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

Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the communist regime from 1917 to 1964.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the communist regime from 1917 to 1964. Throughout the 1855-1964 period, opposition remained a constant threat to both communist and tsarist Governments. Opposition was largely unsuccessful throughout the period, only fully uniting in the February Revolution, an important turning point in the development of the Russian state that did not occur under communist. Several other factors including loyalty of the army, the varying degrees of control and terror towards the masses meant that opponents of the Tsars were more successful than those who opposed the communist regime. The army was an integral part of the Russian state throughout the 1855-1964 period, considerable continuity can be found in how Russian rulers used the army in dealing with opponents. When there was a rebellion in Hungary in 1955, Khrushchev sent in the army to crush it, the same course of action had been taken to crush the Polish revolt in 1861. Lenin used military force against the Green armies of the peasantry in the Civil War and the army had also been heavily employed under Alexander II, with military force being deployed 185 times between 1855-60 alone. ...read more.

Middle

The secret police were continually used throughout the period, and the lack of success opposition enjoyed under Alexander III in particular is in direct relation to the intensity of repression seen under the Okhrana - in contrast to the other Tsars of the period who were more relaxed. Whereas the Tsars had only identified existing threats, the communists targeted potential threats. The KGB continued many aspects of Tsarist repression which had been heavily intensified by the Cheka, which allowed Stalin to remove all traces of opposition including Zinoviev, Kamenev and the exiled Trotsky. Under the communists, new elements of control which were not present in Tsarist Russia sprang up. Millions of informants helped identify potential threats which reduced the effectiveness of opposition, and the workers were under much closer scrutiny. Discipline in the workplace had increased severely under Lenin and in addition to continuing this, the 5 year plans brought with them GOSPLAN and communal housing which allowed the regime to further control the workers, whose role was key to the success of the 1917 revolution. ...read more.

Conclusion

In contrast to the February Revolution where opponents had united and succeeded, the white armies during the Civil War were divided to such an extent that Lenin was able to defend his revolution. Stalin's Kulak purges were not met with high resistance because not all peasants shared the same vision as the Kulaks, and in a similar fashion Lenin was able to crush the Kronstadt rebellion. The lack of unity in mainstream politics is another reason why opponents to the communists were less successful than opponents to the tsars. In contrast to Nicholas II who was forced to abdicate as there was widespread opposition to him, Stalin was able to eliminate opponents in the Politburo one by one and maintain power. In conclusion, opponents to the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful than those who opposed the communist regime post 1917. The Tsarist regime only sought to eliminate existing threats which allowed some opponents to remain undetected, this was not the case under the communists. Similarly, the increase in repression seen under the communists had eliminated any trace of opposition, whereas Tsarist repression had merely aggravated opposition, resulting in the February Revolution which removed them from power. ...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

    Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve ...

    4 star(s)

    The peasantry were consistent opponents of Russian Government throughout the period, yet were rarely successful in doing so. One reason for this is the continuing role which the army played in limiting opposition from the peasantry, with military force frequently being deployed throughout the period.

  2. Assess the view that Russias communist leaders did less than the Tsars to improve ...

    Similarly in 1932 when collectivisation under Stalin did not have the desired impact, the Kulak's were accused of hoarding supplies as they had been under Lenin, who chose to send in the requisition squads. In contrast to the lack of interest regarding living conditions, sweeping reforms were introduced under the communists that aimed to improve working conditions for the peasantry.

  1. Hitler and the Nazi Regime - revision sheet.

    Ordensburgen(castles of youth)- Worthy youths could progress to these castles of order where their training as future political and military leaders was completed. They were housed in castles which held 1,000 students ranging from 25 to 30 years of age.

  2. How far do you agree Communist ideology influenced Stalin's decision to implement Collectivisation in ...

    However I think the arguments for deciding to collectivise have been skewed considerably by the terror that ensued. It is arguable that the terror did not begin until 1932, but I believe the terror was inevitable, when forcing the peasants to give such a large percentage of their grain to the state.

  1. The 1917 Revolution.

    The Austrians fell back and it seemed as if the army would give Kerensky the military success he wanted, but the Germans came to the aid of their allies and in the space of a few weeks the Russian were in retreat.

  2. How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following ...

    executed or imprisoned, Stalin had achieved this but at a terrible cost. It can also be argued that ideological opposition was rooted out with the collectivisation of the Kulaks, who were seen by Stalin as a threat to his power.

  1. How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning ...

    form of the Tsarist secret police, was created with the purpose to ?counter ? revolution and sabotage?, and its powers of arrest, detention and torture were unlimited. This is supported by Sheila Fitzpatrick, ?The Cheka became an organ of terror, dispensing summary justice such as executions?[7].

  2. The survival of the tsars regime in Russia between 1906 and 1914 was due ...

    By doctoring the electoral system, the 3rd Duma in 1907 had more deputies from moderate parties. This meant the tsar would have a more cooperative Duma which allowed him to secure his power. Stolypin was appointed President of Council of Ministers in July 1906 and like Witte, was dedicated to strengthening tsardom.

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