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

Did Lenin change Russia for better or for worse since the November revolution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Did Lenin change Russia for better or for worse since the November revolution? I think that overall, he changed Russia for the better, but, how he got there was a very difficult route. Lenin must have been making decision on a very long term scale, because some made at the time wouldn't have seemed very positive. Yet these decisions helped shape the prospering Russia. In 1924, Economy was booming and the masses were happy. Lenin's NEP enabled the peasants who worked harder, to earn a better life. Sounds similar to capitalism methinks. But his propaganda could cover this fact up as he claimed it to only be a temporary solution to Russia's problems. Seeing as the public was happy, the communist party had better control of the state, which was now the USSR. Some may argue that it was worse than it was before under the provisional government as a result of Lenin's extreme methods used in times of trouble, e.g. ...read more.

Middle

5. Both sources B and C give the fact that was a lot of pillaging of small towns during the civil war. There were beatings of peasants and other villagers. But both sides claim another did it. This tells me that the peasants and workers of innocent towns were not treated well by either side. The Armies considered themselves to be the most powerful forces, and could take what they needed, because they were "doing it for the greater good," 6. This statement is very exact. Therefore I would disagree, even though the fact that the whites were lacking in organisation and were fighting on seven different fronts did come into play. I would say that The Reds did have many positive points, which eventually led them to victory. Many of these are stated in source D. We know for a fact that Lenin and Trotsky were very intelligent military leaders, especially Trotsky, and would be able to successfully manoeuvre. ...read more.

Conclusion

Between 1934 and 1938 he inaugurated a massive purge of the party, government, armed forces, and intelligentsia in which millions of so-called "enemies of the people' were imprisoned, exiled, or shot. In 1938 he signed the Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler which bought the Soviet Union two years respite from involvement in World War II. After the German invasion (1941), the USSR became a member of the Grand Alliance, and Stalin, as war leader, assumed the title of generalissimo. He took part in the conferences of Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam which resulted in Soviet military and political control over the liberated countries of postwar E and C Europe. From 1945 until his death he resumed his repressive measures at home, and conducted foreign policies which contributed to the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. He was posthumously denounced by Khrushchev at the 20th Party Congress (1956) for crimes against the Party and for building a "cult of personality'. Under Gorbachev many of Stalin's victims were rehabilitated, and the whole phenomenon of "Stalinism' officially condemned by the Soviet authorities. ...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. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    its citizens was to work for the greater good of the state; the 'state' being the leadership of Joseph Stalin. * Whilst this meant that industrial and agricultural resources could all be used for a single purpose, it also meant that individuality was suppressed and new ideas strangled.

  2. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    the former president of the State Duma: "Petrograd appears threatened....I say, to hell with Petrograd....People fear our central institutions in Petrograd will be destroyed. To this, let me say that I should be glad if these institutions were destroyed because they have brought Russia nothing but grief."

  1. Russia 1905-1941 'Explain how the unpopularity of the Provisional Government contributed to the Bolshevik ...

    This proves in history that great leaders are as important as ideas, especially the translation of ideology in a political party. However, it must also be remembered that other factors also played important roles in Revolution, including the First World War and the appeal of Marxism.

  2. "Mussolini was an all powerful dictator" - How accurate is this statement?

    policies The Church also influential made a compromise to stay out of politics in return for state funding Mussolini managed to corrupt the Pope by handing back some land taken in the Italian unification so that there could be a papal state and Mussolini also granted indemnities for the land kept.

  1. The Significance of Lenin in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917-1923)

    Peasants began subsistence farming to look after their own families, but this led to massive food shortages in towns and cities and in the army. It was essential that this problem was solved otherwise the Bolshevik Red Army would have struggled to continue the war.

  2. The enormous role that Trotsky played in the success of the Bolsheviks up until ...

    His main task was to create quickly, an efficient and skilled army out of a rabble of workers and peasants that had the ability to equal and overcome the White army. At first, men were reluctant to fight. Trotsky, however, knowing how starving most of Russia was, made sure that the soldiers were the best fed people in Russia.

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

    Stalin prioritised industry always before agriculture, and his policies were reflected as such throughout his leadership. Conversely, throughout his leadership, Khrushchev put agricultural at the centre of his government?s policy ? perhaps realizing that socialism needed to be built from the roots up.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    Moved the USSR further along the road to Socialism ï class differences in the countryside were abolished. Social impact: 1. Millions of peasants died or had their lives disrupted. 2. Although internal passports (1932) restricted movement, millions left the countryside for towns, leaving a serious population imbalance.

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