Divisions of opposing groups of the Tsar were important to the survival of Tsarist rule in 1881-1905 as the political opponents of the Tsar were clearly divided in their aims and methods. However, other factors such as the church and the power the Tsar held over it; the conservative culture of the Russian people; lack of education especially amongst the peasants and workers; the retributions from opposing the Tsar and the Okhrana were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power. The different political parties all had a similar aim for change and most of wanted to remove the Tsar from power. However they all had different approaches and different plans on how to run the Russia after the Tsars removal. Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists.
One person Gompers did not want to associate with was the socialist leader Eugene Debs. In 1907, the AFL created strong links with the Democratic Party. However, many believed that the AFL was too moderate and did not support the unskilled workers. This led to the formation of the IWW. Most Americans feared socialism; they linked it to trade unions, mass immigration and anarchy.
The long-term policies of Russification imposed by the Tsar in the 1880s, caused a lot of political unrest within Russia and these contributed to the 1905 revolution. Russia was the only country within Europe with no elected national parliament. The only form of elected representation (what the Tsar referred to as ‘senseless dreams’) was the “Zemstva”. The Union of Liberation demanded in December 1904, that a parliament should be set up because they felt the Russian population needed an outlet to express their views. At the time, the formation of political parties was illegal but despite this, they still existed.
How far were divisions amongst its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? The autocratic rule of the Tsar had been tradition within Russia for many generations, but its popularity was often debated between the masses. Therefore, opposition to the Tsar and his autocratic rule was common, so the survival of a Tsarist reign was difficult to obtain, but after the 1905 revolution Nicholas was still in power. This is down to many factors, the first and what I consider the most important of which is the division amongst the opponents, but other factors did contribute such as the influence of the Okhrana, police and army, the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Law. Despite opposition to the tsarist rule being illegal in Russia at this time, there were 3 significant parties which had one thing in common which was wanting to change the Tsarist regime.
Rachel Kay How accurate is it to say Frederick William IV was responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament? The Frankfurt Parliament was established to create freedom of press, German citizenship for all, fair taxation, equality of political rights and to create a unified Germany. However, countries like Austria greatly opposed it. Frederick William IV could be seen as responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament because he refused to accept any form of leadership and made it clear he distrusted the ‘gentlemen of Frankfurt’. However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions.
This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology. It can be considered a fact that for the majority of the 1855-1964 period, the Russian citizens had little if any political freedom. Despite the legalization of political parties in 1905, this was a very short lived concession as Lenin revoked this in 1920. A similar approach was taken by Alexander III in reversing the reforms of Alexander II, including a reduction in power for the Zemstva. A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows.
Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change. Therefore war was an important catalyst and factor to significant changes but was not the sole cause of change. The war that caused most change was Word War One due to its role in the February revolution in 1917 and the fall of the provisional government in the October revolution. The defeats of the war dwindled support from liberals and Octobrists for the Tsarist regime, which was further worsened by criticism from organisations including the Central War Industries committee and the union of Zemstva. This formed support and reason for the Progressive Bloc.
Opposition to the Tsarist regime increased due to a number of reasons many of which could have been helped and others that were more natural. The key aspects of the opposition of the Tsars was Wittes programme of industrialisation, which while vital to Russia, exchanged the loyalist peasants into the disgruntled working class. While there were problems that the Tsar could not control such as the great amounts of other nationalities wanting independence and resisting Russification, such as the Poles and Jews. In 1881 opposition started due to ordinary people having little to no rights, as it was a criminal offence to question the Tsar and with no parliament to try and change the course of their country they would have to rely on the rich autocratic Tsar to decide to make changes to help the common people. As the government had strict censorship on books and journals when information did get through it would usually be made even more powerful as the government had attempted to ban it.
The October Manifesto, though not actually creating significant change in Russian political policies, officially signified the end of Russia’s autocratic government. The manifesto also raised expectations of political representation which were crushed through the Fundamental State Laws of 1906 and electoral changes in ’07. Through this, Nicholas lost the confidence of his supporters and the people of Russia and from 1906 to 1917, he was gradually abandoned by the bureaucracy, the ruling classes and the church. Despite this, however, Nicholas remained stubbornly unwilling to recognise the isolation of his government. This was demonstrated when he assumed that him taking personal control of the army during the First World War would unite the nation.
During this revolution, Lenin didn’t play any important role, however, just as well as the 1905 Revolution, he was using this experiences to make something more carefully planned. In the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote and announced what is known as the April Thesis, in which he attacked Bolsheviks for supporting the Provisional Government. Lenin accused those Bolsheviks who were still supporting the Provisional Government of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some people took Lenin`s advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution was certainly going to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government. Because of his April Theses, the October Revolution and the July Days would have never sparked up.