PlanetPapers.com RSS Feed

Facets of Russian Communism Within Fictional Utopian Literature

2006-10-30T16:01:19-04:00

Historically, fictional literature has been used to reflect on the life of the time in which it is written. Authors, thrown by the system and displeased by developments, take what they know and use it to make a statement. Over the course of history, authors have jabbed huge incidents such as the French Revolution in Charles Dickins’ A Tale of Two Cities, missionary invasion and Chinese poverty in Pearl S. Buck’s The Good Earth, and Chinese Communism in Anchee Min’s Becoming Madame Mao. On the topic of the Russian Revolution, Russian Communism, and the plight of the country’s people, however, many volumes of fictional literature have been written. Examples of these tomes are Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, and George Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984. The ideas within these works of fiction tie in with ideas found in historical literature such as Karl Marx’s The Communist Manifesto, Richard Pipes’ Communism: A History, and lastly Ronald Grigor Suny’s The Structure of Soviet History. With the use of class readings and outside readings of fictional utopian literature, a succinct image of both the facets of perfect Communism and the failings of Communism may be developed. In the order of publication, the first utopian literature to be written was by the Russian author Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin. Born in Lebedian, Russia in 1884, Zamyatin was the son of a priest and a musician. Under czarism, he joined the Bolshevik Party and was arrested for his revolutionary activities. Even though he was exiled, he lived illegally in St Petersburg and studied to become a naval architect. After a series of lectures at the Polytechnic Institute, he was once again arrested but was quickly granted amnesty and was sent to England to aid in the construction of icebreakers. On the eve of the Russian Revolution, he returned to Russia. Although in favour with the Party for a long time following his return to Russia, he began to grow weary of the Party’s repression of freedoms and the harshness of the new regime. Quickly the tables turned and Zamyatin found all of his large body of work, which included stories, plays, essays, and many Soviet newspaper articles, banned. After writing a letter to Josef Stalin, Zamyatin was able to go into exile with his wife and died in poverty in Paris in 1937. It wasn’t until Mikhail Gorbachev’s reign that his pieces such as

Stalinization: Justifying the Terror

2002-01-20T13:00:00-05:00

No other nation has developed at a more fast and alarming rate than Russia under the control of Comrade Joseph Stalin. The ‘Stalinization’ of Communist Russia may have seemed brutal and unjust, however, many historians agree that many of Stalin’s actions were completely necessary for Russia’s industrialization. Some of the actions taken included the Five Year Plan for Industry, Five Year Plan for Agriculture, and rapid urbanization. These are the three most important aspects of transforming The Soviet Union into a world economic power. It was soon realized that Lenin’s NEP (New Economic Policy) could not continue for much longer. It was granting Russian farmers to own they’re own land and to sell they’re produce for a profit. The NEP may have been effective for a short while to pull Russia out of her economic slump, but Marxist beliefs dictate that farms must be collectivized. This was the only way that the farms might be able to meet they’re target for grain production (which had fallen short by nearly 7 million tons under the NEP). In light of this, Stalin introduced the new Five Year Plan of Agriculture. There was about 25 million plots of privately owned land that were too small to be effective for Grain production. So under the Agriculture Plan, the walls between these small holdings were knocked down and the farms were collectivized. This meant that land could be cultivated much more efficiently with the use of fertilizers, tractors, and other such machinery that otherwise could not be used in a small, private holding. Thousands fled the countryside in fear of collectivization to join newly built cities. This led to a rapid urbanization of cities such as Novosibirsk and Moscow, that were expecting to house little more than three million, instead found themselves having to support over six-and-a-half million people that were finding jobs in the industrial work force. This was, however, very hard on the living conditions of the Russian people in these cities. Many people found it hard to get work. Others, with the highest paying jobs, still, were forced to have they’re families share one bedroom accommodations with one or two other families! With so many people in urban areas of Russia there were twice the amount of people working in the coal mines and drilling more oil wells. This in turn helped with Stalin’s Five Year Plan for Industry. A list of extremely high

Stalin: Man or Monster?

2001-12-10T13:00:00-05:00

Do these sources give similar or different impressions of Stalin?

