• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

War is the locomotive of History. How far do you agree with this judgement in relation to Russia in the years 1855-1918?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"War is the locomotive of History". How far do you agree with this judgement in relation to Russia in the years 1855-1918? During Alexander II reign (1855-1881) war was not actually a factor in the changes to Russia purely because there were no wars during the time. This meant that other factors had a greater impact on the way Russia was governed. Before Alexander II became on the throne there was already opposition and unrest from the peasants and the poorer sides of the country. For example the Decembrist revolt in 1825, during Alexander I reign, caused much disrupt in the way Russia was run. So Alexander II had to make massive changes to the Russian government and laws. He did this by creating many reforms. Emancipation of the serfs was one, this was an attempt to get the peasants on his 'wavelength' by setting them free from their noble bosses and selling them their own land. Unfortunately for the Tsar this did not work as it just caused more unrest as the peasants went into huge amounts of debt in order to pay for their newly acquired land. Another reform that had to be passed by Alexander II was also due to opposition, only this time it was from the military. ...read more.

Middle

It was due to Pobedonostev that the Tsar created 'the Reaction' of increasing repression and terror tactics. Another individual who was also greatly linked with the economy factor was the Russian minister of finance, Count Sergei Witte. His aims where modernise Russia and maintain her position as a great power. Sergei had great influence over Alexander III decision making and was a big factor in the country's mass industrialization. Once again during this time period of 13 years war did not have any say in Russia's history. It was the two individuals that had the greatest influence upon the extreme 'right' ideologies of Russia's government, not to mention the assassination of Alexander III father which created much hatred within his policies. Comparing Alexander III reign to his fathers it is obvious that opposition and unrest had an opposite effect as it was due to Alexander III harsh and repressive rule that opposition became rife. Nicholas II (1894-1917) was very different to his two predesecers as when he got on to the throne he admitted that he was not prepared for the task of being Tsar. Despite this he still shared the views of his father on autocracy and tried to continue with a ruling of repression. ...read more.

Conclusion

At first the war initially enhanced his position as it was a sign of Russia's pride and resistance. Unfortunatly for the Tsar the war did not go to plan as despite his army's immense size it was crippled by a lack of equipment due to poor administration. This meant that his popularity soon fell and opposition such as the Socialist: Bolsheviks, SRs and the Mensheviks began to plan the 1917 revolution. So once again war became a very important factor in the way Russia was run because for a second time it had caused unrest amongst the people except this time it signaled the end to the Romanov legacy. So, on the 26th February 1917, Nicholas II agreed to abdicate on his own and stepped down from power leaving Russia a republic after 304 years of Romanov rule. During Nicholas' rule it was a mixture of all the different factors that causes the Tsar to step down but it could be said that War was the creator of the other factors. For example the opposition would have been crushed if Russia defeated Japan in 1904, and had Russia kept out of WWI then Nicholas may have reigned till his death. All this is just speculation as it was due to the Wars that the Romanov destiny sunk like the Russian navy in the Japanese war. Tom Gunhouse ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his ...

    5 star(s)

    The key economic comparison is between the rulers, is the 'Great Spurt' under Sergi Witte during Alexander III reign, versus the 'Great Turn' under Stalin. Stalin's 'Great Turn' brought many changes both economically, politically and culturally, and his "forced industrialisation"36 and focus on heavy industry was driven by the need

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * Each area was given a target of Kulak families to arrest and deport. An almost arbitrary terror descended on the villages. * Nevertheless there was huge opposition from the peasants, especially when the Churches were ransacked or turned into barns or meeting places and personal property was confiscated too in some areas.

  1. To what extent were technological changes the biggest feature in the changing nature of ...

    So leadership wasn't a large change in the nature of warfare but a reason that new military technology was so effective. It'simportance to the outcomes of wars was crucuial however, as these old tactics and methods meant death tolls of battles were much higher and that more men would be

  2. Rasputin had such an influence over the Tsar and Tsaritsa because the Tsarevich suffered ...

    The provisional Government would see this as treason. Kerensky was a patriotic Russian who wanted to continue fighting in the war until Germany was defeated, he did not want to let down his allies; Britain, France. He desired to see Russia carry on the war till a "democratic peace" had been won; while he wanted to combat to

  1. The importance of the First World War as a turning point in the development ...

    Overall the World War had limited economic impact. Other turning points such as Stalins' five year plans had a much greater impact. Stalin managed to improve production levels to equal the West's which had been a major aim of all Russian governments since the start of the period and was only ever neared during Witte's Great Spurt in 1905.

  2. Vietnam war

    Liberation Front (NLF), and by the South Vietnamese and the USA: USA Tactics * US Air Force analyst in regards to American tactics: unparalleled, lavish use of firepower as a substitute for manpower.

  1. How far did government policies change towards agriculture in Russia in the period 1856-1964? ...

    million tons between 1961-4.[40] These figures are misleading however as, for example, the harvest of 1963 only produced 107 million tons:[41] this was due to the unreliability of the land. Erosion by wind alone meant that 13,000 square miles of land had its topsoil removed in 1960.[42] Be that as

  2. 'Alexander III was the most successful Tsar in the period 1855-1917'. How far do ...

    However, in spite of this problematic approach, the subsequent minister, Witte began a programme of desperately needed industrialisation - starting with the trans-Siberian railway (a continuation of Alexander II's railway expansion). This not only linked up large parts of the country (in particular areas of Siberia), but also stimulated internal growth (particularly in heavy industry)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work