For example this caused divide within the populists leading to the formation of the Land and Liberty (1876) and the Black Repartition and the radical terrorist group People’s Will (1879). Eventually the Social Revolutionaries formed (1901) they believed that Russia’s future lay with the peasantry and so they wanted to give peasants their own land and improve living conditions for working classes. They used tactics such as terrorism and assassinations. However, the Liberals (Octobrists and Kadets- 1905), who also wanted to establish some sort of democracy did not
Theme: Assess the view that throughout 1855-1964, Russian rulers opposed change. To assess this view it is important to consider a number of areas including the role of opposition, and backwardness and poor state of the country. Trotsky described war as a ‘locomotive of change’ and Russian involvement in war throughout the period meant that this was very much the case. Russian rulers were also to some degree reluctant reformers who were opposed to change as most changes throughout the period were forced upon them and were usually followed with restrictions, such as the Fundamental Laws reducing the impact of the Duma. This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology.
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.
All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions. Political change was expected in Russia during this period, particularly during the Tsarist regime where the growth of the revolutionary intelligentsia, ironically an effect of the Great Reforms, led many to question the need for a Tsar or a royal family at all. The first main success of political opposition is widely considered to be the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of the People’s Will in 1881. Although they assassinated their Tsar, it is very likely this did not actually lead to their desired outcome, it being greater political freedom/democracy. Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia.
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.
There are many cases in which the Tsar’s position and the government’s position are genuinely threatened such as the mass demonstrations leading to many strikes which had the potential of economic failure. On the other hand there are also cases where they are not seriously threatened the mutinies of the armed services for example did not carry on after the war. The revolutionary’s aims had no intentions to threaten the position of the Tsar or his government however some people could argue that it did because of the misinterpretations of their demands. The Tsar and his government faced three main opponents the industrial workers, peasants and the reformist middle class. The fact that peasantry took part in the 1905 revolution (also known as Bloody Sunday)shows that the suspicions of the peasants changing were true and to the Tsar and his government this could have appeared to be a threat because they always feared peasantry development, the Tsar and the Empress especially.
As it was them who started the protest which turned into a revolution and also they were the ones behind the mutiny of the troops. However, the military was having many problems such as the war was going horribly wrong with many casualties, poor commanding from officers and limited military resources and equipment. The peasants were doing the fighting and the dying. So this could be a small contributing factor to the fall of the Romanov's on several different reasons. Firstly the tsar did not help the peasants personally, but instead leave the burden to the prime ministers when they cannot rule like a democracy today.
Lastly, was the Social Revolutionaries, these were the most radical and whose support came from the peasants. They wanted to take the land from the Rich and distribute amongst the peasants. A consequence of the differences in the opposition was that they couldn’t agree on what ways to overthrow the Tsar , the social revolutionaries used terrorism and violence whereas liberals only wanted minor changes therefore such extremes were not needed. As a result the Tsar was able to continue his reign whilst the opposition continued to disagree on the future of Russia.
Another factor to the growth of opposition against the Tsar was due to the Rasputin becoming advisor to Alexandria as Nicholas the second went to war. During September 1915 and December there was frequent changes such as; 4 prime ministers ,5 interior ministers and 3 ministers of agriculture. This made it hard for people of Russia to keep up and it made no improvements to Russia’s society. In addition this made the Tsar hated among the people and the opposition grew against him. However, if Alexandra accepted reforms from the Duma instead of Rasputin a reduction of opposition would of
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.