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.
To What Extent Was Charismatic Leadership a Contributory Factor In The Rise Of Totalitarianism? Richard Rothwell I will look at three different regimes and their respective leaders and analyse their rise to power. I shall consider the long and short term factors that had an effect on each regimes rise and consider them in comparison in an attempt to gauge just how much the charisma of each leader was accountable to the rise. Fascism was largely born of the ruling classes’ fear of democracy empowering the lower classes and the fear of wide scale socialist revolution. Since the Enlightenment liberalism had flourished.
By comparing the key events in terms of opposition like the Assassination of Alexander II in 1881, Blood Sunday and the October manifesto in 1905, the February and October revolution in 1917, and how effectively they were dealt with, then we can come to a judgment on the argument. Stalin’s most intense opposition came at the beginning of his quest to becoming ruler to Russia from 1924 to 1929. Before Lenin passed away from his stroke he had left a testament stating that Stalin was dangerous and should be dismissed also he had chosen Trotsky the leader of Red army as his successor. Stalin was given the position of General sectary of the communist party in 1922 which everyone associated as a dull and unimportant Job. However he managed to manipulate the leftists Zinoviev and Kamenev in the politburo into covering up Lenin’s
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.
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 most notable reformist groups that had an impact on the 1905 revolution were the national minorities, the army and the revolutionary parties. The national minorities leapt at the chance of changing autocracy, ending Russification and a democratic government by using Russia’s confusion against itself. It consisted of Jews who wanted civil rights, Polish and Finnish people (and other parts of the Russian empire) who wanted independence and many others. This turned into great violence across the empire, with peasants even attacking officials.
One of the main problems was the social problems it caused because of the loss of agricultural workers in the war led to a massive food shortage in Russia it also dint help when the tsar announced their would be bread rationing, in the war Russia also didn’t perform very well they lost 1.6 million Russian soldiers 3.9 million were wounded and 2.4 million were captured. another reason why the 1905 revolution survived was because the Tsar issued the October manifest which meant that a lot of people were happy because it allowed people to have a freedom of speech it also said that the Tsar would share his power which he had to intention of doing over time he started undoing concessions and arguing that the Duma was only a shell of democracy as it could not pass laws without the approval of the monarch, and that freedom of speech was heavily
Alexander was hopelessly out of touch with the emerging realities of a modern Russia. For example, agriculture was exploited as a source of export earnings; this helped cause a series of famines, especially in 1891. This made him hugely unpopular as he took grain from the people in an attempt to make money and improve the economy. Due to his slow intelligence and lack of experience, Alexander forgot the fundamental rule of keeping his people happy and instead chose to supress them. He did not realise that, following Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861, he could not return to a state of rigid autocracy when the serfs had already had some freedom.
Therefore Liberals wanted constitutional reform and more power to be given to the Reichstag. Whereas socialists demanded social reform and power to the workers and trade unions. However conservatives, such as Bismarck wanted to conserve to the Junkers – the elite class. To do this he proposed the Anti-Socialist Law in 1879 and also passed the Tariff Law, which appeased the liberals. The years leading up to the war the German people were dreading it, there were protests in Berlin in July 1914.
Reform: * How and why did Stolypin try to reform agriculture? He wanted to modernise Russian agriculture not just to produce higher yields, but to create a more prosperous class of peasant who he believed would be more loyal to the tsarist system. * 9th November 1906 he introduced a law which freed peasants from their commune. To leave a commune, a peasant no longer needed permission from the majority of its members. * 15th November the peasant land bank was instructed to give loans to peasants who wanted to leave the commune * New year’s day 1907, all redemption payments were abolished * June 1910 another reform dissolved all the communes where no distribution of land had taken place since the emancipation of the Serfs in 1861.
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.