(30 marks) June 2009 How far do you agree that the economy of Tsarist Russia was transformed in the years to 1914? (30 marks) OR To what extent were the weaknesses of their opponents responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government in the years 1917–24? (30 marks) How far do you agree that the collectivisation of agriculture made an essential contribution to Stalin’s transformation of the Russian economy? (30 marks) OR To what extent did Stalin establish a personal dictatorship in the years 1929–39? (30 marks) January 2010 To what extent did Russia undergo economic and political reform in the years 1906-14?
A Tale of Two Tsars: Comparisons of the Regimes of Tsars Ivan IV and Peter I Philip Jia Perhaps no two rulers in the history of Russia before the Revolution of 1917 capture the image in one’s mind of the Tsar as completely as Ivan IV (“The Terrible”) and Peter I (“The Great”). Their very mention summons iconic images of the fearsome power and horrific excesses of the Russian monarchy from a Western perspective, while from a Russian perspective they evoke the idea of a “model” for absolutist rule, a mythos carefully fostered by the government during the Soviet period. In particular, the reign of Ivan IV has long been held up, at least in Western memory, as a key example of what is thought to be a long history of abusive Russian absolutism. Yet, while the rule of the former Tsar is often described as one of Russia’s most calamitous and that of the latter thought of as one of its finest, Ivan IV and Peter I had much more in common than is normally thought to be the case. Both Tsars were thoroughly progressive, bringing reform to Russian bureaucracies and institutions that had slowly stagnated.
Each groups strategy was very different, the liberals went on strike, while the SR's took a more violent approach. The power each group had individually was not enough to threaten the Tsar, however these differences in aims and beliefs within the 3 main groups meant that they could not combine the groups and work together to bring down the tsar. They were unable to unite their cause and were weaker because of it. Furthermore, there was discontent within the political groups. In 1903 the SD's could no longer function as a single group and split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
To what extent did Alexander III measures create a stronger Russia? When Alexander III came into power as tsar Russia was in crisis after Alexander II was assassinated by the people will. Alexander III faced a hard job of keeping control of Russia and keeping supreme political power, this meant reform for Russia. Although he was reforming Russia like many Russians wanted to, he was actually moving backwards and launched Russia on the return to conservatism and brought an end to further political reform.Alexander III brought in new reforms to strengthen Russia after the tsar was assassinated because of Russia bad state, these reforms effected the political, financial and nearly every aspect of Russian society. One of the most radical and important changes the tsar first made was russification , this meant that in 1885 the official language was changed to Russia and was taught in all school and no other language was allowed to be used in school .
Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror. At the end of the Crimean War, Alexander II realised that Russia was no longer a great military power. His advisers argued that a backwards economy which is reliant on the serfs could not compete with modernized powers such as Britain and France. He also became increasingly unpopular at this time, meaning he needed to do something
By 1914 revolution was in the making, and Tsar Nicholas II sealed his fate by inadvertently leading Russia into what would become WWI. ‘What leads most frequently to misunderstandings of the relationship between an ideology and its historical function is the failure to distinguish its objective from its subjective function. The concepts of a dictatorship derive directly from the economic
The term “reaction” refers to the idea of opposition to the ideals of reform; it refers to the idea of a backwards change, usually a change towards more traditional views and in the case of Alexander III it can be argued to whether his reign was completely reactionary or reformist or to whether only some parts where. When Alexander III took the position of Tsar from his father in 1881; his father Alexander II had started to reform the country of Russia both politically and socially through policies such as the Zemstva Reform in 1864 and the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 but this during Alexander III’s reign this all began to change, which is why his reign is famously known as “The reaction”. When Alexander first became Tsar in 1881 he announced that he wanted autocracy to be upheld and that any proposal of a constitutional government would be rejected; Alexander III appeared to be asserting his power of the country to stabilise it after the assignation of his father. Alexander III made it clear that he was to reverse his father’s reforms; he reversed the zemstva reform which had enabled Russia to have their first elective government, he decreased the power they held in 1890 by placing them under the disciplinary control of the ministry of the interior whilst also decreasing the peasant representation in the court. The 1890 Zemstva Act showed Alexander III as a reactionary by reducing the power people had and upholding the idea of autocracy.
To what extent had Russia modernised by 1903? It is simplistic to argue that Russia had not modernised much at all by 1903 and was still stuck in it’s traditional and often considered backwards ways that the country functioned which prevented Russia from catching up to the other large international powers such as Britain who were industrialising, mechanising and modernising radically at the time. There were, however, areas in which Russia did modernise to an extent such as its agriculture, society and communication systems. There was one key event brought about in 1861, by Tsar Alexander II, that aided the partial modernisation of several key aspects in Russia. This event was the Emancipation of the Serfs.
In particular, he released the serfs, which is generally seen as one of the most significant social reforms of the nineteenth century. Yet, the fundamental inconsistency between Alexander II's commitment to autocracy and his moves towards liberal reform isolated him from both reformers and conservatives. The growth of radical political opposition during his reign, was arguably given momentum by the liberal reforms he made which still left some radical groups pushing for revolution and eventually led to his assassination by terrorist of 'The People's Will' group in 1881. A great obstacle was that compared to Western Europe, Russia was backward economically, socially and politically in the late 19th Century. Russia was determined to not set up a new system by which the government were modernized and autocratic in which this stopped Russia from industrialising.
This paper argues that the October Revolution and rise in support for the Bolsheviks would not have been possible had it not been for the failure of the provisional government to establish itself as a stable regime in addition to the party’s use of violence. The provisional government failed to achieve stability in 1917 because of Lenin’s April Theses, the consequences of the July Days, its ineffectiveness in tackling social and economic issues and the Kornilov Affair.