Comparing the Impact of Stolypin and Rasputin on the Stability of the Tsar's Government
Stolypin and Rasputin played a major role in maintaining Tsarism.
Whilst Stolypin brought in major reforms to improve Russia, Rasputin
did not have much impact, due to his lack of reforms.
Political stability was ensured by Stolypin, whilst Rasputin brought
instability.
Stolypin made Russiapolitically stable through the execution of the
Vyborg. This was when the Kadets and the Liberals tried to spark up a
revolution by encouraging people to refrain from paying their taxes
and avoid conscription. This therefore made Russiapolitically stable
because it allowed the government to retaliate and allowed Stolypin to
implement the Field Courts Martial Law which saw special courts being
set up to charge terrorists.
However, Rasputin brought instability due to his position as chief
advisor to the Tsar. This brought instability because he dismissed the
good ministers and replaced them with his friends, this is
substantiated by Rodzyanko, president of the Duma, when he stated,
''There is not one honest man," this shows that Rasputin was an
inadequate advisor and could not control state affairs well. His new
advisors were inefficient and lacked the skills required to stabilise
Russia, so this proves that Rasputin brought instability to Russia.
Stolypin was more successful in bringing political stability; yet,
Rasputin did bring a small amount of stability; this was because he
was associated with religion, so inevitably would be able to influence
some people.
The political stability and instability had a major impact on
preserving the Tsar's po...
... middle of paper ...
...d his position as the chief advisor
because they felt he had betrayed them and because he associated with
the aristocracy, so therefore Rasputin faced discontent from the
different social classes in Russia, this is verified by several
attempts made on his life. which would unavoidably discredit the
Tsar's government.
This lack of popularity would undoubtedly lead to instability in other
areas, such as preserving the Tsar's power.
Stolypin was more successful in stabilising the Tsar's government.
This was because he implemented many reforms; his success can be
supported by the British Ambassador in 1906, where he stated, "Public
opinion is not as revolutionary as it was a year ago." It therefore
showed Stolypin stabilised the Tsar's position through his reforms
whereas, Rasputin did not do enough to ensure this.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
He was not popular with those who supported the Tsar because he made him look like a “weak autocrat unable to control his wife or hold onto his moral and political authority.” This weak, inept image of the Tsar created by Rasputin is supported by one of his ministers stating that “he did not like to send Rasputin away, for if Alexei died, in the eyes of the mother, he would have been the murderer of his own son.” This shows how great an impact Rasputin had over the Tsar and the
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.
It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
Well you can start off with Russia in 1915 before all the revolutions. Nicholas II, a very incompetent leader, and not the smartest one either during a time of bad economic crisis. So that didn’t help the government at all, not to mention they were fighting in WWI with half of the skilled workers fighting. While fighting in WWI, Nicholas thought that the troops would fight harder if he were leading them. While Nicholas was fighting he left Tsarina Alexandra in charge of Russia. The problem with this is that she made horrible decisions, partly because of Rasputin (a monk, or faith healer), She would hear different sides of the argument and then the last person to talk to her would make her mind up for her. So Rasputin would basically just wait to be the last person to talk to her so that way he could get stuff done in the government. But this earned him a bad reputation and got him assassinated. This would lead to increasing problems and the start of a revolution.
Throughout history there have been many odd characters. Russian history was not excluded. Grigory Rasputin, who was an assistant to the Royal Russian family, was an unusual man.
under the autocracy of the Romanovs. Although well intentioned, Nicholas was a weak ruler, out of touch. with his people, easily dominated by others and a firm believer in the autocratic principles taught him by his father. He ruled Russia as an autocrat. Propaganda and the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged his people to love and respect their tsar and look on him.
In mid-19th century Russia, an oppressive rule is a result of the Romanov monarchy and this in... ... middle of paper ... ... ition to being important in portraying Raskolnikov's changing personality. By making such dissimilarity between the two ways that the two characters affect Raskolnikov, we are able to see his downfall and subsequent rise much more clearly.
Russia's overthrows and shortage caused revolutionary upheaval and massive inflation, which led to deprived infrastructure. During World War I, Russian society naturally caused great dissatisfaction among the serfs. As the revolution wore on, numerous reform and Tsar Nicholas II, a ruler, tried to change Russia's social structure and government. Among the masses, there was discontentment with Russia's social system and living conditions. Laborers worked and lived in horrendous conditions, which played a crucial role in aggravating the condition of workers and peasants. As a result, peasants starved and Russia’s armies were overpowered on the battlefield because much of its terrain was occupied by enemies. Hence, Imperial Russia was a catastrophe. Some scholars believe that despite the Russian empire's undeveloped economic, social, and political weakness during World War I, Russian empire's economic and social advances occurred decades before World War I, which shows that World War I was not a crucial reason of the Russian Revolution. Although a reason of the Russian Revolution was possibly Tsar's deprived governance because of his misconduct towards inhabitants, the main cause of the Russian Revolution was World War I because The First War demonstrated poor infrastructure in the Russian government politically and economically.
The Similarities of Tsarist and Communist Rule in Russia Both forms of government did depend on high degree of central control. However, some Tsars and Stalin exerted more central controls than others. Stalin’s stronger use of central control created differences between the two forms of government. The Tsars used different levels of central control.
...V. The Reign of Rasputin: An Empire's Collapse. Memoirs of M. V. Rodzianko. Trans. Catherine Zvegintzoff. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International, 1973. Print.
was necessary in order for communism to work and promised that in time there would be no need to have any leader at all. It is clear that Under the rule of both Lenin and the Tsar, the people were unable to... ... middle of paper ... ...and economic collapse. Although it seems to me despite the obvious corruption in Lenin's leadership (people getting shot for opening up).
The accumulation of these factors centred on Lenin's leadership helped stamp Bolshevik power across the Soviet Union. Lenin’s pragmatic leadership was the most considerable factor in helping to fortify Bolshevik power. His willingness to take power in October/November 1917 and the successes of the move, through his right-hand man, Trotsky, was critical as it helped give him unquestioned authority within the party despite members of the Central Committee i.e. Zinoviev and Kamenev suggested industrialisation needed to occur first. This highlighted Lenin’s communist ideology, which was essential to the Bolsheviks maintaining power. Following the failure of the Provisional Government, Lenin recognised that it was the Bolshevik’s priority to legitimise their government.
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.