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

Tsarist Rule in the years 1856-1917 and Communist Rule from the death of Lenin to the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much greate

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"Tsarist Rule in the years 1856-1917 and Communist Rule from the death of Lenin to the death of Stalin both depended on high degrees of central power and control by the state. The similarities between the two forms of government were therefore much greater than were the differences." How far do you agree with this judgement? To a large extent it is correct to claim that both the tsarist and communist governments operated through high degrees of central power and control by the state. However it becomes apparent that the communist or 'Stalinist' government exorcised a much higher degree of central power and control over the Russian people than that of the tsarist government. The assertion in the question that the similarities between the two forms of government were "therefore" much greater than were the differences is both illogical and unfounded. Both systems of government may be based on a similar use of central power, although this does not mean that they will result in adopting similar policies and methods of governing the country. The interpretation of the word "depended" in the question may also be criticised, as it implies that the tsarist and communist governments would not be able to exist had they not performed a high degree of central power and control by the state. A perfect policy example between the tsarist and Stalinist governments is that of between emancipation under the tsars and collectivisation under Stalin. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people.' How ...

    Soon into the year 1930 the government found that half the peasants in the USSR joined the collectivisation scheme. Nevertheless, the grain deficiency was not resolved and many of the peasants did not like the collectivisation scheme at all so killed many of the resources.

  2. Stalin and Lenin

    heavy industry, the workers were allowed to leave and any absentees were trailed for treason, and many workers had to workers had to work for eleven hours. Despite all the horrible conditions no one revolted this mainly because their pay was food rations and if they didn't work they would get any food.

  1. "The Governments of both late Tsarist Russia and early Communist Soviet Union were essentially ...

    Instead, the Nobility had their own assemblies within each of the 50 provinces throughout Russia. This system not only ensured corruption was rife, but also made any opposition resort to violence due to the lack of political freedom. The Imperial Council of State met to advise the Tsar on policy and new laws, but the Tsar often ignored it.

  2. How did the new economic policy cosolidate the boshevik rule?

    This soon strengthened the financial economy However the New Economic Policy was only one way in which the Bolsheviks consolidated their rule. There were many other factors as well. When Lenin cam to power, he knew he had to deliver what he had promised, Peace, Land and Bread.

  1. Lenin's death marked the beginning of a period of struggle for leadership between the ...

    Zinoviev and Kamenev, angered by Stalin's change in policy, called for a vote of no confidence in him in the XIV Party Conference, but as Stalin had packed Congress with his own supporters, the two were easily outvoted. They had not anticipated that the power they had allowed Stalin to

  2. How did Stalin control Russia from 1924-1953?

    What was printed in this newspaper was controlled by Stalin, and was designed to make him look better. So the purges were rarely mentioned, except in cases when the person being "cleansed" was a famous person, like significant party members such as Kamenev or Zinoviev.

  1. How significant a figure in the revolution of 1917 Russia was Lenin?

    Do you have as much land as the landlords? But will the Kerensky [provisional] government give you land? No, never. It protects the interests of the landlords? only our party, the Bolsheviks, will immediately give you land?? Several times I tried to take the floor and explain that the Bolsheviks make promises which they can never fill.

  2. Lenin's Importance in the 1917 Revolutions.

    The short-term effects of WWI only made things worse for the Tsarist regime. Social and economic dislocation of food shortages and rising prices of household goods devastated the lives of peasants and industrial workers. The government?s bureaucracy had a lot of difficulty ruling the country.

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