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.
The first step Stalin took towards removing the threat of Trotsky was to lie to him about the date of Lenin’s funeral. As a result, Trotsky was absent. This is important because it appeared that Trotsky wasn’t interested in being present at Lenin’s burial. It also allowed Stalin to steal on a march on Trotsky because, in Trotsky’s absence, Stalin gave a speech, in which he dedicated himself to the continuation of Lenin’s ways. This speech was important because it allowed Stalin to appear as one of the leading mourners, and also suggesting continuity between himself and Lenin.
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.
Tsar Nicholas II wasn’t much of a good ruler for Russia; he ignored the fact that Russia wasn’t doing so good and overlooked the industrialization and nationalism that was occurring throughout Russia. Nicholas II disregarded the troubles the Russians were facing and seemed to only care about himself and him staying in power. This caused people to revolt as they needed a good strong leader to help Russia survive. The main leader who started China’s revolution was Sun Yat-sen who believed China should adopt a democratic government if it were to survive. The revolutions led by him eventually led to the fall of the Qing Dynasty in China.
When Nicholas was first crowned Tsar in 1894, the whole country rejoiced and had a new hope for a brighter future, that things would be better than they were before. However, if anything, maybe things got worse. Peasants living in the countryside made up 80% of Russia and their living/working conditions were horrendous. Those who supported the opposition, the Social Revolutionaries, mainly opposed the Tsar because of land. Some peasants left to work in the cities as the Tsar wanted Russia to be an industrial power, however the living conditions there hardly improved, which matched their dreadful working conditions.
The Socialist Revolutionary Party wanted to completely abolish the Tsar’s power and give the peasants power to advance Russia. They were quite radical as they had terrorist wing who were responsi9ble for a few political assassinations. Another reformist group was the Social Democrat Party. They believed the industrial workers should be given power in order to revolutionise as removes Tsar’s power over the country. The Social Democrats were split into two groups: the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
The Labour economy policies are also a reason why they lost. Gaitskell promised to increase public spending without increasing taxes. This put his credibility under question. Another reason is that although voters were happy with the nationalisation of electricity, gas, atomic energy and airline industries they thought public ownership of coal and the railways had been a failure when they were last in government and there was little enthusiasm for further nationalisation which Labour was committed to by Clause Four of the Labour Party Constitution. Another reason why Conservatives won is that in there manifesto they promised to stabilise the cost of living which would close the gap between rich and poor and double everyone’s standard of living.
Stalin did this on his own; he lied to the people and accused the government of being enemies of the people. In February 1917 after the people of Russia already had lost faith in their leadership and the Imperial government was forced to resign. A provisional government was formed and worked with the Petrograd Soviet for control of the revolution. In March the Petrograd Soviet forced the Russian soldiers obey the orders that did not conflict with the directives of the Soviet. This led to Czar Nicholas to step down from his throne.
The rights of universities to appoint their own professors was abolished and new legislation required the government’s approval for new syllabuses to be taught. No student was allowed to be taught History unless he had permission from the Minister of Education. I think that the use of repression is the main reason for the weakness of oppositions to Tsarism in the years 1881 – 1914. This is because of many different reasons and factors. One is because the Tsar enforced Russification of the country, meaning the people who were not necessarily a true Russian who enforced the Russian Orthodox Church were made to.
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.