• 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 ...

    working for five days and then closing at weekends, factories now worked all seven days of the week, with a fifth of the workers having their day off on any one day. To prevent workers from taking time off work, absenteeism was punished with the sack and with eviction from factory housing.

  2. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    The decline in respect for and dissatisfaction with Tsar Nicholas II and his regime before the First World War was a result of several factors. Firstly, the working class and peasants were living and working in very bad conditions. This is illustrated by source A, as we can see the

  1. Source based questions on the Russian revolutions.

    Whereas these sources say that all the family were killed, source J says that 2 of the skeletons were missing. Source J also fails to say who is missing and where the skeletons could be, so we cannot be sure if the other sources match.

  2. Why was the Tsar's government overthrown in February/March 1917

    World War I then only added to the chaos. Conscription swept up the unwilling in all parts of Russia. The vast demand for factory production of war supplies and workers caused many more labour riots and strikes. Conscription stripped skilled workers from the cities, who had to be replaced with

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

    Even in February 1930, when the government boasted that the majority of the peasants handed over their land for collectivisation, the grain shortage problem had not been solved. The result was a famine in the cities as food production fell drastically with grain production falling from 83.5 million in 1930 to 69.6 million in 1932.

  2. Why was Lenin able to seize power in October 1917?

    The first Duma only lasted 72 days. The Duma voted that it had no confidence in the Tsar's government and demanded that the Tsar form a new government of ministers chosen from the Duma. Once again the Tsar had failed to have the support of his new government and his only answer to this mess was to dissolve the Duma.

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

    Their lives depended upon it. So even though the purges seriously weakened Russia, especially the army and navy, Stalin made any citizens left believe he was right, because they were too frightened to believe anything else. This was the main factor of the purges helping Stalin keep control on Russia.

  2. Lenin's Importance in the 1917 Revolutions.

    At such times of tribulations, radicalisation of the working class and peasantry was important. Lenin grabbed this chance to organise opposition against the Tsar. Such circumstances that Russia was in, may prove to an extent, how Lenin may have been quite insignificant even with his aptitude as a great leader

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