How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
How far do you agree that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government? In October 1917 the Bolshevik’s took control of Russia after staging a revolution. However they faced many dangers/threats while in power from the years 1917-1924 such as a civil war and the economic crisis it caused. The leadership of the red army by Trotsky is a very important reason that the Bolsheviks got into power as his red army implanted the revolution but also to the survival of the Bolsheviks as the red army overcame the Bolsheviks biggest threat of the civil war. However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power.
Historians such as Hobsbawn argue this, and believe that the traditional great power rivalry was fundamental to the start of the Cold War. Many different historians argue different points as to why the war began, McMahon argues that the difference between the Capitalist West and the Communist East was the fundamental reason for the beginning of the Cold War, the difference in ideology has been rife for many years leading up to the Cold War. Oppositely, Gaddis believes that the personality of the leaders, in particular Stalin had a main role and where he is concerned, all other leaders could have been removed, leaving only Stalin and the Cold War still would of started. I believe that the difference in Ideologies played a key, dominant role in the development of the Cold War, however I do appreciate that power rivalry and also leader personalities had a role. Firstly, Hobsbawn immediately dismisses the fact that ideology played a role in the development of the Cold War, he says ‘Confrontation would probably have developed even without ideology.’ Hobsbawn then goes onto say that after Kennan came up with his policy of Containment, the USA saw themselves as the only ‘rival power to Russia’ and that they would have to ‘contain its pressure by uncompromising resistance, even If Russia had not been communist’.
There is debate on whether the development of the Russian government was influenced mainly by war, or other factors in the ideology and personal beliefs of the ruler, or Opposition to the ruler. The development of Russian government can be defined as a change in type or style of the leadership and the extent of consultation or representation that the Russian people have within their government. War is ultimately the driving force behind nearly every reform and change in government in Russia, nearly every governmental change can be traced back to a need to improve the military capability of Russia. During the period from 1855 to 1924 there was a variety of Opposition groups to the Tsarist and Communist governments, however due to the fact that the majority of which were unsuccessful in inducing change, their influence on the development of the Russian government was not as much as that of war. Opposition did influence governmental change under every ruler apart from Alexander III who kept the opposition “underground”.
How far do you agree that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way? The February Revolution of 1917 that brought down the Tsarist regime and led to the ascension of the Provisional Government, had much potential to bring about significant change from the autocratic regime of the Tsars. However, the totalitarian government of the communists seized power in the October Revolution and continued to maintain many aspects of Tsarist rule including the top-down approach to rule, their ideology in policy making and their repressive methods. Although the communists and Tsars appeared to rule differently in their theory, in practice their methods were to a very large extent the same. The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology.
Powaski argues that “That the Cold War was inevitable. From the Very Beginning of the Russian- American relationship, except for a brief period in 1917, the ideologies of the two nations were fundamentally incompatible. (1) For Powaski to verify his perceptive on the Cold war he provided an insight on American- Soviet relations in 1917. In 1917 Russia was in a revolution and a provisional government was formed and
Which Tsar caused the greatest change in Russia from 1855-1918? Change caused by the Tsars can be put into three sections. These are the number of people affected by the policies, how much change caused and how much of a turning point over the history of Russia. When discussing Russia I will be focusing on the social and domestic policies of a particular Tsar over the period. Of the Tsars I believe that Alexander II, called the ‘Tsar Liberator’, caused the biggest change over the period.
‘While Lenin traditionally receives all the praise, Trotsky was actually the primary reason why there was a Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and thus deserves the most credit.’ Leon Trotsky, along with Vladimir Lenin played a fundamental role in the 1917 Russian Revolution. There have been many attempts to distort and even to deny the role of Trotsky, especially on the part of the official tyranny historians. Right wing historians such as Richard Pipes see Trotsky as just another demanding leader much the same as Lenin and Stalin. However, the left wing view of Trotsky consists of those who still accept the Stalinist version of events. Isaac Deutscher is one historian who has the contrasting views of the right wing historian, Pipes.
By early 1917 all the ingredients for revolution existed in Russia. (a) What does Source A tell us about the problems facing Tsar Nicholas II in 1917? (4 marks) (b) Describe the key features of the government of Russia under Tsar Nicholas II before the revolution in February 1917. (6 marks) (c) Explain the effects of the February Revolution on Russia in 1917. (8 marks) (d) Explain why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in October 1917.
From 1800 to 1950, there was much change within the Russian government. The political policies and beliefs of Nicolas I, Alexander II, Alexander III, and Nicolas II were in a constant fluctuation a short period of time. Nicolas I and Alexander III were the leaders who were against reform and enforced extreme Communist ways upon Russia while Alexander II and Nicolas II were the ones who wanted reform. There was another major change in Russia’s government due to the shift from Lenin to Stalin. Lenin was a triumphant ruler who was the mastermind behind many good things that came out of Russia.