• 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. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent does Stalin deserve the title of Red Tsar when assessing his ...

    5 star(s)

    as the 'Father of Russia'6 never appeared in such extreme force under Lenin nor Khrushchev. Therefore historian Moshe Lewin argues that Stalin's system of government was "a hybrid of Marxism and Tsarism"7, as a creation of a cult of personality contains few Marxist-Leninist roots, but harkens back to the Russian tradition of leader worship.

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * Recent work suggests we should not view the Terror as a whole, carefully planned series of events, but as a series of unconnected events, as responses to specific problems as they arose. * It shows not the strength of Stalin's government but it's weakness - i.e.

  1. Stalin's Impact On Russia And The Russian People.

    There was also an enormous human cost. But the fact remains that by 1937, the USSR was a modern state and it was this that saved it from defeat when Hitler invaded in 1941. This was a long-term effect of the Five-Year Plans.

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

    Although the party continued to work away to local working-class organisations, gain the support of increasing members of the public and some key individuals who were disillusioned with the Provisional Government's actions (including former Menshevik, Leon Trotsky), they might never have recovered from the July Days were it not for the events in the Provisional Government soon after.

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

    There is also considerable continuity in the use of the secret police throughout the period, as the 3rd section under Alexander II right up to the KGB under Khrushchev shows. Similarly to Alexander II easing censorship, Khrushchev relaxed many aspects of Stalinist repression, briefly abolishing the death penalty and treating opponents more leniently.

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

    The notion of guilt by association continues to cloud any rational verdict on her moral culpability for promoting Hitler's demonic Reich through her films.' * She has been described as an egotist, driven by ambition and not as politically innocent as she claimed rather as someone who took advantage of

  1. 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

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

    so effectively that it guaranteed the very survival of the Soviet Union?[10] showing that without Stalin and his Plan, Russia would not have been capable of surviving World War two. This argument is given weight by another British historian, Oxford University tutor Robert Service who, regarding the second Five Year Plan, wrote ?gross industrial output in 1937 ...

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