Divisions of opposing groups of the Tsar were important to the survival of Tsarist rule in 1881-1905 as the political opponents of the Tsar were clearly divided in their aims and methods. However, other factors such as the church and the power the Tsar held over it; the conservative culture of the Russian people; lack of education especially amongst the peasants and workers; the retributions from opposing the Tsar and the Okhrana were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power. The different political parties all had a similar aim for change and most of wanted to remove the Tsar from power. However they all had different approaches and different plans on how to run the Russia after the Tsars removal. Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists.
“Reluctant reformers.” How far do you agree with this view of Russian Rulers from 1855-1964? There is a common theme through most of the period that Russian rulers and the reforms they introduced were less than radical, and were indeed ‘reluctant’ in their approach. As the tsars were only the most recent of a long line of autocratic and orthodox rulers it is hardly surprising that they may not be particularly progressive. This essay will define reform as changes to government and processes wherein that cause a notable impact upon the population. The areas to investigate include political, economic, social and military reforms from the Russian government in order to see if they are ‘reluctant reformers’ or not.
Explain why Alexander II introduced further reforms after the emancipation edict of 1861 Emancipation opened many opportunities for further reforms and forced a change in the structure of the Russian society. Serfdom was abolished and the nobility could no longer control them which led to light being shed on other problems in society such as the law, industry and also the military. The most important reason for the introduction of further reforms is that they were a reasonable response to the emancipation of the serfs, but only in short term. The emancipation act gave the serfs power to control their own lives instead of being dictated by people of a higher status, such as the nobility. For this, rural councils known as the Zemstvas were set up in 1864 which offered the serfs a representative government; but they were mostly dominated by the nobility and professionals and many of them resented their loss of power over the serfs.
Indians did not want to own domestic animals since livestock husbandry did not fit easily with native practices, the adoption of livestock would alter women’s lives by affecting the traditional division of labor since women were mainly responsible of agriculture production. And the settlers free ranging livestock (mostly pigs and hogs) were feasting on their corn farms. Animal husbandry also challenged native beliefs and practices, since their mental universe assumed no distinction between human and animal being. Instead of recognizing the incompatibility of English and Indian subsystem regimes, colonial authorities permitted joint use of land, which was doomed to fail by the problems that arose from livestock on hunting lands. In 1640 Massachusetts law required settlers to help their fellow Indian neighbors, but this friendly gesture was coupled with stern provisos.
* Lost terriorty in Poland & Western Russia – PG were blamed for losses just like the Tsar was when took charge. * War made finical problems – Inflation still a problem and food shortages were high. * Russia expected these things to be stored out – PG short-lived because they were full of empty promises. Promised land reform to the peasants ( made up a large amount of the population , Bolshevik priority was to keep them on their side) no action was taken * Couldn’t guarantee food supplies as because soviet controlled the railways. * Political reform also promised political reform in an attempt to stop the revolutionaries but no action was taken.
He believed there should be a smychka (alliance) between peasants and workers (didn’t want to create differences between them.) • Trotsky wanted to abolish the NEP- Resented the fact that much of the USSR’s industry was under the direct control of the government. Hated the NEPMEN (traders who made large profits from the NEP.) Wanted to end the inequality between poor peasants and kulaks. Wanted to abolish private farms and introduce collective farming.
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.
During the revolution, members of the imperial parliament gained control of the country.The army leadership felt they did not have the means to suppress the revolution and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. It is argued that the social and economic factors were the most important catalyst and the main cause of the revolution. Others may argue that the military factors were the downfall and breaking point of the country. Although the military factors were important and did play a huge role, the social and economic factors were perhaps the more important reason. The military issues perhaps would not have escalated the way they did if it was not for existing social and economic problems at home.
: The revolutionary movement in Russia was caused by the workers were not happy of there low standard of living and little of political power. 8. How did stain create totalitarian state? : The way Stalin created a totalitarian state was by being a general supporter into position of powers. 9.
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