Answer:
Well, first you'll have to identify themes of their rule.
Style of rule -
NII was obviously an autocrat (even though he, in theory anyway, had a representative body of the peoples, the Duma. But he hung onto his absolute rule with the Fundamental Laws (1905)), and Lenin had spoke alot of 'dictatorship of the proletariat,' both pretty absolute.
Repression (secret police, censorship) -
NII had the Okhrana, and tried to continue his father's 'Reaction.' Secret police for the
purpose of preserving the status quo, keeping the Tsars in power.
Lenin's Cheka was far more efficient, and though the total amount of the Cheka's victims in the civil war are officially 12,000 and something(wiki it), historians widely believe this figure to be in excess 500,000. Lenin therefore could be judged as the worse of the two.
Reform -
- NII - Illusory Reform (October Manifesto created the Duma, and as mentioned, this had no real authority),
- Stolypin's land reforms did almost nothing. Lenin issues the Workers Control Decree, and also
- the Bolshevik Land Decree - however these were only very temporary (before a return to a very
- authoritarian economic set-up (strict discipline etc). These therefore could also be judged as illusory.
Similarities-
- Both used concessions/reform in order to maintain control. Nicholas with the October Manifesto and
the creation of the Duma and Lenin with the NEP to appease the SR's and the rightists of the Bolsheviks.
- They both 'backtracked' on the reforms however with Lenin calling the NEP a 'tactical retreat' and would've
- reverted it had he been alive and Nicholas made the 1906 constitution/ Fundamental laws which limited the Duma's powers and maintained his position as an autocrat.
Answer:
I think the answer is D. The colonial experience was one of absorbing British models of government, the economy, and religion.
Explanation:
I am not fully sure. But I hope this helps! Correct me if I made a mistake.
<u>The Union’s advantages as a large industrial power and its leaders’ political skills contributed to decisive wins on the battlefield and ultimately victory against the Confederates in the American Civil War.</u>
<span>A. Voluntary euthanasia
B. Nonvoluntary euthanasia
C. Involuntary euthanasia
D. Passive euthanasia</span>
In 1962 Cesar founded the National Farm Workers Association, later to become the United Farm Workers – the UFW. He was joined by Dolores Huerta and the union was born. That same year Richard Chavez designed the UFW Eagle and Cesar chose the black and red colors. Cesar told the story of the birth of the eagle. He asked Richard to design the flag, but Richard could not make an eagle that he liked. Finally he sketched one on a piece of brown wrapping paper. He then squared off the wing edges so that the eagle would be easier for union members to draw on the handmade red flags that would give courage to the farm workers with their own powerful symbol. Cesar made reference to the flag by stating, “A symbol is an important thing. That is why we chose an Aztec eagle. It gives pride . . . When people see it they know it means dignity.”
For a long time in 1962, there were very few union dues paying members. By 1970 the UFW got grape growers to accept union contracts and had effectively organized most of that industry, at one point in time claiming 50,000 dues paying members. The reason was Cesar Chavez’s tireless leadership and nonviolent tactics that included the Delano grape strike, his fasts that focused national attention on farm workers problems, and the 340-mile march from Delano to Sacramento in 1966. The farm workers and supporters carried banners with the black eagle with HUELGA (strike) and VIVA LA CAUSA (Long live our cause). The marchers wanted the state government to pass laws which would permit farm workers to organize into a union and allow collective bargaining agreements. Cesar made people aware of the struggles of farm workers for better pay and safer working conditions. He succeeded through nonviolent tactics (boycotts, pickets, and strikes). Cesar Chavez and the union sought recognition of the importance and dignity of all farm workers.
