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 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.
The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change. World War One bought the most transformation as it ended Tsarist rule and contributed to the failings of the provisional government. The Crimean war and the Russo-Japanese war both bought significant changes but acted as more of a catalyst to the developments rather than being the sole cause. Furthermore the wars that were won often bought very little change to Russia such as the Russo-Turkish war. Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change.
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.
Nicholas II Nicholos II as Autocrat - What makes a greal leader? Vision Fair/just Education Authority Passionaite Paitience Confidence Ambitious Good judgement Inispirational Determined In your opinion, did nicholos and Alexandra have the qualities neccessary to rule successfully? The Controversial Tsar Nicholos II and his wife Alexandra did noy posses the qualities that were necessary to successfully lead because their priorities were else where. The Tsar and Tsrina faild to aplly the traits that would successfully rule an empire as large as Russia. Through the pperistence of Alexandra, Nicholas rules as an autocraft.
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
These views, be it the soviet view or the traditional liberal view, both take into consideration the strengths and the weaknesses of the regime, and help picture to what extent the February Revolution of 1917 could have been called inevitable. Historians such as Christopher Read, believes that the overthrow of the monarchy was not an inevitable event in Russia at the time, given that there was no war. This can be supported through the series of attempts the Duma did in order to improve conditions for the people of Russia. One of these attempts in the government was by Prime Minister Peter Stolypin. Even though he was a cold-hearted representative of the government and introduced strict repressive measures that got over 4,000 people killed, he brought reforms and made effective methods to get on the peasant’s side.
You could easily say that after WWI, many Americans would characterize our country’s state of fear of being undermined. Americans were definitely traditionalists after WWI , who only wanted policies of conformity and intolerance. This led to very conservative policies by our government which would conflict with fresh progressive ides coming off the progressive era. The Scopes trial of 1925 proved intolerance between traditionalists and modernists. Traditionalists obviously wanted things to stay the same and still go with the bible instead of teaching evolution.
Finally the failures of the Provisional Government made them vulnerable which coincidentally worked to advantage the Bolsheviks. Personally, I believe that the vulnerable position of the Provisional Government, timing of the governments mistakes, discontent of the soldiers as well as the workers and the occasional guidance from other Bolshevik leaders, was exploited by Lenin, alongside his popular policies and leadership skills he catalyzed the revolution that was inevitable, planning it in such a way that it would benefit long term and not short-term as it had done in 1905 and February 1917. In disagreement, the failures of the provisional government to make the correct decisions led to the Bolsheviks’ success because the Bolsheviks were efficient in using this time to take control of the vulnerability of the Provisional Government which had caused this upon itself. The first mistake was allowing Lenin return from Germany in April as a part of democracy terms, since Lenin, despite being
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. The problems in ideology could be seen to link to the problems with agriculture as it was the Kulak class that Stalin held responsible for hoarding the grain and demanding higher prices for it, thus if the ideology changed to rid Soviet society of such elements, then haste could be seen to be of importance. However this was not the only problem with Russian agriculture. Farming methods were