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

How far do you agree that a study of Russian government in the period 1855 to 1956 suggests that Russia did little more than exchange Romanov Tsars for Red Tsars(TM) from 1917?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far do you agree that a study of Russian government in the period 1855 to 1956 suggests that Russia did little more than exchange Romanov Tsars for 'Red Tsars' from 1917? This is a debate that many historians participate in on Russia's government. There are two sides to the argument either that Lenin and Stalin had in fact created a new, radical communist party or whether they had both just continued the previous Romanov Tsars' ideologies. One of the major differences between both Lenin and his predecessor Stalin, and the Romanov Tsars is that the first had to 'take' power. The Tsars claimed that they had been chosen by God to rule Russia so they, in effect, inherited there power. It was much harder for Lenin as he had to lead several uprisings such as the November Massacre. It was not until 25th October that Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized Petrograd and in turn took power for themselves. This is a key difference between the two powers as it shows how much Lenin was willing to go through in order to gain control. ...read more.

Middle

in order to get rid of any opposition standing in his way. Although the Cheka was supposedly only meant to be a short term group it still stands today as the KGB. This use of repression by the 'communists' was known as the 'Red Terror' and was carried out by the Cheka and the Red army. The use of repression by both the communists and the Tsars shows another strong link between the two, because neither didn't mind using force and terror in order to maintain power over Russia. However, when Lenin came into power he made new reforms which weren't conservative like the previous reforms made by the Tsars. One of the reforms made by Lenin was to try and make the government democratic as this was seen as a large section of Marxism. He created the reform that Russians could elect their own local constituents. Although on paper this sounds democratic, this is in fact not so as the people could only vote for other Bolshevik party members as Russia was at this time a one-party state. ...read more.

Conclusion

On one day alone he sentenced 6,000 of his own people to death. This number of murders in one day was more than the whole 100 year Romanov dynasty had accumulated. This gives us a very dark image of Stalin and shows that he was probably the most ruthless leader for Russia to have. This allows us to compare Stalin to the Tsars and shows that there were definite similarities between the two and it also allows us to see to what extend Stalin went in order to keep his power. True communism can never really occur in the world unless every single person agrees with it and work towards it, which is impossible as everyone has different opinions on different matters. It is due to this that Lenin and Stalin were in fact just continuing the work of the Romanovs by becoming Red Tsars themselves. The reason being that many of their reforms and 'creations', e.g. the Cheka, were in fact anti-communist. Many historians believe that both Leninism and Stalinism were at times on the brink of fascism which is the complete opposite to their 'supposed' Marxist views. Overall it was only until recently that Russia finally managed to boost democracy and improve the way the government is run. 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. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * Many of the leading generals must have been confidants of Trotsky, and there is evidence that still, in the 1930s, some leading Communists were maintaining links with Trotsky. Were the Purges simply random? * However, some historians argue that the Terror was really quite arbitrary, that the frightening thing

  2. Why Were There Two Revolutions in Russia in 1917?

    Again, sources differ on the details of how Kornilov's attack failed, but it seems there was no actual fighting, and that his troops may have disintegrated before reaching the capital. However, in his desperation, Kerensky had unwittingly given the Bolsheviks everything they needed.

  1. Leni Riefenstahl The Propagandist or Artist? A Historiographical Debate.

    * Finished Tieland, however, there was controversy about her possibly having used gypsies from a concentration camp as extras. * Leni found it too difficult to make more films after the war, and took up photography and continued her emphasis on physical beauty in her images of the Nuba tribe in Africa.

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

    Nicholas II attempted to do the same but had a much weaker than the other rulers. Despite some undoubted successes such as Lena Goldfields, the actions of Nicholas II show that the communists and tsars both ruled Russia in the same way with regards to repression.

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

    Despite these atrocities from the Tsarist regime continuing, the communists were not oblivious to the poor quality of life the urban workers were suffering from. Vast improvements in healthcare were made under the communists. The universal plan introduced by Stalin made medical care much more widely available, in contrast to

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

    The opposition was weak. Despite the unrest of 1905, the revolutionaries couldn?t capitalise on the discontent. Also, the peasantry hadn?t mobilised en masse, making it hard for a coherent opposition to form before 1914. Therefore the tsar was able to remain in power up for some time.

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

    However, Russian historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali do not believe that Khrushchev was a key turning point in Russia?s modernisation as they wrote that during the negotiations with Kennedy, Khrushchev was ?desperately trying to save face by achieving at least a small shift in the nuclear balance of power?14,

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

    The first wished to improve, make strong and saw a source of support from them. The latter wished to crush and eliminate ? Stalin viewing them as a threat to his paranoid fuelled attempt to consolidate his power. For much of time period, investment in agriculture was the means to

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