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

To what extent did the 1917 October revolution completely change the nature and function of government in the period 1855-1964?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐To what extent did the 1917 October revolution completely change the nature and function of government in the period 1855-1964? Before 1917, Russia was ruled by the tsars where by 1864 the government would consist of Dumas - ruling urban areas- and Zemtsvas - ruling rural areas. In February1917 the Tsars where replaced by liberal who in October 1917 where replaced by the communist rulers. With this change in government rule came a change in ideology and structure as well as changes in the way reform and repression was used, these are changes which I will be discussing. On one hand you can imply that the nature of Russian government changes due to the October revolution in 1917. Pre October 1917 Russian governments had, in some ways, a different ideology in comparison to post 1917 with communist governments. ...read more.


pre October 1917 the government, when ruled by the provisional government, consisted of two organs which was the Provisional government and Petrograd Soviet whereas after October 1917 it consisted of many organs and not just two. The government structure however, was also same in some ways; for example, before the October revolution the government worked with a hierarchy within it similar to after the October revolution. This continuity suggests that there was not complete change in nature of government. You could also suggest that the function of government showed continuity rather than change after the 1917 October revolution. This is as in regard to reform both the tsars and the communist government acted on reform with a nod to democracy, the tsars with the introduction of the Duma and the communists with the introduction of the Supreme Soviet. ...read more.


Overall I believe that the 1917 October revolution changed the nature and function of government in the period 1855-1964 but not completely. This is because evidence has shown that in regards to nature there is change in ideology between pre 1917 and post 1917 and continuity is little with the similarity of paternalistic figures. The function of the government also shows continuity as their reform within the government was very similar with both heading to democracy. However there is also evidence regarding function of the government which shows change as some of the tsar leaders showed very low levels of repression regarding their function whereas the communist government showed high levels of repression, therefore suggesting that the October revolution presented both change and continuity with the nature and function of government. ...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)

    Stalin and the Tsars, as both made 'rash' decisions out of spite, in particular the weak Tsar Nicholas II, who left his wife Alexandrina in charge of Russia in 1915 when he took direct charge of the army. Moreover Khrushchev denounced Stalin and his methods of Terror in his "de-Stalinisation" speech when he rose to power in 1956.

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

    The heavy increase in terror under the communist regime is another reason why opponents to the Tsars enjoyed a far greater degree of success. Throughout the period, opponents to Russian Governments lacked a shared ideology or common goal to seriously threaten the regimes.

  1. To what extent did Russia simply exchange one authoritarian regime for another in the ...

    Despite the success of the 1917 revolutions Russia simply switched from one authoritarian regime in tsardom to another in communism. Lenin is constantly argued to be a 'red Tsar', because he was just as autocratic as the Tsars before him, despite not having absolute authority.

  2. Why did the rulers of Russia so often resort to repression in the period ...

    As a result Lenin became the leader of the only powerful party- the Communists. Later, Stalin increased his control through purges within his own government - ensuring his role as the absolute leader - reflecting the Tsar's goal of omnipotence following the Fundamental Laws.

  1. Free essay

    Chartist Movement: Change and Continuity

    One source shows that the middle class status is one that everyone is trying to strive for, 'not a man among you worth halfpenny a week that is not anxious to elevate himself among them.' This shows that people would improve their social status if they could and it is also defending the middle class status.

  2. How far does a study of the period 1855 to 1956 suggest that, following ...

    This can be demonstrated by the emergence of the Politburo after 1919 - this worked as a kind of 'inner cabinet'; formerly the central Committee with 30-40 members was the most influential body in the party, and despite the fact that the Politburo was to be accountable to the Central Committee, it was soon established that this meant little.

  1. Opposition to Russian governments was ineffective in the period from 1855 to 1964. How ...

    However, once he abdicated the Provisional Government made up from the Duma took over. As with Alexander II?s assassination there was no immediate alternative to Tsardom and the country initially operated on a similar basis. Generally under each Tsar there was little effective opposition even on the two occasions when

  2. How effective was opposition to Russian government during the period 1855-1964?

    On the eve of his death Alexander II was willing to consider Loris Melikov?s proposal of the public playing a more prominent role in directing administrative and financial policy. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III and Konstantin Pobedonostev to inaugurate an age of constant political reaction in which many counter-reforms

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