Although we are looking at two different forms of government rule it can be perhaps suggested that there were similarities in these forms of government but it may also be suggested that fundamentally and ideologically they were completely different types of states. Both were centralist states, which were prepared to use totalitarian methods to rule over a vast, difficult to govern, state with its many different geographical and ethnic regions and enormous population.
The Russian empire covered a sixth of the worlds land surface, with 12 different time zones and various ethnicities in which approximately 50 per cent of those were Slav this indeed created integration problems which of course made the country hard to govern. Perhaps we can assume because of this centralised control and government was required in order for the empire to be held together.
The characteristics of both regimes were very important, Stalin developed his cult of personality and the Tsars ruled as absolute Monarchs.The Tsars were extremely autocratic, the supreme rulers of both church and state and answerable only to God.A period of reform started with Alexander II (1855-1881) with the hope of strengthening the monarchy but his successor Alexander III (1881-1894) turned back the clock, his reign saw a period of repression.His son Nicholas II (1894-1917) succeeded him, a conservative who was not suited to rule as an absolute monarch.
I think that the diverse smaller nationalities within the Russian empire suffered under both regimes.The Tsar had a policy of a unified Russian empire (Russification) and integrated such countries as the Ukraine and Poland into the Russian empire but this indeed did cause the problem of a clash of ethnicities and with their integration into the Russian empire. The Russian language, Orthodox religion and Russian style of clothing were almost forced onto these states. This was seen as attack on their way of life and a …