The manifesto offered free speech, the right to form political parties and it created a “democratic” elected house of parliament – called a Duma. Despite the fact the Tsar promised all of these things for the people, after he had crushed the revolution he actually did very little to promote what he had promised. This is because he issued the Fundamental Laws, meaning the Tsar's ministers could not be appointed by the Duma, therefore denying the Duma a lot of what had been originally suggested. Furthermore, the Tsar had the power to dismiss the Duma and announce new elections whenever he wished, this further undermined democratic elements in government which showed that Nicholas II was untrustworthy and didn’t keep his promises. The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy.
In contrast the Tsar weakened the Duma and a progressive bloc was formed. This suggests that the Tsar is vulnerable to revolution whereas the Communist rule is repressive and very few ever speak out against it. Economically the Civil War had the greatest impact in shaping the Russian Government policies. This is because War Communism was introduced and later fine tuned into the New Economic Policy. War Communism was radical and involved the militarisation of Labour which was disliked by the people and made people focus purely on the needs of the war.
Even though this solved all the immediate needs of the communist state, the majority of the peasants were unhappy about the new policies and rebelled against the Bolsheviks. This, in turn, forced Lenin to change policies and introduce the New Economic Policy. The NEP was seen, in the Bolsheviks’ eyes, as a return to capitalism as it allowed small businesses to open and people to sell goods in the market, even though major industries, such as steel and iron were still under government control. Lenin had a huge impact on Russia. He made Russia a strong state and consolidated her
Stalin and Trotsky Essay Stalin took over as the leader of the USSR in 1928, getting rid of all his rivals in the process. How far do you agree with this? Although, Trotsky appeared to have the upper hand over Stalin in terms of leadership and intellect, however in the end Stalin replaced Lenin as the leader of the USSR. This was not only due to Stalin’s strengths and politically cunning mind but also due to Trotsky’s own mistakes and Stalin’s use of circumstances to his advantage. It can be said that it seemed unlikely for Stalin to succeed Lenin as he was considered dull and humourless by other communists.
Others indicate that their rise to power and the overthrow of the Provisional Government was more influenced by the faults and failures of the Provisional Government. The Provisional Government was never in full control of Russia, their power was shared with the Soviets, thus when the Bolsheviks and the Soviets banded together; it shoved the Provisional Government on a rocky road downwards, while the Bolsheviks rose and seized power from them. The Soviets were a great influence in the Bolsheviks surge to power; their leader, Leon Trotsky, and the Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Lenin, began working together in 1917 after Lenin was appointed head of the Bolshevik party and together they drew the support away from Kerensky and the Mensheviks, and introduced his ideas of reform to the lower and middle classes. The class system worked to the Bolsheviks advantage because all of the lower classes needed help and Lenin's ideas for revolution all coincided with the peoples wants and needs, which in turn gained Lenin and the Bolsheviks the support of the lower classes. Trotsky worked to obtain the support by going to events and giving speeches, such as the one he gave on the 22nd of October in 1917, in which he
What the British Ambassador described at first as “nothing serious” , quickly escalated with the end result being the abdication of the Tsar, a new provisional government and around 1,315 casualties . In the popular uprising, which brought about a major change to Russian society, the radical revolutionary Bolsheviks played an almost non-existent role. Key members such as Lenin, Zinoviev, Bukharin and Trotsky were not even in the country during the revolution and Stalin was in Siberia. More importantly, “the party membership at the time of the Tsar’s overthrow was insignificant…[and] local party organizations were either weak or non-existent” . This paper argues that the October Revolution and rise in support for the Bolsheviks would not have been possible had it not been for the failure of the provisional government to establish itself as a stable regime in addition to the party’s use of violence.
It was all set up perfectly, except one major flaw, Nicholas was unfit to lead according to many. In 1932, Trotsky, a key figure in the Russian revolution stated, ‘His ancestors did not pass on to him one quality which would have made him capable of governing and empire.’ It is through primary sources like this we can see how people thought of Nicholas and their opinions on his ability to lead. He was labelled as bored, inept, naïve, ignorant and indecisive. Because of all of these, as his reign lasted longer and longer, his ability to lead began to wane, and slowly his grasp on Russia began to slide. In relation to the leadership of the Tsar,
In 1903 the SD's could no longer function as a single group and split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The division weakened the groups more leading to the Tsar keeping power. Repression was partly responsible
One of the ways how Stalin defeated the left side of the party was to make an alliance with Bukharin. This ended with Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev losing their power bases. This gave Stalin a lot more power and meant there was no real threat left. I know from my own knowledge that Trotsky formed the alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev because Stalin was a big threat. Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker.
Major ideological change was also seen after the Russo-Japanese war with the change of Nicholas II’s method of ruling and was important in the change of structure of government and tools, causing leaders to impose new reforms and enforce their legitimacy. In terms of ideology, war created the basis for change in Russian government. World War I caused the most significant change and was the foundation for the transition from Tsarism to Communism. The huge impact that it had on Russia itself meant that it was highly likely that the Bolsheviks would never have gained power without it, and this along with the Civil War in 1917 helped to bring an end to the Romanov Dynasty which had been secured since 1613 and created the World’s first Communist state. It can be seen as of key importance as Russia was not able to keep up with the demands of the war and therefore it was inevitable that social unrest would arise and the already unstable autocracy would fall.