Essay Checklist
“There was very little difference between tsarist autocracy, Lenin’s
dictatorship and Stalin’s totalitarianism” How far do you agree with this
statement? (60 marks)
Checklist
PLAN
Do you have one?
INTRO
Make your point, briefly.
Clarify the question.
Show off e.g. with dates.
Indicate paragraph sub-topics i.e. a ‘blurb’ of the essay.
PARAGRAPH
Make your sub-topic point.
Show off with outstanding knowledge, including dates, laws and
historical terminology.
Make impressive judgements.
Hammer home your point, without saying ‘In summary…’
CONCLUSION
Hammer home your argument.
Have a complex conclusion e.g. don’t just say there was little
difference, followed by a couple of reasons why. That is acceptable but
average. See OCR examples. Likelihood that you should say one way or
the other if hypothesis is true but with a sub-clause or two.
Include your most key, cornerstone, most significant bit(s) of evidence
to show why you came to this conclusion.
“There was very little difference between tsarist autocracy, Lenin’s dictatorship
and Stalin’s totalitarianism” How far do you agree with this statement? (60 marks)
Through definition alone there is little difference and indeed there were fundamental
similarities between the reigns of the Tsars, Lenin’s dictatorship and Stalin’s totalitarianism but
there were also significant differences; in particular, the justification for holding power in the
hands of one individual was clearly different and for Stalin and Lenin this had an impact on policy
that was inconsistent with the tsarist autocracies, such as the ‘Decree on the Separation of the
Church from the State and the School from the Church’ of 1918 . Through their government
administrations, their methods of dealing with internal opposition and through their control of
the economy, there were clear similarities between the rulers but also some noticeable
differences.
What united the Tsars was a common belief that they had to hold on to autocracy at all costs,
and publically, both before and after taking power, the Bolsheviks were wholeheartedly against
the principle of autocracy, but Lenin and Stalin perceived that they too had to hold ultimate
power. Alexander II was told by his father to ‘Hold on to everything’ and the two subsequent tsars,
encouraged by the teachings of the fiercely monarchist Pobedonestsev, held to that principle right
up to February 1917. Similarly, Lenin desired a dictatorship of the proletariat but stated that this
was not possible in backward, agriculturally dominated Russia and thus labelled himself and his
closest intellectual associates as the vanguard of the revolution who would dictate to the
proletariat – and the rest of the Russian Empire – before the proletariat would be able to rule
themselves. Stalin followed similar principles to Lenin, but with a more centralised system with
total power resting in the hands of one individual; Stalin. Therefore, the Bolsheviks and the tsars
agreed in principle and in practice that ultimate power should rest in the hands of one individual,
though Nicholas II was prepared to rule with the assistance of the duma, which sets him apart as
willing to share power slightly more than the other rulers and Stalin’s totalitarianism set him
apart as he arguably held more power than any of the other rulers. Clearly the ideologies, when
put into practice, held a fundamental similarity; that of power being in the hands of an individual.
However, whilst Lenin and Stalin believed that eventually a dictatorship would not be necessary,
the tsars agreed that autocracy was in the best interests of Russia and that this would always be
the case.
Linked closely to the ideologies of the various rulers is their organisation of government and in
this the tsars were very similar to Lenin and Stalin. The most telling piece of evidence that the
tsars governmental structure was similar to Lenin’s is that fact that Trostky felt the need to
rename the Cabinet to Savnarkom – he didn’t change the cabinet, the same roles were required
and the same tasks were carried out but the ‘bourgeois’ titles were changed. The politburo, a
small group of elite Bolsheviks who formulated policy, can also been seen to have had an
equivalent in the regimes of the tsars with The Imperial Council of State who were non-elected,
trusted advisors to the tsars. Stalin introduced a new constitution in 1936 which on the face of
things appeared to offer a more democratic form of government but in reality anything that did
not follow the ‘party line’ was not tolerated and even with the ‘Soviet of the Union’ and the ‘Soviet
of Nationalities’, power still ultimately rested in the hands of Stalin alone. One significant
difference were the dumas of Nicholas II which at least had the potential to oppose the tsar,
though in practice after the fundamental laws of 1906 there was little possibility of this. However,
it could also be argued that the state dumas and the Soviets of the Union in addition to the Soviets
of the Nationalities, were very similar in that their outward appearance was that of a democracy
but in practice neither Nicholas nor Stalin ceded any real power. Therefore the government
structures of the tsars and the Bolsheviks were very similar, occasionally offering glimmers of
democracy but never taking any significant step towards democracy and, as their ideologies
stipulated, no crucial decisions could be made concerning Russia, without the approval of one
man.
