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

Trotsky described war as the 'locomotive of history'. Can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855 to 1964 was caused only by involvement in wars?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Trotsky described war as the 'locomotive of history'. Can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855 to 1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? The 1855-1964 period saw a series of major changes within Russia. Most of these, such as, the assassination of Alexander II, the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, Witte's Great Spurt, emancipation and Russia's continuing desire to industrialise can all trace their roots back to involvement in war. Russia was repeatedly involved in wars in the 1855-1964 period which repeatedly showed the backwardness and poor state of the country. Even when successful, the Cold War increased Stalin's paranoia and led to heavy spending and a restraint on change under Khrushchev. War was the integral factor in Russian development throughout the period, but it was the only cause for change. When considering if change in Russia was solely down to involvement in war, there is considerable continuity in the fact that most wars Russia fought in the 1855-1964 period were bad defeats that showed Russia's backwardness and the need for change. War highlights existing problems and further emphasises the need for change, widespread reforms were commonplace in the anticipation and aftermath of war throughout the Tsarist period. ...read more.

Middle

The Civil War had also led to Lenin conceding defeat, as Nicholas II had done previously in drafting the October Manifesto, by abandoning war communism for NEP. Stalin's fear of a future German invasion was also key to the speed in which the 5 year plans were implemented. There is considerable change here when compared with other wars, because Russia was victorious in the Great Patriotic war and became a global superpower, whereas previous defeats had merely highlighted existing problems and aggravated opponents in the process. War had a vast impact on Russia in the 1855-1964 period, and involvement in wars had a significant impact on the development of the Russian state. Throughout the period, the Tsarist and Communist regimes shared a common goal, to industrialise. This shared aim was set about in different ways - Stolypin and Stalin in particular had seen the need to boost agriculture in order to support heavy industrialisation, whereas the policies of Witte and Lenin were less focused on this issue. Whereas Stalin's main motivation could be traced back to war, Stolypin and Witte appeared to have more concern for the masses when implementing their policy. ...read more.

Conclusion

The Cheka heavily intensified aspects of repression seen under the 3rd section and Okhrana, and the KGB would continue to do so. Concessions brought about by the rulers as a result of war were also met with repression, such as Stolypin's necktie and in particular the unprecedented terror seen under Stalin, who believed that ''death is the answer to all problems''. The success of opponents was in part due to war, as best demonstrated by the February and October revolutions, however well timed reforms, shown by war to be badly needed, limited their effectiveness. Repression was used to rulers to keep their grip on power and maintain autocracy, not because of war. War was the integral factor in Russian development throughout the period. The First World War in particular brought about a complete shift in ideology and the creation of the world's first communist state, but also paved the way for the fast industrialisation of Russia and a shift in focus from agriculture to industry. War had repeatedly shown Russia as a backward, weak nation however victory in 1945 had established Russia as a global superpower. Despite its obvious importance, war was not the only locomotive of change within Russia during the 1855-1964 period. Change in Russia was not solely down to involvement in wars. ...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)

    This is an explanation for Stain's belief that non-Russians should be moulded into 'Russians'. Whereas Marxist-Leninism stated that non-Russians should remain in Russia un-disturbed, Lenin enforced this through his Decree of Nationalities in 1917. Therefore Stalin's nationalism aligns him with the Tsars policy of 'Russification'16, which forced all those nationalities living in Russia to speak Russian.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the ...

    4 star(s)

    The Provisional Government did nothing to solve this problem. They wanted to wait for the new government in six months time. They also believed that if they gave land to the peasants, other peasants would desert the army and come home to get land.

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Assess the view that the lives of the peasants in Russia did not improve ...

    4 star(s)

    In much the same way as the peasantry had been poorly treated under the Land Captains and the Mir, discipline was also severe. Lenin's NEP outlined a tax in kind where a percentage of production was taken, in contrast to the requisitioning of Stalin who forced through Lenin's collectivisation model.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Was it the policies pursued by Henry VIII that caused "the mid-Tudor crisis"?

    4 star(s)

    Somerset worsened the situation, by seizing more Church property (Chantries Act, 1547) and by debasing the coinage. He could have reformed the taxation and customs systems and brought the financial administration up to date (this was desperately needed) but his failings as a ruler are demonstrated by his lack of effort.

  1. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    * Warehouses were often broken open and personal goods restored to their owners. Faced with such widespread opposition the Party had to back down. * Stalin made a speech in early 1930 ('dizzy with success') accusing local party officials of being over-zealous and allowing peasants to leave the collective farms.

  2. 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.

  1. Compare and Contrast the February and October Revolutions in Russia.

    It has the same ideology as communism and the same beliefs as Communism has. Due to this, it was only a matter of time until the Bolsheviks changed its party name from Bolsheviks to Communist Party of Russia. Under this name, the Communist Party set up the world?s first socialist state in Russia.

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

    well as Kulaks: the most dangerous were to be imprisoned or shot.[15] ?We must break down the resistance of the Kulaks and deprive this class of its existence?, as Stalin said to the Party Congress in December 1929.[16] With this, the policy of De-kulakization had begun.

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