Some believe the Tsar lacked integrity, others say Alexandra and Rasputin were to blame; still others blame the dismantling of the Duma and the harsh rule of the government. Mutual distrust existing between great powers meant The Hague convention was among the first formal statements of the laws of war. On November 1 1894 Alexander III died suddenly from Nephritis. An unprepared naive Nicholas II took power. A bewildered Nicholas beseeched his brother-in-law Grand Duke Alexander, "What am I going to do?
How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution? The 1905 Revolution was the start of political change in Russia, unlike other major European powers of the time, Russia was being ruled by an autocratic government and any effective reforms would have had to been by ‘change from above’. However, the Tsar Alexander III and his son, Nicholas II were firm conservatives and this ideal route would not have happened. Resentment to the lack of change created the growth of reformist governments and caused a Revolution which catalysed the much needed change in Russia. There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution.
The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy. Secondly, the 1905 revolution happened before the outbreak of WW1 which meant although there was a lot of discontent in Russia in 1905 there was a lot less that the people could blame the Tsar for. In 1917 the Tsar had the power to pull out of the war which was a main reason for the suffering in Russia at the time. This was because millions of men went to fight in WW1 and this meant that back at home there was little food being produced
How far does the reign of Alexander III deserve to be called reactionary? When Alexander III became Tsar in March 1884, Russia was in crises, following the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of The People’s Will. There was a huge amount of pressure on Alexander III, not only to govern the world’s largest country, but also to be a good leader in an autocratic empire and restore the approach in which the slavophiles were demanding for. Reactionaries believed that the reforms of Alexander II disestablished the country by encouraging demand for further reforms; Alexander III transformed this opinion brining back harsher rulings to regain power and to deserve the title of a reactionary. The generally chaotic nature of the Empire following Alexander II’s death was suggestive of the need for strong leadership to stabilise the country.
The Noble class of Russia owned most of the countries wealth and land. Nicholas II assigned family members to important political roles; this caused him to have absolute power over Russia without any threats of being over powered. Not only was Nicholas II corrupt with assigning important roles, but also he had insufficiency of the training and experience needed for the Russian Tsar, his failure to make decisions and his organization was extremely poor, “Unfit to run a village post office” This underlines the point that Nicholas II was extremely poor at making decisions and his lack organization was so poor that he would be unable to run a small village post office, that is normally very quiet, let alone Russia, one of the worlds biggest countries, this is backed up by “His ancestors did not pass on to him one quality which would have
However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’. Counter-reform was partly a reaction to the murder of Alexander II, but Alexander III also believed that his fathers ‘Great Reforms’ had been a mistake, weakening Tsarism and leaving it vulnerable and insecure. He introduced political repression of opponents, counter-reform, increased central control, financial reform and the policy of Russification as the core stone of his reign. His policy was to undo the reforms as far as possible. In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had.
Also the Tsar still had the support of the Russian army and the navy which stopped any serious uprising. Some historians believe the October manifesto was important in the survival of the Tsar because of the affect it had on the liberal opposition and the peasantry. However i believe it was not so important because it did not entirely solve the problem it only weekend the threat posed. For example the October manifesto did not entirely appease the liberals, although it promised a Duma/parliament there was still a split in the party. And it was clear one group was not satisfied with what the manifesto promised.
How did Stalin's dictatorship develop? Stalin made his way into becoming dictator by a series of manipulative and clever tactics he would use to aid his influence. After Lenin and his party took over the election of the Provisional government which had been elected after the fall of the tsarist regime through a series of well-aimed political hits and armed threats; Stalin ascended the ranks of the government through extensive manipulation and threats as well as gaining the strong loyalty of some socialist idealists. In 1922 Stalin received the majority vote to become the General Secretary of the Communist party; a role that really no one else in the party really wanted as they deemed it unimportant and much like “House-chores”. What the other members of the soviet party such as Trotsky did not realize however; was that Stalin would use the position to gain a mass of followers for his socialist ideals and would use it as a stepping stone to achieve greater political influence and manipulate his way even further in the ranks.
How far was the outbreak of the Revolution of 1905 due to the consequences of the RussoJapanese War of 1904–1905? Eminent Historian Abraham Ascher contends that had Russia not provoked a war with Japan in 1904 then the 1905 revolution may not have happened. The war seemed to symbolise for many Russians the deep problems within Tsarist Russia, However the war alone cannot take all the blame as there were many longstanding problems which existed in Russia which help to create the conditions necessary for revolution. It can be argued that the 1905 revolution has it’s roots in the late 19th Century. Strikes and peasant revolts were common in the 1890s.