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

Discuss Trotsky's View that War was the Locomotive of History (1855-1914)

Extracts from this document...


Discuss Trotsky's View that War was the Locomotive of History (1855-1914) Trotsky once stated that 'War is the locomotive of history'. In hindsight, when one scrutinises Russia's history between 1856 and 1917, this statement is proven to have great foresight, for each war Russia became entangled in, proved to be a catalyst for great change, as they managed to highlight Russia's weaknesses, and thus placed a spotlight upon the shortcomings of Russian autocratic leadership. Such pressure prompted the Tsars to react and change in order to appease a nation on the brink of oncoming revolution. The 1856 Crimean War saw a new Russian leader grace the throne. Tsar Alexander II, a patriotic, religious and conservative autocrat, seemed, when combined with the defeat of the Crimean war, the perfect combination for change that would follow in the wake of such a disastrous defeat. Alexander's experience of the Government had convinced him of the need for change, which was ultimately reinforced by the Crimean War. It can be argued that his rather inauspicious start as Tsar by coming to power in the midst of the Crimean War would be a bad omen to the rest of his reign. However the war was not nearly as detrimental to his popularity as was immediately assumed, and seemed to push him towards the implementation of radical change, which took the form of Emancipation. The Crimean War was central to the process of change as it highlighted the failings in Russian society and once more focused attention upon the serf problem. The defeat had deeply affected Alexander, and left him feeling that he had failed in the protection and maintenance of the Great Russian State, and that it had been his duty to restore Russia's prestige and power. He also felt that the condition and structure of the Russian peasantry was a crucial factor in Russia's weaknesses. Both of Alexander II's predecessors had acknowledged this, but never actually managed to make any sort of significant impact regarding the issue. ...read more.


Years of repression combined with a failed military campaign could only be bad for Nicholas. A strong and decisive leader may have coped with this scenario. Nicholas appointed Prince Mirsky to be Minister of the Interior. It was a disastrous appointment. He believed in his own importance - he must, in his mind, be able to be appointed by the tsar to such an important position. In Mirsky's first press conference, he asked for the people to be confident in the government and to those present seemed to offer the chance of reform. This led to him being reprimanded by the tsar but the damage had been done. Many now expected reform and would accept nothing less. In fact, Mirsky's lack of political experience was exploited here. In the past, a tsar had refused all calls for any form of a national meeting to discuss "issues". Such a meeting might lead to calls for a national assembly. The fact that Mirsky did allow such a meeting to go ahead, was a sign that autocracy was starting to be challenged. The Russo Japanese War had clearly lead to Revolution in 1905, and for the first time in October the Tsarist regime was faced with its most united opposition in Tsarist history. Concession seemed inevitable in an attempt to divide opposition. An attempt to try and appease the Liberals lead to the creation of the 'October Manifesto', which was the effective establishment of a legislative Duma, which was to act as a Parliament with law making powers. The manifesto also contained a promise to introduce a wide range of civil rights such as free speech and the legalising of trade unions. The liberals were, for the time being satisfied and their thirst for reform, temporarily quelled. The peasants were also seduced by the eventual abolishment of redemption payments. The liberals and the peasants were easily satisfied by bribery, however industrial workers would not be so easily convinced and it was clear a more violent approach was indispensable. ...read more.


Michael's refusal to accept the throne marked the end of Imperial Russia. Russia's participation in war, and more significantly defeat that left the nation in tatters, again proves Trotsky correct. The defeat resurfaced rife discontent that had been omnipresent in Russia after each and every war. War was the outlet for the discontent, and allowed Russians to unite and force change by means of revolution. Defeat in World War One had had the same impact as the previous two wars of 1856 and 1905, however this time there was no defence and the result was the collapse of autocracy and Romanov rule. War was the main ingredient that catalysed the need for change and granted the opportunity for this change to occur. War in Russia had brought to the surface the underlying issues that had always been close to erupting and were finally allowed to do so again by the impact of war, which indeed again, succeeded in being the locomotive for change and history. However, change cannot be merely identified as measures introduced and carried out by the Tsars, but change must also be identified as the changes in the attitudes and mindset of the population. Obviously change was introduced on a practical level, such as the concessions granted after 1905, but many many attitudes were changed in the aftermath of the wars that were very significant because every time a war arose, changes were implemented which influenced peoples opinions and attitudes to the regime. The constant wars and revolutions that riddled Russia always influenced peoples' judgments and this definitely lead to the eventual over throwing of the Tsarist regime. So all in all, it is fair to conclude that Trotsky's statement is indeed very true, and significant to understanding the impact of war upon a nation. However, it can be argued is it war that causes change, or the defeat in war that leads to change. Either way, war can be highlighted as the principal component in creating change, and I believe this would happen whether a country benefits from victory or suffers defeat. ...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 International History, 1945-1991 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 International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    At first the Italians faced considerable opposition, as the Abyssinians avoided a pitched battle and retreated slowly. * The situation changed, however, in early 1936, Mussolini ordered the use of poison gas. Italian air power also began to tell and this led to the collapse of the Abyssinian forces.

  2. The great Patriotic war - From incompetence to victory.

    They made almost no effort before 1937 to build-up their military and defense industry that could be used to augment their diplomatic efforts. The geopolitics of the region, at that time, and perceived dangers from his neighbors in Europe made Stalin suspicious of all imperialist powers and drove his desperate search for security.

  1. Why did tsarism collapse?

    demonstrations in Petrograd the soldiers at the front were terribly confused and turned against their officers as they perceived that they were holding information back from them. This was worsened by an order coming from Trotsky's Petrograd Soviet called Order no. 1 which called for a democratisation of the army.

  2. Khrushchev's attempts at modernisation.

    Khrushchev had been warned about this but had ignored experts because he claimed that he knew better. Such was the failure of his agricultural reforms that in 1963 and 1964 the Soviet Union was forced to import grain from the United States.

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    Not only did the Cold War define America's stance in the world, dictating foreign policy choices from Southeast Asia to Latin-America; it defined the contours of domestic politics as well. No group could secure legitimacy for its political ideas if they were critical of American foreign policy, sympathetic in any

  2. American History.

    These ended b/c: (1) ministers started to disapprove (2) the royal charter was implemented and (3) people in high places were accused. 4) Poor, single females were accused 5. Prominent leaders of the Great Awakening John Locke said that men ruled the government..

  1. How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914?

    society, but according to the rate of progress, Figes argues "it would have taken the best part of a century for the regime to create the strong agrarian bourgeoisie that it had evidently decided to stake its future. His conclusion on the subject is that the 'land enclosure movement', had, like all other tsarist reforms, come too late.

  2. To what extent do the sources agree that Russian government policy on agriculture consistently ...

    Some of the sources do need to be treated with some question due to the writer of the source being objective as in sources 3 and 4, but all of the sources do agree that all of the agricultural policies during the period did fail to some extent.

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