The western view of the time saw Stalin as doing one of two things: either continuing the expansionist policies of the tsars, or worse, spreading communism across the world now that his one-state notion had been fulfilled. Admittedly, the first view of Stalin, as an imperialist leader, may be twisted. The Russians claim, and have always claimed, that Stalin's motives were purely defensive. Stalin wished to create a buffer zone of Communist states around him to protect Soviet Russia from the capitalist West. In this sense, his moves were not aggressive at all -- they were truly defensive moves to protect the Soviet system.
Despite these threats ultimate power remained in the hands of the Kaiser in 1914. Some would argue that this retention of power was a result of the moderate reform put in place in order to placate the parties in the government enough that they would not challenge the status quo. It cannot be denied that a small amount of moderate reform played a small role, there is evidence to suggest that other factors played a larger, more important role. The sense of nationalism and patriotism that gripped the country at the time as well as the disunity of the political parties meant that there was never any real threat to the Kaiser and his autocratic rule. Moderate reform played a small part in keeping power in the hands of the Kaiser but its limited scope together with the lack of any real success show that it may have been other factors that kept power in the hands of the Kaiser.
The Soviet Union was structured to the tastes of the leader at the helm, and so served his interests. The policies in place served not to improve the economic, social or economic fortunes of the entire nation but to concur with the ideological leanings of the leader in office. So was the case with communism. Despite this production model failing utterly to satisfy the basic demands of the ordinary Soviet citizen, it remained in place. They thought a departure from this model would signify a Soviet surrender to the Capitalist West in the ideological war.
The manifesto offered free speech, the right to form political parties and it created a “democratic” elected house of parliament – called a Duma. Despite the fact the Tsar promised all of these things for the people, after he had crushed the revolution he actually did very little to promote what he had promised. This is because he issued the Fundamental Laws, meaning the Tsar's ministers could not be appointed by the Duma, therefore denying the Duma a lot of what had been originally suggested. Furthermore, the Tsar had the power to dismiss the Duma and announce new elections whenever he wished, this further undermined democratic elements in government which showed that Nicholas II was untrustworthy and didn’t keep his promises. The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy.
Where the two governments differ is in the respect of tolerance towards cooperation with others. In Alexander III's Tsarist autocracy, minsters were personally chosen by the Tsar, and could only advise him-he still had to make the decisions himself. In addition, all other political parties in Tsarist times were banned, through methods such as arresting members of opposing political parties and censoring the press. In Lenin's Communist dictatorship, Lenin instead chose to work with members in committees such as the Sovnarkom and the Politburo in order
Stalin and Alexander III were particularly good at using ideology as a basis of legitimacy; they both rejected all alternatives on the basis that their ideology was superior and the only form of government which wasn’t corrupted which therefore meant that violence was necessary to maintain the pure control. The key similarity in both eras is that they used their respective ideologies in order to keep a system of absolute power with no viable alternatives. The Tsars
The policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ focused on the idea of existing peacefully with capitalist states and was adopted by the communist countries. It aimed to exist peacefully with the West rather than conforming to the belief that communism and capitalism could not work and exist together and that one would need to be overthrown. Peaceful coexistence was accepted by most communist states although rejected by Chairman Mao who believed that the East should still adopt a hard line approach to capitalism. Peaceful Coexistence came about as the result of the change in leadership in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death as Khrushchev came in to power and the policy came into effect at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 and was a reaction to the tensions between the US and USSR. As the development of nuclear weapons became more prominent and the arms race came about, the threat of nuclear war became a possibility which neither of the superpowers wanted.
The Liberals were not very big supporters of the Monarch and wanted the Monarchy out of the political area and it just to be solely the government. The Liberals wanted reform, especially the Radicals. If you compare this to the beliefs of the Conservative party who generally believed in One-nation Conservatism/Toryism. This phrase came to light by the Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, His conservatism had proposed a society with the social classes intact but with the working class receiving support from the government. Disraeli emphasised the importance of social obligation rather than
Socially the war was not revolutionary because, there was still that one race that was not treated like they belonged and felt like they were taking up space. Politically the war was not revolutionary because, the imprisoned slaves were not allowed to be apart of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore Revolution was both revolutionary and not revolutionary because, of the three stated topics above. The American Revolution was the most important event in the history of the world since the birth of Christ,-stated by Richard Price. The Revolution was revolutionary based on economic factors because, as apart of the empire the colonies were protected from foreign invasion by the British military.
The minor details do not matter. The importance lies in the fact that in a monarchy or dictatorship one person has the power in a society and all the rest serve only to obey him. Starkly different is More’s creation. His society is a true communist one and it could also be argued that it is also a democracy. Leaders are