These sources give different impressions of Stalin, however there are some similarities. Source A is a cartoon published in Paris in the 1930´s. It shows Stalin and the results of his policies according to the artist. The cartoon features Stalin showing three pyramids of skulls as if he was a tour guide. The caption under reads, “Visitez L´URSS ses pyramides!” This translates to, “Visit the pyramids of the USSR!” This source is very famous and was drawn by an exiled Russian, therefore the artist could be bitter and biased against Stalin and his policies. Source B is an official Soviet painting of Stalin with workers at a hydroelectric power station in the 1930´s. It is trying to show the results of industrialization. It shows Stalin talking to the workers, they seem very proud to be meeting Stalin. Because it is an official Soviet painting it is very likely to be biased and a source of propaganda as it would be Stalin or the government who commissioned it. Source C is a photograph of Stalin congratulating wives of army officers. The women are reaching for Stalin in a fanatical manner; they seem desperate to touch him. The source is a photograph, which gives the impression that it is a reliable source. However this isn´t true, Stalin could have had the photograph doctored or had people pose and claimed it was showing something it wasn´t. The sources give very different impressions of Stalin. Source A shows Stalin to be a monster responsible for the death of millions of people. Stalin´s policies were responsible for the death of millions of people. Collectivization caused the death of thousands of Kulaks and left many homeless and starving. One million people were executed during the purges, two million people died in camps, one million people died in prison and eight million people died as a result of the work ethic Stalin began. Source B shows Stalin to be a great man who made Russian industry prosper. Stalin´s industrialization did make Russia a very successful industrial country. By the late 1930´s many Soviet workers had improved their conditions by gaining well-paid skilled jobs and earning bonuses for meeting targets. There was an almost non-existent unemployment rate. Stalin also encouraged woman to work by setting up childcare services; four out of five new workers recruited between 1932 and 1937 were women. Stalin also made education compulsory and

Modern Russia and The Soviet Union: Stalin

2001-07-29T14:00:00-04:00

Modern Russia and The Soviet Union: Stalin’s character was the main reason for his rise to power Stalin was born as Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili on December 21, 1879 in Gori, Georgia. He grew up in a mountain town of about 5,000 people. He was the third and only surviving child of Vissarion Dzhugashvili and Catherine Geladze. His father used to drink and beat him and his mother; this made Stalin very cold hearted. A friend commented on his behaviour, “Those undeserved and fearful beatings made the boy as hard and heartless as his father”. His father died in a brawl when Stalin was only 11. Stalin was enrolled in the village at school at the age of eight. He was an intelligent student and was top of his class. He read many books, which glorified Georgian’s past. Georgia was an independent country until the Russian Tsars conquered it. One book that had a deep affect on Stalin was a book similar to that of Robin Hood. His name was Koba and he hated the Russians and avenged their crimes against the Georgians. His acts were very ruthless and bloody. Stalin began to call himself Koba and this caught on with his friends. He was later to take on this pseudonym when he was in hiding from the tsar’s police. By 1894, Stalin had finished all of his schooling and had received a scholarship to the theological seminary in Tiflis, the capital of Georgia. The theological seminary building was dark and depressing. The students could have no privacy and were spied on by the Russian Orthodox monks. The monks also checked their rooms to see what they were reading and carefully scheduled each day, with prayer and study. Students had only one short break in the afternoon where they would go into the city under strict supervision. At first Stalin seemed to fit in with the strict schedule. He did well in his schoolwork and received the highest marks for conduct. He found time to write poetry of which were romantic and nationalistic, these poems were published in a Georgian magazine devoted to the preservation of Georgian culture. Gradually Stalin became frustrated under the harsh regime. Years later, Stalin told an interviewer “In protest against the outrageous….methods prevalent in the seminary, I was ready to become, and actually did become, a revolutionary.” In 1898 Stalin took his first step towards a revolutionary lifestyle when

Russian Revolution (society 1861-1917)

