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.
History was a driving force behind such migration, since humans tended to move to new territory when they lacked food, shelter, or other resources--meaning that most of the conflicts throughout history have been driven by the same forces that drove migration out of Africa.
The ultimate goal of the United States in their intervention in Mexico in 1914 was to have a neighbor that is stable, that they will be able to influence and control to a certain level, and protect their economic and political interest.
The intervention of the United States was a very variable and very controversial. They did not stick with one side to support, but instead they were changing sides, usually supporting the person in power, except when the French intervened too.
Also, the USA openly threatened Mexico that it will use military power in order to protect its interests and its citizens that own businesses and property in the country.
