How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? Divisions among the Tsars opponents were important to the survival of Tsarist rule. However other elements also affected it, such as the belief in the Russian Orthodox Church and the belief that the Tsar was divinely appointed, poor communication across Russia this included the large the number of different languages and nationalities and the Cossacks which stayed loyal to the Tsar. The growing political opposition to the Tsar affected the stability of the Tsarist regime. Many Russian intellectuals were rising up against the Tsar; they believed that the regime was oppressive and that European countries had more freedom and felt that many Russians lacked basic freedoms seen in other European nations.
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? The Labour movement essentially began in 1883 when it was emancipated by the established order; small political groups were tolerated. The Labour Party ,or ‘Social Democrats’ often used violent tactics, including the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, to revolt. The Social Democrat Party also opposed the autocratic system and wanted change but did not use as much violence as opposed to propaganda and campaigns. However, opposition to the Tsar became even more divided when Lenin and Martov split the Social Democrats party as Martov accused Lenin of becoming a dictator.
Divisions among the opponents of the Tsar played a large role as to the survival of Tsarist rule. He benefited from the inherent disunity of the opposition. They had different, aims, methods and ideas as of who to target. However Tsarism also survived because of how widespread it was, creating many obstacles for opposition to overcome. So many divisions and factions within the opponents all wanting different things for Russia shows responsibility for the survival of the Tsar as they were too busy against each other, than to unite against the Tsar.
The Crimean war (1853-6) proved a struggle for Russia as they faced inferior opponents, alike to the Russo-Turkish and Japanese wars. All three of these wars ended with Russia in a worse economic position than before, with loss of land. This caused anger and unrest amongst the Russian citizens as it illustrated the backwardness of Russian economy and society, leading to the Tsar Alexander 2nd introducing reforms and changes in an attempt to modernize Russia. The emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was an important reform as it forced change upon local government and coerced with the creation of the Zemstva. These reforms made a significant change to the government as a weakened sense of autocracy replaced the traditional span of control the Tsar ruled over, due to freedom of serfs which ultimately creates opposition.
He issued his famous April Thesis, which had his promise of ‘Peace, Land and Bread’ which was cleverly aimed at the majority of Russia (peasants wanted land, everyone wanted peace and there was a bread shortage which made problems for most people). This message became more and more popular throughout 1917, especially amongst the workers in the cities which explains why Lenin’s leadership was important. However, Lenin’s promise wouldn’t have been so powerful if the Provisional Government had not consistently made serious mistakes, such as failing to resolve the problem of food shortages, high inflation and the redistribution of land. Lenin’s return to Russia helped the Bolsheviks gain power because his slogans were attractive when the Provisional Government started to fail. Therefore, we don’t know if Lenin would have been as successful if the Provisional Government were not failing.
Additionally, suspicions had risen of radical parliamentarians and the people were reliant on Charles’ return to stop this. These reasons are the main factors for Charles’ support in 1646. Charles’ return to the throne would have meant an end to Parliament’s County Committees, which many felt were worse than living under Charles’ rule. A large portion of the population had suffered the brutal dominion of the County Committees, which only worsened as the war progressed and Parliament became more desperate to finance the war. Primarily made up of fiercely loyal Puritans, the County Committees were efficient in reaching the monthly quotas set by Parliament.
Despite Brigham Young’s failures I believe he responded better than Joseph Smith. This is because Young came to a solution for his problems while Smith ran away from them. Joseph Smiths main concern was to increase the population of the Mormon society, which was successful as he was a great preacher. Although this religion was a good idea to many people it took great offense to other religions such as Christianity, which was spread right throughout America. He also introduced polygamy which most people believed to be a sin.
This petition was a kind approach taken by the working seeking “truth, justice and protection from [the Tsar]” because they were “treated as slaves… not recognized as people…. & oppressed”. The Tsar denied their desperate and pleading approach, which soon lead to other rebellions including strikes and Bloody Sunday. There
However it created land ownership problems which with the redemption fee system created bitterness amongst peasants and became known as ‘the great disappointment’ . His other reforms such as changes to the legal system, military and education, also gave Russian’s a greater freedom, however he didn’t provide the extensive changes to autocracy and society that radicals hoped for. As the population got a taste of liberalisation opposition increased, threatening the tsarist regime, forcing Alexander II to use repression to maintain control. Some historians suggest this shift from reform to reaction was directly related to the first assassination attempt on his life. However, Jonathan Bromley argues that there was no conservative shift as just prior to his death he agreed in principal to a national assembly.
A high level of rebellion from the Peasants was during the summer of 1917 under the Provisional Government in which the Peasants started taking over the land from their nobles due to the fact that peasant land seizures occurred. The peasants didn’t fear Kerensky. On the other hand Khrushchev was respected by the peasants especially when de-Stalinisation began providing the Peasants, once again, with legal fairness as well as improving their general living standards. From the scale of terror used under each Russian leader it is clear that the communists were more effective and violent towards the Russian people. The Tsars took minimal amount of action towards opposition compared to the constant threat that was present from the Communist leaders.