2001-05-15T14:00:00-04:00

Between 1861 and 1917, Russian society had undergone many changes. It is safe to say that every aspect of that society had been some how modified. These changes led up to the Bolshevik revolution in November of 1917. Given the nature of Russian society, was the Bolshevik revolution unavoidable? Among the changes Russian society had undergone, one starts off the whole chain of events. This was the emancipation of the serfs, in 1861, by Czar Alexander. The emancipation freed 44 million peasants. The Czar knew that the only way to end the discontent of the serfs and to show that Russia too was a modern society would be to let them free. The Edict of Emancipation caused many problems these uneducated peasants. The land now assigned to them was smaller then the plots they were using as serfs. This was an average of 8 acres. There was also a forty-nine year period over which installments could be paid before the peasants were given full ownership of the land. In fact many peasants were still working for their landlords after the edict. Because of his efforts Alexander was nicknamed “the liberator”. Despite giving the serfs their freedom, Alexander’s actions cause more problems then they solved. After the unification of Germany between 1861 and 1891, which accelerated it’s military and political power, Russia too felt it should industrialize. A man named Sergei Witte, who was Minister of Finance from 1892-1903, almost single-handedly pushed Russia into its industrialization. He knew that Russia needed something to start her on the road to industrialization. Witte’s efforts made industrial advances from 1892 to 1910. Between 1880 and 1914, Russia had a growth rate of 3.5%. This would have surely brought Russian higher in the rank of industrial and economical world powers. It was said that all Russia needs is 20 years of peace, without war and she will not be in risk of revolution. Unfortunately, the statement was ignored and in 1904, Russia commenced a yearlong war with Japan. The Czar’s ministers had assured him that the war with Japan would be an easy victory. In fact Russia suffered a devastating defeat. This leads to the revolution of 1905. Along with industrialization, Russia needed to educate the population. A large majority of the population was illiterate, and factories were looking for more skilled workers. The education of the people led to the growing popularity of several anti-Czarist groups. The

Tzar Nicholas II - downfall of Russia

2001-05-03T14:00:00-04:00

It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2’s behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say ‘weakness in character’ we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas’ character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage. Nicholas 2’s firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. “I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)”(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas’ belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called “The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation”. He once declared, “Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people”. In his early manhood Nicholas lived the life of an idle socialite uninterested in the affairs of state, he found government meetings ‘boring’ and uninteresting. As he had never taken a liking to political affairs he was underprepared to take the throne, this fact along -with his stubborn belief in autocracy- also goes a long way to explain his political naivete in many of the difficult situations he faced. Was this unwillingness to face the political realities due to him being blinded be his obstinate belief in autocracy or was it just that he was politically naïve? Throughout his rule as discontent rose Nicholas still believed that he still had the

What Sparked the Russian Revolution?

2001-04-05T14:00:00-04:00

The Russian Revolution took place during difficult time in Russia. These troubles began before World War I and lasted up until 1930’s. Russia’s population was made up of mostly poor, starving peasants. A small working and middle class began to rise to help industrialize Russia. But a corrupt government made it difficult for Russia to advance. This added to the turmoil. World War I placed a serious hurt on Russia. Although at first it raised national pride and enthusiasm, it quickly drained resources and poorly trained peasants quickly found themselves fighting with no weapons. This war sent over 2 million Russians to their death in 1915 alone. Turning points for the Russian revolution were the March Revolution, the November Revolution and Stalin coming to power. By March 1917, disasters on the battlefield, combined with food and fuel shortages on the front, brought the monarchy to collapse. In St. Petersburg workers were going on strike. Marchers, mostly women were shouting, “Bread! Bread! Bread!” Troops refused to fire on demonstrators, leaving the government helpless. Duma politicians setup a temporary government/ Middle class liberals prepared a constitution for a new Russian republic. At the same time they continued the war with Germany. That decision proved fatal. Most Russians were fed up with the war and returned home, leaving the front. Peasants wanted land and people wanted food. Cities set up soviets, council of workers and soldiers, which worked dramatically within the government. Before long a radical social group took charge called the Bolsheviks emerged. Their leader was V.I. Lenin. During the November revolution the Bolsheviks decided to further the revolution. They stormed Moscow and took it as their capital. With this newly acquired city they gained land, which was split amongst the peasants. Workers were given control of factories and mines. For a period of time there was bliss in the country. But battles still waged on between the reds and whites, and civil wars grew. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania all broke free but nationalists in Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia were eventually subdued. Allie forces placed a hurt on Russia as well. They joined the white that wanted to continue the war against Germany. Although they didn’t succeed the allies left a hurt on Russian nationalist who were roused and continued battles against Russia. In 1920 Joseph Stalin came to power as general secretary of the party. He used his position to build

