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.
How far did the introduction of Western Style reforms and the use of foreigners assist Peter the Great in strengthening his absolute rule? Peter the Great was influenced by the instability in Russia he had witnessed in Childhood, and was determined to expunge the subversive element of his population which could precipitate a resurgence of this anti-authoritarian violence. Further aims included the unification of Russia, extension of territory and its defence against the Poles, Tatars and Swedes. This required securing his absolutism, as internal security is a prerequisite of an effective foreign policy. Although foreigners and western-style changes did not cover the entire scope of his developments, they certainly appear to have been a fundamental
This formed support and reason for the Progressive Bloc. After these developments Nicholas’s actions were poor and had decisive consequences. He had made himself commander of the army after initial defeats and had dissolved the Duma after the creation of the Progressive Bloc. This made him responsible for the
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.
Peter brought a strong philosophy that it was a burden to rule, so he ruled with a burden to be the first servant of Russia, building her up. As Peter ascended to power, his first order of business was to go on a Grand Embassy of Europe. Throughout his experience, Peter never seemed particularly impressed with Europe’s governmental structures, but was quite impressed with western culture and technology. Upon returning to Russia, Peter, believing that what’s good for Russia is what Russia will do, began a series of reforms that are known as the Petrine Reforms. These Petrine Reforms are the beginning of this western movement throughout all of Russia.
Wilson, too, supported the Progressive movement. Despite Roosevelt’s attempts to bring the trusts under control, they were even more powerful in 1913 than they had been in 1900. Wilson believed that only action by the federal government could halt this process. He called his policies ”The New Freedom”. They were put into effect by a series of laws passed between 1913 and 1917.
He wanted to punish Germany and weaken them for what they have caused to European countries and wanted them to pay for the reparations so that France can rebuild itself. Meanwhile, Woodrow Wilson wanted to make a fair treat to end the war. He didn’t want a harsh peace and was more sensible than Clemenceau and David George. Woodrow wanted justice to be paid. He issued Fourteen points which talks about what he wanted and his views that could avoid another start of
Henry had immediately married her after all the delays that his father had caused. Everything had seemed to be going to plan but later he faced major problems because of his decisions. Henry was largely successful in being different to his father. The nobility liked Henry and saw him as a true king because he had engaged in war where his father never did. Henry also wanted England to be a major power in international affairs.
Roosevelt’s republican party split, Taft’s separation from the ideas of Roosevelt, and Wilson’s democratic perspective bring light to the idea that although these men shared the progressive opinion, their ideas differed in many ways. Theodore Roosevelt was the brain behind the progressive party that would eventually lead to the split of the Republican party. Roosevelt called for the “Square Deal” between business, consumers, and labor and supported the “Strenuous Life”. Unlike the others, Roosevelt wished to destroy bad trusts and regulate the good ones rather than break them all up. Roosevelt was the first president to introduce progressive ways of thinking and although each president’s ideas were similar in ways such as trust busting and conservation measures, his ideas were the framework for the U.S. William Howard Taft was the presidential candidate hand picked by Roosevelt.
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.