Stalin Was More Effective Than Any Other Ruler of Russia in the Period 1855 – 1964 in Dealing with Opposition. How Far Do You Agree?

Opposition is a constant theme faced by any political ruler. A common measure of success is how effective a ruler is at dealing with the problem of opposition, in comparison to his previous/succeeding rulers, in this instance, comparing Stalin to the Tsars Alexander II,III and Nicholas II, and Communist Leaders Lenin and Khrushchev, over a decade of Russian history.

Here it is clear that in the space of a year, people were already starting to question the nature of the freedom they had been granted and thus in turn the title that they had given to their leader. Alexander was becoming less of a liberator and more of a subjugator as Serfs had nowhere to go and no choice but to stay under the control of the autocracy.

In addition to the general errors of the Bolsheviks, each contender made mistakes that allowed Stalin to gain the upper hand in each stage of the power struggle. For example Trotsky did not attend Lenin’s funeral – he claimed Stalin told him the wrong date – and therefore appeared disrespectful to Lenin, while Stalin carried Lenin’s coffin and made a speech, appearing loyal and one of Lenin’s ‘disciples’. Trotsky also made the mistake of factionalism after the ban on factions in 1921, along with Zinoviev and Kamenev when they attempted to oppose Stalin and Bukharin’s alliance during stage two of

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

One of the most important reasons why Stalin won the power struggle is that he used his high positions in the Communist party and the power that came with it to his advantage. Several factors fall under this category. Firstly is how Stalin used his position as General Secretary, as well as jealousies between the leaders and Trotsky’s illness to stage-manage Lenin’s funeral. To the general public, it appeared that Stalin was very close to Lenin, and as a result

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority” (Acton Institute 1). Alexander the Great was and absolute ruler that had both influence and authority; he abused both which is why many of his subjects followed him out of fear and not loyalty. Rulers are defined by how they use their power, the decisions’ they make; and how those decisions will affect the people. In my essay, I will analyze two viewpoints’ made by two professors and their viewpoints about Alexander III and whether or not he was deserving of the title “The Great”.

Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.

Almost everyone knows what a monster Adolf Hitler was, but most people do not know that one of the great ally leader of World War II, Joseph Stalin, had committed even greater atrocities than Hitler. Joseph Stalin was a ruthless and yet diligent dictator of the Soviet Union, whose rise to power influenced a multitude of major events in his country’s history. Due to Stalin’s impactful reign, he made the Soviet Union become a global superpower, underwent difficult hardships such as the Great Famine in the Soviet Union, and after his death, caused the Soviet Union to go through a process known as de-Stalinization.

Lenin had a greater impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other Ruler. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964?

Alexander II and Alexander III were both Tsars of Russia and they both believed in the divine will to rule the people. However Alexander II is said to be more liberal than Alexander III though they were both conservative in one way or the other in their social and economic policies because they both wanted to remain with the power over the people. Alexander II was more relaxed in his polices ‘’Great Reformer’’ and Alexander III was more strict ‘’great reactionary’’. After the defeat in the Crimean defeat Alexander II introduced very many reforms in Russia because he had seen how backward Russia was and how all the other

Stalin’s unquestionable dominance over the Bolshevik party and their actions highlights the impact of Stalinism

It is undeniable that Stalin had a profound impact on the Soviet Union following Lenin’s death. His rise to power within the Soviet Union has provided historians with a hotbed of political intrigue for many years. He was an opportunist, coming to dominance by manipulating party politics and influential figures in the politburo to eliminate his opposition by recognising and exploiting their weaknesses thus becoming the dominant leader of the Soviet Union. He was severely underestimated by other members of the Politburo about his potential within the party, leading to missed opportunities to ally and stand against him- a mistake that Stalin never made. He gained support from the public by exploiting the idea of ‘the Cult of Lenin’ in 1924 at Lenin’s funeral, and then adopting this concept for himself, thereby likening himself to Lenin; and, more importantly, gained support from other party members by following the wishes of Lenin, for example, initially supporting the continuation of the NEP and supporting the idea of factionalism. This essay will also argue that he was ideologically flexible as he was able to change his ideas for the party according to who he needed as an ally, in order to achieve dominant status in the party. He sought out which individual was the biggest threat, and eliminated them before they could stand against him.

Yesterday on the 13th of March 1880, the awe-inspiring Tsar of Russia died after going to the military roll call as he does every Sunday. He was 63 when he died. He was riding in a carriage when out of nowhere the carriage exploded into pieces, the Tsar not moving. He was coming out of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg when it all went down. Alexander was an amazing, extraordinary man who was an astounding leader. One of his most prominent actions was the emancipation of the serfs in 1863. Almost the rest of the world had no more serfs except for Russia. When Alexander came into power, he abolished the law to own a serf and made them have freedom and the rights of any man. In one of his meetings he said,” This is absurd! Why has the rest

In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience.

Alexander the Great is remembered as a conquering man who built one of the largest empires. Some describe him as a man with a vision of world harmony. Others see him as a blood thirsty man with a mental illness. One thing that cannot be argued is that he and his empire are fascinating studies. From his rise to power to his mysterious death is interesting, but even after he died the story is fascinating. Due to his death, his empire was divided and a long power-struggle began starting with his generals. Each account has its own story of war and betrayal. These days must have been hard for those in power; they never knew who they could trust. Only the ones who were skilled in the strategy of war and ruthless enough to maintain their power