Women in Post-Revolutionary Russia: The Opportunities and Obstacles

2001-01-11T13:00:00-05:00

The last Tsar of Russia abdicated the throne in February of 1917. With the fall of the old regime, many old gender barriers fell, as well. The period after the Bolsheviks rose to power was a time of many changes for all Russians, but none were more affected than the women of the time. Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik party (later called the Communists) was greatly disturbed by the domestic enslavement of Soviet women, and almost immediately granted political equality for females throughout the nation. With this newfound freedom, women were presented with many new opportunities in all aspects of life, and many challenges, as well. Lenin reformed many civil and penal codes to the advantage of women. Almost overnight all learning institutions opened their doors to both sexes, which suddenly gave women the opportunity to strive for professional careers and higher paying jobs. Women were given equal standing in marriage, and it became possible for them to get divorced, to have abortions, and to sue for child support. Women could own property. Within the Communist party, women rose to leadership positions. In theory, there was complete equality between the sexes. However, even with the advantages of the Communist leadership, there were some pitfalls, as well. While the increased leniency of divorce laws was obviously an advantage to many unhappy wives, some men made use of the new freedom also. Some women were left to raise their children alone, and without the salary of their husbands, found it almost impossible. Although these women now had complete economic independence under the laws of Lenin, in practice all was not as simple. With several young children to watch over during the day, it was difficult for any mother to be able to engage in any work outside of family life. The realities of these women were shown clearly in Alexandra Kollontai’s novel Love of Worker Bees. based on life in post-revolutionary Russia. When Mr. Feodoseev abandons his wife for another woman, she is horrified at the thought of trying to get a job while raising three school-aged children. However, in Kollontai’s novel, she is seen as petty and jealous by certain members of the party, instead of a woman with great financial difficulties. Perhaps this shows a certain blindness that many

Causes of Dictatorship in Russia

2000-11-26T13:00:00-05:00

Around the 20th century, the end of the First World War cleared the way for the formation of democratic regimes. Why they had not been successful, why the people didn’t use the opportunity to establish a democratic political system and why did the dictatorships appear, is still unclear, but it is a very discussible subject. The decisive role in these processes was the human being. It was the object of the cause, but on the other hand he was also the subject - executor of all the problems as well. The First World War was expected to be short, with a quick triumph on either side. On the contrary, the war caused a giant massacre to all the countries involved, and lasted for four years. Also against the expectations of political leaders and military commanders new techniques of fighting were used, as well as new weapons (for example the chloric gas, tanks and aircrafts). Due to all this, 13 million people were killed, of which 2 million were Germans, 1.75 million Russians, 1.5 million Frenchmen, 1 million British and 0.5 million Italians. But death was just one of the worst consequences of the First World War. Just military failures on the fronts, along with other problems directly affected internal politics in a great way. This horrible catastrophe also left most of the countries in huge debts, especially Germany, Austria, Hungary, Russia, and many others. This led to poverty and chaos, and the people were suffering. That is why they started to revolt, but the political system was so exhausted after the war that it didn’t do anything to solve this. The effects of the war sped up the changes. It is an arguable fact, whether the war also had a liberating effect. If it did, it was greatly affected by the downfall of three empires, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Tsarist Russia and Keiser’s Germany. In Russia the tsar abdicated and was replaced by the Provisional Government, but it only took 8 months and Russia moved from autocracy to communism. It is true that this downfall separated and freed different ethnic groups like Czechs and Slovaks, Serbs, etc. who had been a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, because these ethnic groups did get their independent states with democratic constitutions. Land was taken from the aristocrats and distributed to the peasants. The workmen got better conditions to work in, for example bigger salaries, less working

