The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not. Socially, Alexander II introduced arguably the most radical reform in 1861 by emancipating the serfs and granting peasants freedom. This is by far the reform that affected the population most widely in the period – by granting this, peasants were allowed to own themselves in body and soul and could dictate their own lives as far as they could. Class bias was reduced and education was given more widely across Russia, regardless of social standing. This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear.
Russia was seen as having a feudal system where the working class (peasants) were holding up everyone above them and retaining nothing. The response from the Tsar was the emancipation in 1861. Nicholas was quoted saying to nobles of Russia that “the existing condition of owning souls cannot remained unchanged. It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below”. Although there were a few cases of the Tsar redistributing land to the peasants Riasanovsky claims that the “Fundamental inequality and widespread destitution could not be remedied by a re-division of the peasants inadequate land” This further brings the idea of Marxism into Russia which is discussed later.
The Polish and Hungarian Uprisings: A Comparison Poland 1863: Polish uprising Background: Previously independent country, disliked Russian rule (Tsar a point of contention) Peasants used to independence, Nobility and emancipation used to localise control, made their lives worse (WHY) Inspired by “Emancipation”, AII open to change? 1861=expecting change Hungary 1956: Hungarian uprising Background: Previously independent country up until 1945 Disliked Russian rule- Moscow based Politburo Workers used independence or capitalist economy (WHAT) Politicians used to localised control, now run by Moscow, left wing, 1930s pre-Fascists (WHAT) Inspired by “Secret Speech”, Khrushchev open to change? Poland Uprisings: The revolt Peasants and nobility united in opposition, united by nationality Peasants demanded “2nd emancipation” Nobility demanded greater freedoms, political independence Desire for national independence? Hungarian Uprisings: The revolt People elect a socialist party, united by nationality (WHAT) People demand a “different approach” Politicians want greater devolution from Moscow,
Explore the ways that Tennessee Williams constructs the character of Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire and Willy Russell constructs the character of Rita in Educating Rita in light of the opinion that they have the desire to escape reality and fulfil their fantasies. Despite being set in different periods of history, both plays ‘Educating Rita’ and ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’ share similar themes of the fine line between fantasy and reality, and losing yourself in the former. In 1945 Tennessee Williams began work on the play ‘A Streetcar Named Desire’, and with the war ending in the same year, the play to reflects the cultural tensions of World War 2. Many felt uncomfortable being an environment with so many nationalities they were only a few years ago at war with. Cultural tensions are present in Blanche’s remark that Stanley is a ‘Polack’; during World War 2, the Polish were seen as the enemy; Blanche using this insult is not because she is against Polacks, but is her taking advantage of the frequently used insult at the time.
In January 1905, there was a revolutionary tide in Russia. This was mainly caused by the defeat of the Russo-Japanese War in September and the Bloody Sunday Incident in January. In the country, workers, peasants and merchants were holding demonstrations in order to express their discontent to the Tsarist government. Although Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto to pacify the discontent of people temporarily, he still had to face some problems after the 1905 Revolution. To regain the support from people, he needed to carry out the reforms in the October Manifesto.
Pyotr (Peter) Stolypin Peter Stolypin, a controversially well known figure throughout the History of modern Russia, was known mainly for his inhumane and cruel methods in which he dealt with opponents. His agricultural reforms and involvement with the Romanov's Party contributed to his popularity. Stolypin assumed the position of Minister of the Interior and later Prime Minister. During this time he introduced various progressive military, education and finance policies, as his beliefs made him wane from the true definition of what was good for the people and social welfare. Historians have different views on him, some referring to him as the ‘Demon of Imperial Russia’, whilst others consider him to be the ‘Driving Force of Russian History’.
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms after the emancipation edict of 1861 Emancipation opened many opportunities for further reforms and forced a change in the structure of the Russian society. Serfdom was abolished and the nobility could no longer control them which led to light being shed on other problems in society such as the law, industry and also the military. The most important reason for the introduction of further reforms is that they were a reasonable response to the emancipation of the serfs, but only in short term. The emancipation act gave the serfs power to control their own lives instead of being dictated by people of a higher status, such as the nobility. For this, rural councils known as the Zemstvas were set up in 1864 which offered the serfs a representative government; but they were mostly dominated by the nobility and professionals and many of them resented their loss of power over the serfs.
This was due to the inefficiency of Serfdom, and by this time, roughly 60% of Serfs had been mortgaged to the government. What this essentially means is that Serfdom was already beginning to come to a natural end. As the Nobles were the Tsar’s staunchest supporters, he was forced to emancipate the Serfs to allow the Nobles to refill their coffers and get out of their debt. As well as this, with the rest of Europe beginning to make large economic progress, Russia was beginning to look inferior economically and industrially, and it was Serfdom that was holding them back, with the simplest solution to just emancipate the Serfs and allow them to become more productive. The main reason that the Serfs were inefficient was due to oppression from the Nobles, which, coupled with poor farming methods, gave inferior results
The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology. The communists’ efforts to represent the people is corroborated by the introduction of the soviet by the Provisional Government, which was organised as a grassroots effort to practice direct democracy. Although the presence of the Zemstva and Duma, introduced by Alexander II and Nicholas II respectively, presents some evidence the Tsars may have attempted to give Russia a sense of democracy, it was ran by the nobility so it was not representative of the people and thus heavily autocratic in their rule. Conversely, although the communists and the Tsars appear to have ruled differently in their top-down approach, they in fact did not because in practice the communists gave an extremely limited extent of power to the proletariat. The Provisional Government’s vacillating rule on the other hand, from heavily autocratic to democratic led to the governments demise.
Brian Ernst 18th Century Russia...or Were There Two? There have been many historians argue whether the Petrine reforms and the reforms of the 18th Century Russian Czars caused a great rift in Russian society between the “world” of the nobility and that of the peasant majority, thus creating “two Russias”, that is, two Russian societies coexisting in the same era. To get to the heart of this debate, it is essential to look at the origin and development of both the nobility and the peasants in Russian history. After uncovering the developmental paths of each class, it is then necessary to look at the western movement started by Peter the Great and carried on by his successors throughout the eighteenth century. Specifically,