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

How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following the revolutions of 1917, the Russian people simply exchanged one form of autocracy for another?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following the revolutions of 1917, the Russian people simply exchanged one form of autocracy for another? The term autocracy can be defined as a system of government in which all power is invested in an individual; in Tsarist Russia, this meant the Tsar had all authority. Autocracy under the Tsars can be split into several features: ability to create policy and laws, to appoint and dismiss ministers as he saw fit, using the Orthodox Church to underpin these ideas. Repression of political opponents was a further feature, alongside the use of the nobility to control the regions. Under the Bolsheviks, however, it could be viewed that the Government was the key area where the country was governed - it seems more likely though that actual power lay within the party - and the individual leaders themselves in particular. Without the Orthodox Church, terror and purges under the Bolsheviks kept the people in line in a similar way the Church did under the Tsars. Repression was not merely limited to political opponents; the party itself and the army bore much of the brunt of Stalin's purges - and the use of the 'Nomenklatura' aided in creating a central core within the party to control the regions of the Soviet Union. ...read more.

Middle

In comparison Stalin also mounted the 'revolution from above' when he decided to enforce change on the peasantry and opt for rapid industrialisation through the command economy - Gosplan. Although there were attempts to modernise industry under Nicholas II in the 1890s with French investment, and Witte's Great Spurt, nothing compared to the scale of industrialisation under Stalin, which arguably changed the Soviet Union ultimately into a great power, something the Tsars never achieved. Though the scale and priority differed measurably, the fact that there were attempts at industrialisation under the Tsars illustrates the similarity in the two systems. The third major feature of autocracy under the Tsars was repression of political opponents. It featured internal and external exile, and a Secret Police - the Third Section under Alexander II, succeeded by the Okhrana which was established by the Statute of State Security under Alexander III, killing 14,000 opponents in its existence. Repression under the Bolsheviks shared many of the same characteristics: the secret Police (Cheka 1917-22, OGPU 1922-34 and NKVD 1934-1954), and similar exile processes. However, under the Tsars repression was largely only political; however Lenin and Stalin developed this theme with Religious repression with the Great Terror, continued until the re-opening of the Churches in the Great Patriotic War, and purges of the party and army under Stalin. ...read more.

Conclusion

of ranks, with accompanying benefits but as previously mentioned were at a higher risk of being attacked to show a lesson to others; and the system of privileges utilised the desire within the party to become one of the Nomenklatura, this ultimately kept everybody loyal to the leader. Overall it can be seen that although the Tsars and Bolsheviks were given support of different elite bodies, they served very familiar roles, so in that way they are similar. Finally, it can be easily seen that throughout the major features of the autocracy under the Tsars, there are stark similarities with the major features of the 'autocracy' under Lenin and Stalin. The concept that Stalin was a 'Red Tsar' can be thoroughly supported in terms of the amount of power they ultimately held, methods used to control the population for their individual means, ruthless repression of opponents and use of an elite to support their regime. The only real evidence to suggest there is nothing other than similarities between the two autocracies of the Tsars and Bolsheviks is the scale of their operations, particularly repression - however it is clear that the two systems share the same basis for repression, such as the existence of a Secret Police and exile. Lenin shares slightly fewer similarities with the Tsars, however ultimately his policies, too, were largely Capitalist for instance NEP. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...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)

    Therefore both rulers commanded and frightened the Russian people with their tempers, making Stalin a Red Tsar. The fear that Stalin implemented was reinforced by his use of use of ideology, which was reminiscent of the religious attitudes under the Tsars, as his use of glorification kept a tight reign on the Russian people.

  2. Did Stalin betray the Russian Revolution?

    At the same time Stalin made his own form of government inseparable in the public eye from Leninism, appearing alongside him not only in posters but also ultimately in death, in the Lenin Mausoleum. It could be said that in many ways Stalin 'personalised' the USSR.

  1. Explain why the opponents of the Tsars from 1855 to 1917 were more successful ...

    The sheer scale of terror inflicted under Stalin and Lenin was far greater than anything seen in Tsarist Russia, whereas Stolypin's necktie had resulted in few executions and was ineffective by comparison to communist Governments, where he constant threat of death, exile to Siberia or the Gulag remained.

  2. The Russian Revolution of October 1917 was potentially the most politically formative event of ...

    Partial involvement was due to the sudden withdrawal of Russia from the First World War, and the store of arms and weaponry which had been amassed in the region. Further, with Lenin's communist ideals came the firm decision to refuse to acknowledge Russia's debts, and to isolate the country (with the exception of the Comintern)

  1. .Compare the Characters and beliefs of Lenin and Stalin. Lenin and Stalin had many ...

    There were many revolts and mutinies due to Lenin's War Communism, (e.g. Kronstadt Mutiny of 1921) which Lenin ordered to be put down ruthlessly. * By 1920/1921 there was major economic problems and unrest. Now the Civil War had been won, it was necessary for Lenin to keep support of the people and to keep control of the public opinion.

  2. Why Stalin was able to hold on to power in the Soviet Union: ...

    way for Russia to survive, and so would have been extremely impressed after Stalin caused Russia to become second to only the USA in industrial production. Stalin was also extremely aware of the importance of his image, and how the impression he made on people affected the way in which he could govern.

  1. How far was Russian economic policy determined by practical requirements between 1881 and 1922?

    War Communism contained economic policies such as the requisition of grains from peasants, the re-introduction of hierarchy within the army and the nationalisation of industry that would enable the government to increase its likelihood of winning the Civil War. These economic policies made sure that the Red Army was adequately fed, led efficiently by competent admirals and generals (including Trotsky)

  2. 'Alexander III was the most successful Tsar in the period 1855-1917'. How far do ...

    He also ended militaty colonies, reduced the size of annual conscription and the length of service ? all in order to create a smaller, more effective (and professional), and less expensive army (and in spite of great opposition by the nobility all his reforms were passed and successful.

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