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

Stalin was more successful in modernising Russias economy than either the Tsars or Lenin between 1855-1956. How far is this a valid assessment?

Extracts from this document...


"Stalin was more successful in modernising Russia's economy than either the Tsars or Lenin between 1855-1956. " How far is this a valid assessment? Over the time period 1855-1956, Russia underwent hugely dramatic changes, in such a relatively short amount of time the country and its people was ruled by different groups and people, with different ideologies and stances and the economy, and more specifically industrialization. Although on the face of things, it is obviously apparent that Stalin was the most successful at achieving a " modernised economy ", the context of the situation he inherited and manipulated was unique, and this modernisation came at great cost. Stalin and Lenin both built on the structure that the Tsars created, although it was not nearly enough to stabilize Russia's economy, it was a start. Before explaining what impact each of these individuals had on the economy, it is important to understand the background of Russia's economy, both agricultural and industrial. ...read more.


Concerning industry, there was a low level of this also considering the size of Russia, because the majority of the working population lived rurally, urban factories and workers had only a limited amount of available work. In 1855, it is safe to say that Russia's economy needed a kick start; it was starting to become left behind and was being outranked by the other world powers. Tsar Alexander II 1855-1881, inherited the aforementioned situation, and it seems as though he was determined to make some sort of change. In 1861 he passed the Emancipation of the serfs, meaning that the vast majority of serfs, were granted freedom, allotted land, or were allowed to find work in the cities. It is estimated by 1864 some 50 million serfs had been granted " freedom". The reasons for this turnaround are varied, but most believe that Alexander II had finally realized that Russia's economy and industrial progress called for a free labour force. ...read more.


Although these numbers seem positive, considering the vast population and potential Russia had, these increases could have been much higher and are only just a start. Under Alexander II the state bank and ministry of finances in 1860 was established, giving the capital a strong position. Alexander III (1881-1894) took on a slightly less sympathetic position than his father, after Alexander II's assassination, his son believed that the only way forward for Russia was one through traditional autocratic ruling. One of his biggest shortcomings was the fact he emphasized hugely on industry and failed to utilize the potential of Russia's agriculture. Although this was negative, some advancement in industry was seen, such as the huge amount of railway development, namely the near completion of the vastly important trans-Siberian railway, and the production of coal doubled between 1892 and 1902. The policies of Sergei Witte had effects from this reign into that of Nicholas II. Investment from abroad and state subsidies to heavy industry all played a part in stabilizing the economy. However, the neglect of agriculture contributed to the 1891 famine. ...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. Free essay

    Was Stalin the most successful ruler of Russia in the period 1855-1956? Explain with ...

    To keep him power, he introduced Russification, where Russia returned to traditional values. All textbooks, books published, newspapers and many other types of media had to be in Russian. The Ukrainian language 'does not exist, never had existed and never will exist.'

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

    Through the use of Stakhanovite targets, fines, beatings, executions and the threat of imprisonment to ensure workers met their targets which Gosplan had set them, Stalin demonstrated a complete disregard for the urban workers unparalleled to anything else shown in the period.

  1. Impact of The Great Famine on Irelands Society, Economy and Politics

    emigrated in search of a better life and 1 million died as a result of hunger/disease. As with culture decline, although there was emigration prior to the famine, it was not on the same scale as at the height of the famine when emigration increased.

  2. How secure was the Tsars power up to 1904

    The prisons are overcrowded with convicts and political prisoners. At no time have religious persecutions [of the Jews] been so cruel as they are today. In all cities and industrial centres soldiers are employed and equipped with live ammunition to be sent against the people. Autocracy is an outdated form of government...."

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

    In addition, the victory against the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, only served to show that there had been progress; however given that the Ottoman empire was in decline, it cannot necessarily be taken as proof that the Russian army was particularly powerful.

  2. What were the mains reasons for the emancipation of Serfs in Russia?

    In fact, they themselves talked more freely of it. Indeed, the number of local peasant riots had notably increased since the 1840?s. These peasant riots were used as argument for reform by independent persons like Koshelyov, Samarin, or the historian K.D.

  1. "The Wannsee Conference was entirely responsible for the Holocaust" How valid is this assessment ...

    This caused much confusion within the Nazi party and inner conflict between the main leadership of the Nazi party which often meant they were constantly in a power struggle with different departments, each despised the other, mostly competing for Hitler's attention and acknowledgement, each time becoming more ruthless and radical

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

    democratic elections?[5] and ?The rule of the Bolsheviks was a continuation of the absolutist tradition in Russia? which also undermines Hill?s glorified opinion of Lenin. Even though the three hundred year rule of the Romanovs had ended, Russia was still a dictatorship, having a totalitarian government of Communists.

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