The Russian Revolution of 1905 was in fact no Revolution at all

2000-06-19T14:00:00-04:00

The revolution of 1905, in Russia, was not a complete revolution at all. To be able to respond to this statement accurately, it is firstly advisable, to look at what a revolution is. It is then best to observe what the Russian society was like before 1905, during 1905 and after 1905, to establish whether or not, a complete revolution had in fact taken place in the so called ‘revolution of 1905’. To identify what to look for in the Russian revolution of 1905, and to discover if it were or were not a genuine revolution, it is firstly important to define the true meaning of the word ‘revolution’. In ‘The Macquarie Dictionary’ the word ‘revolution’ means,” a complete overthrow of an established government or political system.” In ‘The Oxford School Dictionary’ it also says a ‘revolution’ is an “overthrow of old government by force and replacing it by a new one.” And in ‘Chamber’s Twentieth Century Dictionary’ it says “… a great upheaval: a radical change, esp. in government.” From each of these different dictionaries; the modern dictionary, to the early 1900’s dictionary, the meaning of the word revolution has been essentially the same. This meaning is that if a revolution was to occur, in a country as a whole, the governmental system is to be abolished, and a new one is to be set in it’s place, (which would in turn create a completely different social structure). Knowing what the word ‘revolution’ means, confirms that the revolution of 1905 was in actual fact no revolution at all, even though Nicholas himself believed at the time it was, indeed a revolution . This becomes clearer as each stage (ie. before, during and after) of the ‘revolution of 1905’ is uncovered. Secondly, it is crucial to look at the background of Russia, before 1905, prior to looking at the actual period of the 1905 revolution, as to understand how the events of the revolution of 1905 did not create a revolution in itself. Before the 1905 revolution, the living conditions of the majority of the public were appalling, and multitudes were unhappy. There were two sides to the Russian society, on one hand there was ‘privileged Russia’ including nobles, bureaucrats, the run of educated Russians, and even the merchants, (who often had risen from the peasants), -they owned most of the land. The peasants, or ‘dark people’, on the other hand, were the bulk

The Russian revolution: How Did the Bolsheviks Gain Power?

2000-05-28T14:00:00-04:00

How did the Bolshevisks seize power of the Russia Empire in 1917? They were able to do this as a result of taking advantage of the current political and social situations in the country at the time. Through such decisions as disbanding the army, and siding with the majority, the peasants, though such promises as land, food, equality and peace. Through such events Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, also known as Lenin, was able to take full control for the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks started off, in 1903, as the main minority of the Social Democratic Labour Party. As all anti-tsarist groups the party was illegal. The party was based upon the beliefs of Karl Marx, a german writer and revolutionary, who believed a revolution could only be started within the workforce of the major cities. Lenin believed strongly in these morlas and used them as a guide to his goal of revolution. The party continued to prostest against the current government in Russia and over time the political, social and economic disontent and the famous event know as 'Bloody Sunday', where the imperial guards shot and killed the protesting people of St.Petersburg, eventually pulled more followers over to the party. After these events, which were known as the 1905 revolutuon, the October Manifesto occured. This gave the people a lot more rights and a national parliament, the Duma. All seemed well, but there was one problem. The Menshiviks, who were the less radical majority of the Social Democratic Labour Party, argued that the revolution had gone far enough, however the Bolsheviks insisted that it go further until a new, soviet state was established. Thus, the party split up and formed two seperate groups. Also, since the revolution hadn't worked, many of the revolution's leaders, such as Lenin, were forced to go into exile abroad. During his time in Switzerland, in exile, Lenin wrote his thoughts in his revolutionary newspaper, "Pravda". Through this Lenin was able to show his supporters their mistakes in the first revolution and what they needed to do for a second one to work. These ideas helped the Soviets organise themselves better, which paved the way for 1917. Even with the new reforms the Tsarist govenment made, it wasn't good enough for the people of Russia. Further discontent spread through out the country and in 1917 the second revolution occured. Compared with the first revolution in 1905, this was massive. The Tsar, Nicolas

Siberian Prison System

2000-04-26T14:00:00-04:00

PRISON SYSTEM IN SIBERIA My project is dedicated to description of the history of Siberia as a place to where send prisoners--from the days of Ivan the Terrible until today. I will tell about the reasons for choosing Siberia as place of exile, the system of prisons and conditions in Siberian prisons. Choosing Siberia as a Place of Exile As with other Western powers that gained colonies overseas, the acquisition of Siberia led to making it a place of exile. Criminal and political prisoners had been sent to Siberia for more than three centuries; millions of people, in total, were deported there. Due to its remoteness and severe weather conditions 'Russian Australia' was one huge prison, escape from where was almost impossible and very dangerous not only because of the chase, but because of the Siberian killing frosts, unimaginably long distances, bounty-hunting natives, deep forests and wild animals. Another reason for establishing punishment by exile was the desire of society to banish still cruel and barbarous criminal code of XVII century according to which criminals had been punished by amputation of their limbs, being bastionadoed, and being branded with hot iron. Exile was quick and easy method of getting them out of the way. The punishments, however, didn't become more humane. They just began to happen far away from where most of the people could see them. Before making Siberia place of exile criminals died from being tortured in Moscow; after they died from the hard, exhausting work, cold winters, and diseases in Siberia. Although originally applied as a corporal punishment, exile can be viewed as a means of population and developing the colony. Government needed people to work in Siberian mines and to build roads, and penal servitude began to replace long prison terms, while list of offences meriting exile steadily lengthened to include even vagrancy, fortune-telling, wife-beating, debts, accidentally starting a fire or drunkenness. In 1754 death penalty was abolished for some years and replaced with exile at hard labour. Convoy to Siberia Until the middle of the XIX century, most of the convicts had to walk to the place of their exile from their homes. Often the journey took years--the distances walked measured thousands of kilometres. They walked from etape (transit prison) to etape. Until the beginning of XVIII century there was almost no long-range planning and even supervision of exiles was extremely negligent. Convicts had to beg their way because there was

