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.
Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
However this was not the only problem that showed why they were so short-lived. * Left behind with The problems that the Tsar had faced were still very prominent. * War – continued to fight for loan and duty. * People of Russia wanted to get out war – what the Bolsheviks were offering, whereas Kerensky saw it as defensive war. * Lost terriorty in Poland & Western Russia – PG were blamed for losses just like the Tsar was when took charge.
How successfully did Alexander II deal with the opposition he faced, 1855-1881? Alexander II had opposition during the years 1855-1881 as his reforms had raised hope of the intelligentsia, who wanted further modernisation specifically a constitution and as he failed to deliver they were all disillusioned and angry. Secondly he abandoned his reforms in 1866 which led to more extreme opposition. I feel Alexander II was successful in dealing with opposition as he had support from the serfs which I feel was the most successful way to deal with opposition. The emancipation of the serfs appeared to have strengthened the loyalty of most peasants to the tsarist regime leading the peasants to greet the Populists with hostility due to their loyalty to the tsar.
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
‘The peoples of Russia were consistently repressed by the rulers’. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964? During the span of the 19th and 20th centuries, repression was a constant existence for the people of the Russian Empire. However, the extent to which the rulers used repression varied throughout each regime. This essay will focus on a number of different examples where repression occurred, whilst also considering phases where restraint over the Russian people was relaxed.
To What Extent Was the February Revolution Inevitable? (Written by MusloDePollo) During the early 20th century, Russia was heading towards a state of unrest due to Tsar Nicholas II’s poor judgment as an autocratic leader, as well as a series of catastrophic events happening from 1905 till 1917, that damaged the social and economical balance of the country itself. Furthermore, it was a mix of both long term and short term causes that led to the Tsar’s eventual downfall in 1917 which resulted in the February revolution, such as the loss in the Russo-Japanese war, the October manifesto, and overall shortages and mass discontent throughout Russia. There are, however, two opposing views on whether or not the tsarist regime would have collapsed sooner or later, or if the monarchy could have sustained the economy properly and continued being in power indefinitely. These views, be it the soviet view or the traditional liberal view, both take into consideration the strengths and the weaknesses of the regime, and help picture to what extent the February Revolution of 1917 could have been called inevitable.
Body c. About his life who he proceeded d. What he did for Russia e. serfs f. Wars, policies g. Death h. Who followed him 3. Conclusion i. Restate thesis The last reformer of the Russian royal crown, Alexander was a key factor in the coming years, especially in the events leading up to the October Revolution. He is a man whose history is controversial, whether he is seen as a great liberator of Russia and a great reformer, or of an evil tyrant whose actions sped the October Revolution. Both are true and false in their own right, but the truth is in neither of these statements. Alexander II was a moderate reformer whose assassination ended reform in Russia.
With Stolypin’s death, all hope of reform in Russia came to an end. The Tsarist state reverted to its traditional behaviour, failing to take any account of the grievances that were being expressed from almost every section of Russian society. Russia’s poor performance during the First World War exacerbated the gulf that existed between state and society, as the government - and especially Nicholas II himself - became identified as responsible for the disasters that befell Russian armies. But on the other hand his reforms eased the situation of Russian peasants. Due to them in November 1905 redemption payments were abolished.
His “Great Turn” can be seen as a realistic and attractive policy, suited to the rank and file of the party, that he did not adopt earlier in the 20’s since it was not a fitting policy at the time. The problems in ideology could be seen to link to the problems with agriculture as it was the Kulak class that Stalin held responsible for hoarding the grain and demanding higher prices for it, thus if the ideology changed to rid Soviet society of such elements, then haste could be seen to be of importance. However this was not the only problem with Russian agriculture. Farming methods were