‘War’ for the two government systems had very different effects on the manner in which they exerted central power. Both the tsarist and Stalinist governments used the idea of ‘mother Russia’ when stressing the importance of a war effort. However in the case of the tsars, defeats in the Crimean War, Russo-Japanese War and First World War had an adverse effect on the tsarist government, in which the idea of the ‘divine, autocratic monarchy’ had been greatly diminished. This had resulted in an increasingly hostile Russian peasantry to the tsars, who were often victim to a vicious circle of repression and reform. Decreasing central power and control by the tsars is shown in this peasant unrest, whereby much of the intelligentsia were turning to political groups in order to further their cause. This can be compared to Stalin who was very well respected by the mass of the Russian people. Even though the Russian people were subject to ruthless working and living standards, this was never directly linked to Stalin. Stalin was very much treated as a godly figure, especially due to his association with the Great Patriotic War, whereby the Russian people had overcome the ‘foreign evils intent on ruining Mother Russia’. The Communist Party also had a great propaganda machine, which advanced the notion of Stalin’s godliness and the need for rapid industrialisation for the ensuing war. The Stalinist government effectively used its central government power to create a national patriotism and drive for the Russian cause.
Both the tsarist and communist forms of government were based on central power and control by the state in the way that there was one figurehead at the top of the government with autocratic power and control. However the amount of central power manifested in that figurehead can be called into question. This can essentially be demonstrated when comparing the rule of Tsar Nicholas II to the leadership of Stalin. The fact that the tsar depended on a group of advisers, who to an extent dictated the policy of the government, discredits the idea of all central, governmental power being distributed through the monarch. This can be specifically shown in the way that Nicholas II relied on special advisers, such as Sergei Witte and Peter Stolypin to mould his economic and agricultural policy. The historian J. Grenville also accepts this view when analysing the degree of central power exorcised by Alexander II, especially in dealing with the policy of emancipation. Grenville states, “only with reluctance that Alexander took up the root cause of Russia’s social ills”. The historian puts across the view that the tsar was as if ‘carried along’ by the will for emancipation by “selected both true reformers such as Dimitri Milyutin and…Dimitri Tolstoy”. This view of the tsars can be contrasted with Stalin who had a very ‘hands on’ approach to policy formulation and implementation. Stalin was seen to be the ‘master creator’ of the Five-Year Plans and collectivisation programme. Much more power was vested in Stalin’s position, which allowed him to dictate policy agenda and its execution. This is one of the fundamental reasons for the success of his policies, whereby central power allowed him to rapidly industrialise the country in the space of only 11 years before the Second World War. Although one may consider collectivisation to be a major flaw in the perception of Stalin having a high degree of central power and control over the state in the way that it was considered to be a policy failure; this is not necessarily correct. This is in fact because Stalin’s extreme central power and control is remonstrated by the manner in which collectivisation was performed. Stalin used excessive terror tactics on Russian farmers and created a ‘kulak’ class as a scapegoat for his atrocities. The verity that there was no uprising against the state or Stalin, effectively demonstrated his vast central power and control over the state.
The high level of central power and control under Stalin is specifically shown in the period of the Great Purges. This form of repression is completely different to the tsars’ implementation of repression, which often resulted in revenge attacks. The greatness of Stalin’s central power is shown in the way that he was able to remove alleged opponents to himself, from party and government jobs. Stalin used the NKVD as a means of intimidation and arrested any person who seemed to defy him and his party. Although one would think that it would be very hard for any leader of a country to do this, Stalin had conveniently created an atmosphere in which retaliation was not considered. The tsarist system in comparison seems to be much weaker. This can be shown by such events as the October Revolution, which resulted in Nicholas II having to concede a whole host of concessions, principally an elected assembly under the October Manifesto. Another symbol of great hostility to the tsarist system was demonstrated by the assassination of Alexander II by the Peoples’ Will terrorist group in 1881. This relatively diminishes any idea of full tsarist control over the state. Whereas during Stalin’s period of 1924 to 1953, one could not imagine such an outburst or uprising against the Russian government. There was a perception that Stalin and the Communist Party were the ideal hope for Russia’s future and that only they could transform Russia into a world superpower. One must also understand that the capitalist economies around the world were gripped by the Great Depression, and therefore the Russian people were pleased to embrace the Communist Party’s successful economic policies. This Russian society was also prepared to sacrifice their living standards for their economic aims, whereby in real terms living standards had considerably dropped during the Stalinist period.
One of the greatest differences between the tsarist and Stalinist governments was shown in their actual perception of the modernisation of Russia. The reformation under the tsars was only intended to slightly change the situation in Russia based on slow modernisation, whereas Stalin wanted to modernise the country as quickly as possible into a global superpower. The tsars believed that if Russia experienced a rapid modernisation, then the Russian people, like in other European countries would want to dub down the monarchy into a constitutional framework. This therefore explained the tsars’ lack of enthusiasm for reform and their repression over the people after any further reforms were requested. Stalin on the other hand was totally the opposite and adopted a revolutionary stance regarding Russian society. He felt that Russia would need to quickly industrialise to catch up with other leading nations and create a suitable war economy should it be required. With Hitler speaking of extra ‘lebensraum’ (living space) being needed in Eastern Europe, Stalin considered it wholly necessary to apply stringent targets for the developing industries.
It therefore becomes clear that there were many differences between the two forms of government. Although both the tsarist and Stalinist governments depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state, Stalin is seen to exert more so than his predecessors. On a basic level this can be shown in the way that by the 1950s no one would dare challenge Stalin’s authority, whereas during the tsarist period there had been two revolutions against the monarchy. Through propaganda, and economic and military successes, Stalin had created a perception of himself as a godly figure who was the ‘guardian’ of Mother Russia. This can be contrasted to the tsarist figureheads whose divine right to autocracy rule over Russia had diminished over the period, especially due to successive defeats in major wars. Whereas Stalin towards the end of his dominance maintained totalitarian control over the country, the tsars relied on support from various political classes in society, namely the nobility. The tsarist system’s weakness is also demonstrated by their attempts to appease the peasantry through reform, whereas Stalin did not depend on any interaction with the general public. The difference between the two forms of ruling government is fundamentally shown by the reaction to them from the actual Russian people. Whereas low living standards under the tsars was seen to be the ‘spark’ for peasant unrest, this was not the case under Stalin under whom they experienced just as bad living standards. However the essential difference in this case was that the Russian people were prepared to sacrifice their living standards for the Great Patriotic struggle, whereby Russia would be rapidly transformed into a great economic superpower.