The Fall of Communism in Russia/Soviet Union

2000-01-03T13:00:00-05:00

Communism in the USSR was doomed from the onset. Communism was condemned due to lack of support from other nations, condemned due to corruption within its leadership, condemned due to the moral weakness of humanity, making what is perfect on paper, ineffective in the real world. The end of this system was very violent. It left one of the two most powerful nations in the world fearful of what was to come. Communism can either be called a concept or system of society. In a society that follows the communist beliefs groups own the major resources and means of production, rather than a certain individual. In theory, Communism is to provide equal work, and benefits to all in a specific society. Communism is derived from many ancient resources, including Plato’s Republic and early Christian communities. In 1917, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their Communist Manifesto finalized the philosophy of Communism. ("Communism," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia) In the beginning, people in Russia thought of Communism as a utopian ideal. (Funk & Wagnall’s) The elimination of social classes, and guaranteed employment sounded outstanding to the people who lived in Russia. Communism did call for a role of socialist dictatorship to help control any form of protest. Through persuasive tactics this new government seized power and in 1917 Vladimir Ilich Lenin came to power. Under his control the Soviet Union underwent many radical changes that led to the development of NEP (New Economic Policy). This policy called for some private ownership of the means of production and business. Still the government controlled the majority of production. Throughout Lenin’s government there were many achievements. It ended a long civil war against the remnants of the old Czarist military system and established institutions in government. He later died in 1924, and was quickly succeeded. In 1924 Joseph Stalin became head of the Soviet Communist Party. He soon became the most powerful man in Russia. He ran the Soviet Union with brut power, removing all that opposed him and the Communist beliefs. This time period was known as the "Great Purge." Stalin systemically executed anyone who stood in his path. Stalin had millions of people arrested and killed. The government once again changed in its economic status. All private ownership was ended. Industrialization commenced, and the strength of the Soviet’s Military significantly increased. The only downfall was agriculture production slowly diminished. This eventually led to

Nicholas Romanov's Role in the Russian Revolution

1999-08-13T14:00:00-04:00

"Nicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive leader. His character was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution" "The last Tsar of Russia was a tragic figure a classic case of being a leader in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing within his power could have prevented the forces of change from overtaking Tsarist Russia." To what extent do you agree with these explanations of the collapse of autocracy in Russia? Nicholas Romanov was an indecisive man who was easily influenced by others. Although it was not his character that was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution. He may have been a leader at the wrong time but if he had related better for the time he was in power. Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire. In economic terms it was backward as it was late industrialising and late to emerge from feudalism. In political terms it was also backward as there was no legal political parties nor was there any centrally elected government Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state . The fact that his father who died at age 49 thought that he had many more years ahead of him may also be another factor behind Nicholas' poor leadership of Russia . Alexander who died in 1894 had left Russia with a society no longer controlled by tsarist rule and when Nicholas took the throne after his father's death Russian society was not prepared to turn on it's heels and return to how it use to be . Nicholas II was 26 when his father died and was soon to marry the German princess, Alix of Hess, Granddaughter of Queen Victoria . The relationship between Alexandra and Nicholas was a 'critical relationship at a turning point in history' . He was weak and indecisive but he wasn't an imbecile, Alexandra, if not an imbecile was politically and socially illiterate, dominating him and towards the end of their lives forced him to make chaotic decisions. Nicholas nor Alexander III were well trained for the job of ruling this vast country. Alexander was not so much superior to the son in character of abilities to