Yet another similarity between the tsars and the Bolsheviks was that they all saw the
importance of industrialisation and to a large degree they had contrasting ideas on how to achieve
this. The Bolsheviks aimed to make their country self-sufficient, without need for foreign trade,
however the impressive advancement of the Russia economy under the tsars came largely as a
result of foreign investment. For example, during the Great Spurt, Witte managed to increase the
levels of foreign investment from 98 million roubles per year, to 911 million roubles which
contributed to Russia being the world’s fourth largest economy by 1900. Despite their desire to be
self-sufficient, the Bolsheviks under Lenin faced a horrific famine that ended in the deaths of 5
million and the greatest preventive measure that went some way to saving lives was the
acceptance of American relief donations; so ultimately Lenin ended up relying on some foreign
wealth. Stalin’s five-year plans drove the Soviet Union further, resulting in his country being able
to resist and then defeat the greatest military machine in the world at that time; the Wermacht.
However, it cannot be ignored that, though he made great strides in enabling Russia to be selfsufficient, he too accepted foreign materials and aid during the Second World War from Britain
and the USA. Nevertheless, with the onset of the Cold War, the Soviet Union had become one of
only two super-powers in the world and the levels of industrialisation achieved under Stalin far
outstripped that achievements of his predecessors. Ultimately the tsars actively sought foreign
investment, whereas the Bolsheviks aimed to prevent foreign investment, though there were
instances in which the Bolsheviks too had to look outside the country’s borders for the good of
their economy.
A regime that is centred around the whim of one man inevitably has to employ some form of
secret police to uphold the government and in this the rulers were united, but the levels of
repression and the victims of the repression differed to a large extent. Stalin and Alexander III
were the most similar rulers in terms of the repression evident in their period of rule, with the
Okhrana, Cheka and NKVD all being used extensively to enforce the will of the rulers in question.
Stalin’s totalitarianism resulted in all areas of society being answerable to him, Alexander also
took steps in this direction with his censorship of newspapers and publishers, his control of
universities and his extensive use of the punishment of exile to Siberia – similarly, Stalin exiled
over 40 million people during his period as ruler. Nicholas II and Alexander II were similar in that
they were willing to tolerate minor opposition to some extent and, though using the instruments
of repression, they gave enough freedom for opposition groups to grow and gain footholds in
Russian politics. Lenin held a unique position, he allowed some opposition, for example keeping
some Socialist Revolutionaries in government at the start of the period and by allowing elections
to take place but at the same time he ruthlessly crushed opposition to his rule, in particular his
handling of the war with the Greens and he prevented the constituent assembly from meeting in
the aftermath of unfavourable elections. Perhaps the greatest difference between the tsars and the
Bolsheviks was that the tsars desired to repress the workers and peasants, whereas the
Bolsheviks repressed the bourgeoisie and upper class, though admittedly they also enforced some
strict repression on the peasants. A secret police was always maintained by all of the rulers and
their task was to uphold the state through execution, exile or fear, to those arrested it is unlikely
that they would have seen much difference between autocracy, dictatorship or totalitarianism as
for them the outcome would have been much the same.
The autocracies of the tsars, Lenin’s dictatorship and Stalin’s totalitarianism were ideologically
different but when the demands of ruling Russia were applied they turned out to be quite similar.
The motivations and ultimate aims for Russia were different with the tsars attempting to maintain
the status quo, whereas the Bolsheviks wanted to move towards a true dictatorship of the
proletariat – however all rulers had at one time or another relied on foreign money. Ultimately, all
of the ideologies relied on the wishes of one man and those wishes were upheld by the ruthless
activities of the secret police. Because power being in the hands of one man and the secret police
were central to all three of autocracy, dictatorship and totalitarianism it must be concluded that
the ideologies of the tsars and Bolsheviks, when put into practice, were ultimately very similar.