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

How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia, during the period 1856 1964?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far could the fall of the Tsars be considered the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia, during the period 1856 ? 1964? During the period 1856 ? 1964 it could be viewed that there were many events, both political and economical, which could be considered turning points in the development of modern Russia for the impact they had on the country, and there is much historical debate over which was most significant. The strongest argument is that the fall of the Tsars was the most significant turning point, as it signified the beginning of the rule of the people and the Bolsheviks who replaced state capitalism with war communism in 1918. Historian Kevin Ramage supports this view and wrote that the end of Romanov rule ?culminated in the coming to power of the working class, led by the Bolshevik Party?[1]. However, there are other turning points which could be considered to be the most significant, such as events during Tsarist rule or in that of Stalin or Khrushchev, or even World War One, which Glenn E. Curtis believed ?exposed the weakness of Nicholas II's government?[2], which allowed it to fall, which could make it the most significant turning point as without it, the Bolsheviks would not have come to power. The fall of the Tsars was the most significant turning point in the development of modern Russia as after the abdication of Nicholas II following the 1917 February ...read more.

Middle

had increased by three fifths over output in 1932?[11]. This was definitely necessary to do before the war as Stalin had to equip Russia?s large army, so had to modernise the country industrially. It could also be seen that Stalin?s politics regarding the Five Year Plans modernised the education of Russia as the initial ideas of Lenin and the Bolsheviks included an ?attack on book learning and traditional academic standards?[12]. This then meant that during the time of Stalin, people were entering the work place with inadequate education. To address this problem, Stalin introduced a new education system during the 1930s, which included ten years of compulsory education for children and a curriculum which taught the key subjects, so that they were prepared to join the workforce and help modernise Russia. Additionally, it has been suggested that it was Khrushchev?s reign from 1953 and not that of the Bolsheviks which was a key turning point in the development of modern Russia as Khrushchev criticised Stalin for his personality cult and therefore, the de-Stalinisation of the Soviet Union began. This view is supported by Glenn E. Curtis, ?Khrushchev denounced Stalin's tyrannical reign in 1956?[13] as he was ?signalling a sharp break with the past?. This sharp break from the past can be seen when considering the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis because this event could be viewed as the beginning of the end of the Cold War, as a consequence of Khrushchev attempting to install missiles ...read more.

Conclusion

Curtis - The Last Years of the Autocracy - http://countrystudies.us/russia/7.htm [3] Dr J E Swain - http://www.pinkmonkey.com/studyguides/subjects/worldhis/chap12/w1212301.asp [4] Christopher Hill ? Lenin and the Russian Revolution - published 1971 [5] Michael Lynch ? Reaction and Revolutions: Russia, 1894-1924 ? published 2005 [6] Glenn E. Curtis - Revolutions and Civil War - http://countrystudies.us/russia/8.htm [7] Sheila Fitzpatrick ? The Russian Revolution ? published 1982 [8] Alex De Jonge - ?Life and Times of Grigorii Rasputin? ? published 1982. [9] Margaret Cambridge - http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/russia/stalin/5yearplan.htm [10] Stephen J Lee - Russia and the USSR, 1855-1991: autocracy and dictatorship ? published 2001 ? page 146 [11] Robert Service ? Stalin, A Biography ? published 2004 ? page 318 [12] Michael Lynch ? Bolshevik and Stalinist Russia 1918-56 ? published 2005 ? page 163 [13] Glenn E. Curtis ? The Khrushchev Era - http://countrystudies.us/russia/13.htm [14] Russian historians - Khrushchev's Cold War: The Inside Story of an American Adversary ? published 2006 ? page 489 [15] Khrushchev?s son - http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/17-04-2004/56652-0/ [16] Joel Carmichael ? A Short History of the Russian Revolution ? page 19 [17]Honna Michelle Eichler ? History 2260 - Modern World, September 12, 2003 - http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/easteurope/FreeSerfs.html [18] Huge Seton-Watson ? The Russian Empire 1801-1917 (Great Britain; Oxford University Press, 1967) ? page 341 [19] Glenn E. Curtis ? The Last Years of Autocracy - http://countrystudies.us/russia/7.htm [20] Hutchinson Encyclopaedia ...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)

    But Stalin's "nationalism in form, socialist in content"14, harkened back to the "Great Russian Empire" under rulers such as Peter the Great and Ivan the Terrible15, this nationalism forced the Russian population into patriotism, like that experienced under the Tsars, which was never experienced to the same extent under Lenin or Khrushchev.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    This had again demonstrated that the peasantry were often used as a scapegoat and neglected in favour of industry throughout the period. In contrast, the agrarian reforms under Stolypin brought real improvement and some argue that this was the most prosperous time for the peasantry within the period.

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * Stalin presented himself as the leading disciple of Lenin and in this way was able to present his analysis of Lenin's thought to the masses. * Stalin, although a Georgian by nationality, understood the advantage of promoting Russian nationalism.

  2. How far was the First World War the main cause of the fall of ...

    in the eyes of the Russian public, made Nicholas personally responsible for the failure of the war. Also, during the War, Nicholas had refused to work with the Duma, and was not prepared to make concessions to the representative government, which did not comply well with a positive future for

  1. 'Communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way.' How far do you agree ...

    The army was continually used by both communist and tsars too. The Polish Revolt in 1863 was easily crushed by the Russian military, and in 1956 the Hungary Rebellion faced the same level of brute force. This showed how the importance of the army to the Russian state, evident in 1855, had remained the case in 1964.

  2. Compare and Contrast the February and October Revolutions in Russia.

    Following the February Revolution, tzar Nicolas II laid down his title of tzar, but in truth he was actually still in control of Russia?s government. Prince Gregory Lvov was named prime minister in that short period of time, but this reign didn?t last very long at all.

  1. How far did Russia undergo economic and political modernization from 1881-1905?

    The number of these also increased as people got more and more angry at the Tsar and upper class?s governing incompetence. Russia?s political backwardness was also highlighted by the existence of the ?dark masses? who were feared and viewed with contempt by the governing elite.

  2. How significant was foreign influence in shaping Italian political and social development in the ...

    determined to restore the Pope."[6] This revealed a changed political mind-set for many middle class Italians: that secular republicanism was impossible as the papacy was supported by two European giants. A foreign power was clearly needed, as shown from the brutal crushing of the 1848 revolutions, before any form of Mazzinian unity or even separatist republics could develop.

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