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.
The Crittenden Compromise (December 18, 1860) was an unsuccessful proposal by Kentucky Senator John J. Crittenden to resolve the U.S. secession crisis of 1860–1861 by addressing the concerns that led the states in the Deep South of the United States to contemplate secession from the United States.
Back then, the answer would be A. But, if this was a MODERN question, the answer would be D.
A conclusion we can draw from the above is that b
. Baghdad had a rich economy that supported a large population.
From the way Yakut al-Hamawi described Baghdad, we can tell that it is a city that has a rich economy because:
- it had many suburbs
- rich bazaars
- finely built Mosques and baths, and,
- villas
For these to be built in a place, the place must have a great economy capable of affording them. We can also tell the population was large as there were over two million people there.
In conclusion, Baghdad was a great city with a strong economy and a large population.
<em>Find out more at brainly.com/question/18822055.</em>
Answer:
The man being described is Marcus Garvey.
