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.
One of the reasons why this didn’t work was the downfall of communication, and disagreements within the group due to the extent of different opinions was so great causing splits and creating smaller less powerful sub divisions. The liberals wanted to keep the tsar but reduce his power and used calm no violent tactics such a discussions and meetings, but this group split; the octobrists and the kadets. The octobrists set up the duma (government) and the kadets wanted full equality and were a first major opposition voice in the duma, both groups came into being at the time of the October manifesto 1905. The social democrats wanted an empire with no rich or poor people, they wanted communism and also like the liberals didn’t use violent tactics. The Bolshevik and Menshevik split and both parties were very distinct opposing Marxist parties.
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. Alexander III was determined to upkeep Russia’s image as a major European power, unlike his father; however he was a conservative, believing that his father’s reforms were a mistake and took to reverse them as much as he could. The counter-reforms initially may have looked like a success due to the period of stability during Alexander III’s reign; however with the Revolution a few years later it seems to be that the counter-reforms were not as successful as they may have seemed. The political oppression resultant of these counter-reforms meant Russia politically was behind its major European counterparts, whilst England and France by now had a form of democracy, Russia was still being ruled by total autocracy, and this increased the resentment against the government and added to the growth of reformist groups. Because of the political structure in place in Russia at the time, without a revolution the only way change was possible was from the Tsar being willing to change things, the Tsar was not willing and he clearly demonstrated this through the counter-reforms, leaving an angry population
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 were the divisions amongst its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist Rule 1881-1905 In the years 1881-1905 the Tsarist regime was faced large amounts of opposition from many people. The lower classes caused uprisings, their aims to remove the Tsar from power, while some educated middle class went on strike in an attempt to reform the regime. Many people were revolting and 3 main political groups emerged. The divides in these political groups were heavily responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule, however there were other factors responsible such as the repression in Russia, which lead to the eventual removal of all opposition groups, and the loyalty of the Tsars supporters, which meant that his power was still stronger than the opposition he was facing. One of the main reasons the Tsarist rule continued during the tome 1881 until 1905 was due to the splits in the political groups.
His reform included different aspect; such as political, social and economic. He also appointed Peter Stolypin as the prime minister to stabilize the country. Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms however resentment of his wife and her involvement with the mystical Rasputin was widespread and did little to regain the peoples trust. Also the state of the country during World War One left a lot to be desired and created a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people. The personality of Nicholas II contributed to his downfall in 1917.
And it was clear one group was not satisfied with what the manifesto promised. These where called the Kadets and where led by Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov. The Kadets where not happy with how weak the Duma would be and the fact the Tsar could out rule any decision they made. This shows that the October manifesto was not that important in ensuring the Tsars survival as it created more opposition to him. The Liberals were also not the only ones that the manifesto displeased.
How important was the role of Lenin compared to the failures of the Provisional Government in bringing about the October revolution? After the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917, the Provisional Government (PG) took control of Petrograd, and led the country how they thought it should be led. Their main policy was to maintain Russia in fighting in the war; this was not a favoured idea with the PG followers. Although, they promised to stop the food shortage and to give peasants land which was what everyone wanted. This was one of the main reasons why they gained many followers during the period of the Tsars abdication.
So for example if the allies in the west did not promise to rebuild Germany and try to stop every country from becoming communist when they threatened to even if it through fair vote (rare as it was). It can be argued that the cold war was an avoidable one. Firstly the Russians were very aggressive in creating a buffer zone and in fact created communist states practically all over Eastern Europe and made much more than a buffer zone and Stalin was at the heart of all these communist political movements and was trying to spread his influence to even Italy and France. This worried the west very much because they thought their very freedom was being threatened but more importantly the more states that became communist the less ttade there was. The west needed trade partners in the east and they couldn’t trade with communist states.
The crushing of Russian’s military added movement to the 1905 Revolution, as it made the people of Russia aware of the weakness of their military, making many people become un-patriotic. They were losing to a nation very few had heard of and it was humiliating. However, many of the defeats to the Russian military occurred after the Revolution had started, not causing its outbreak, but merely adding to the opposition to autocratic rule by the Tsar and prolonging the Revolution. The Russo-Japanese War also brought about economic problems for Russia, and this therefore meant there was a significant lack of money to solve any other problems present Russia, hence partly being responsible for