary, as he argued by criticizing his father and also practically demonstrated by reducing the powers of the Zemstva. Repression was increased substantially to deal with opposition and apart from Nicholas II under whom it was briefly paused, this set the basis for Russian rule in the rest of the period. Despite Khrushchev’s easing of repression, the damage had been done under his predecessors Lenin and Stalin in removing any threat posed by opposition and ensuring that their rule remained untouched, in a further demonstration of their opposition to change.
Prior to this reform, these children were not benefiting from incarceration. They were only becoming more sophisticated in the skills of criminal activity. Social reforms in the antebellum era were critical to the expansion of democratic ideals. The temperance movement was based on the desire to create a productive and civilized society that could contribute more efficiently to the image of what a democratic family should be like. This movement began in 1826 as the alcohol was becoming increasingly widespread, affecting the efficiency of labor.
It can be seen that, even after Poltava, Russian industry was still instrumental in Peter’s absolutism, as the stable economy prevented the revolt of important members of society such as merchants, who could now trade effectively with other countries. However, there were some reforms that were unconnected with foreigners, and others which were Western in origin but not designed to strengthen his rule. The abolition of the position of Patriarch was a move prompted not by any Western influence but by Peter’s desire to remove opposition, and hence maintain his absolutism. The actual date (1700) was determined by the convenient death of Patriarch Adrian, and Peter chose not to appoint a successor as the war was going badly and he was unpopular, and the Patriarch would have been a focus for disillusioned Russians. The assemblies which were held from December 1718 in St Petersburg and included the compulsory presence of women, were a complete break with the Muscovite tradition but owed more to Peter’s desire to show the extent of his Westernisation, rather than any advance in royal
"While particular nationalisms vary, this basic nationalist conception of an ideal world order has been remarkably unchanged for well over a century." The concept of nationalism has survived setbacks since the French Revolution. One argument against the spread of nationalism is that such a phenomenon destabilizes the international political order. The harmful effects of alteration of existing borders�even peaceful alteration�would, it is contended, outweigh the benefits. "The belief of the Bush administration that the United States was a status quo power explains its efforts to keep both the Soviet empire and the Yugoslav federation intact."
People like Adam Smith, Ralph Chaplin, Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx attempted to address certain problems and even offer solutions. Government legislation attempted to solve the problems of Industrial Revolution by passing laws that stopped the worker’s rights from being abused and production from being slowed. The Combination Act of 1800 hindered the growth of unions. Unions interfered with the speed and quality of production; therefore, in the government’s eyes it would have been better in the end if the rights of unions were stifled and their ability to go on strike was inhibited. If the workers went on strike there would be less products produced and then the prices would go up, because demand was the same while the supply goes down because there were no workers working in the factories.