Destalinization

1999-06-05T14:00:00-04:00

Politics has always been about image. A good image leads to power, it's that simple. Sometimes it is hard to draw the line between a leader who is genuinely interested in improving the lives of his people and one that is interested in filling a few more pages of the already crowded History book. A good example of this is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in its transition time between 1953 and 1964. The tyrannical rule of Joseph Stalin in the USSR was finally over, and the nation sought a new leader; after nearly a decade, one man, Nikita Khrushchev, rose up from the ranks with new ideas for the nation, and an extreme anti-Stalin campaign. But was he truly enraged at the way Stalin ruled or was he using this image in an attempt to capture the same power as his predecessor? The link between the two leaders goes back many years, to nearly the beginning of the communist annexation of Russia. Even today, we find ourselves asking if the politicians we vote for say they will make a reform to actually help the people, or if they say it as an empty promise in a ploy to get elected or to gain power. Was Nikita Khrushchev a man for the people, or was he simply a puppet with motives unseen to the people that pulled his strings? Joseph Stalin ruled the USSR from 1929 until his death in 1953. His rule was one of tyranny, and great change from the society that his predecessor, Lenin, had envisioned (Seton, 34). Stalin put into effect two self proclaimed "five-year plans" over the course of his rule. Both were very similar in that they were intended to improve production in the nation. The first of these plans began collectivization, in which harvests and industrial products were seized by the government and distributed as needed. The government eliminated most private businesses and the state became the leader in commerce. Stalin also initiated a process called "Russification". (Great Events, 119)" Through this program, he ruled the minority nations of the USSR such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan more strictly. This policy of expansion also helped Stalin seize a large portion of Poland, and it was done under the guise that it was to "enrich the nation." Stalin established a secret police force which was unyielding and went about it's business with an iron fist, bringing

Why the Tsar's Power Crumbled in March 1917

1999-04-08T14:00:00-04:00

Why do you think the Tsar's power crumbled so swiftly in March 1917? Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil. It was a time of great upheaval. Peasants were demanding that the land of the great estate owners be turned over to them because there was not enough land to provide food for all the villages. This caused the migration of many peasants to the factories. Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These people were the urban working class of Russia and they were not as eager to accept the poor wages and conditions as the peasants were. For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats. While the tsar was off defending the country, a strange 'monk' named Rasputin made his way into governmental affairs. Because of his ability to ease the pain of the tsar's sick young prince, Alexandra gave him great political control in the affairs of state. Rasputin had dismissed twenty-one ministers and replaced them with men of great incompetence. He was eventually murdered but the damage

Steps Towards the Russian Revolution

1999-01-22T13:00:00-05:00

The quotation, "'I shall maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father.' (Nicholas II) In spite of the Czar's decrees and declarations, Russia, by the beginning of the 20th century, was overripe for revolution," is supported by political and socioeconomic conditions late monarchial Russia. Nicholas II was the Czar of Russia from 1896-1917, and his rule was the brute of political disarray. An autocrat, Nicholas II had continued the divine-right monarchy held by the Romanovs for many generations. From the day Russia coronated Nicholas II as Emperor, problems arose with the people. As was tradition at coronations, the Emperor would leave presents for the peasants outside Moscow. The people madly rushed to grab the gifts, and they trampled thousands in the bedlam. As an autocrat, no other monarch in Europe claimed such large powers or stood so high above his subjects as Nicholas II. Autocracy was traditionally impatient and short-tempered. He wielded his power through his bureaucracy, which contained the most knowledgeable and skilled members of Russian high society. Like the Czar, the bureaucracy, or chinovniki, stood above the people and were always in danger of being poisoned by their own power. When Sergei Witte acted as Russia's Minister of Finance from 1892 to 1903, attempted to solve Russia's "riddle of backwardness" in its governmental system. He is considered more of a forerunner of Stalin rather than a contemporary of Nicholas II. In 1900, Witte wrote a memorandum to Nicholas II, underscoring the necessity of industrialization in Russia. After the government implemented Witte's plan, Russia had an industrial upsurge. All of Russia, however, shared a deep-seated resentment of the sudden jump into an uncongenial way of life. Witte realized that Nicholas II was not meant to carry the burden of leading Russia to an industrial nation as a Great Power. Nicholas II's weakness was even obvious to himself, when he said, "I always give in and in the end am made the fool, without will, without character." At this time, the Czar did not lead, his ministers bickered amongst themselves, and cliques and special-interest groups interfered with the conduct of government. Nicholas II never took interest in public opinion, and seemed oblivious to what was happening around him. He was still convinced he could handle Russia himself. By 1902, the peasants had revolted against Witte's industrialization movements, which were marked by a raise