However after Karakazov attempts to assassinate the Tsar in 1866, he becomes much more autocratic, revealing that he had no intention of significantly developing politics, his use of the Zemstvas were in fact to help sustain autocracy, through making local administration more efficient. It can be suggested from this that Alexander II had put the Zemstva Act in place to appease the nobles angered by the Emancipation Act. Alexander III was much more of a successful autocrat. His reactionary attitude led to the reversal of many of his father’s liberal reforms, and was in some cases angered by them. Alexander III re-implements Tsarist form, through the use of repression and terror.
And it was clear one group was not satisfied with what the manifesto promised. These where called the Kadets and where led by Pavel Nikolayevich Milyukov. The Kadets where not happy with how weak the Duma would be and the fact the Tsar could out rule any decision they made. This shows that the October manifesto was not that important in ensuring the Tsars survival as it created more opposition to him. The Liberals were also not the only ones that the manifesto displeased.
Ellie Malkin Alexander the third was determined to preserve Autocracy, but in what ways did he lay the foundations for its destruction? After his Father the former Tsar, Alexander the second 'Tsar Liberator' was assassinated in 1881 so were his ideas to change the way Russia was run. Alexander the second had prepared to have a constitution written and Alexander the third destroyed any chance of that happening and once announced the Tsar began to revert the country to it's traditional values. Alexander brought in the policy of 'Russification' where he began to clamp down on anything that wasn't Russian within the empire. Alexander wanted all religions changed to Russian Orthodoxy which angered the many religions which occupied Russia, the Jewish community, which totalled to 5 million in the 1980's, prevailed over any other religions in the Pale(along the border of Poland and Russia).
Tsar Alexander III’s reforms were reverse ‘reaction’ of what his father, Alexander II, did before him to improve the country he ruled over. Repressive policies under Nicholas II were continued right up until early 1905 when Bloody Sunday took place outside Winter Palace and hundreds of Russian citizens were massacred by the Cossacks. It appears that there was extremely little, if any, political reform during 1881-1905. Political reform after 1905 began to rise. A clear turning point for politics in Russia was the publishing of the October Manifesto.
It was clear that the Tsar had to clear the newly formed alliance between the classes; but even thought they never really worked together they were still deadly as a whole. In October many revolutionaries came out of exile to set up Soviets (workers councils), they directed where to strike so this put pressure on the Tsar, which meant he had to grant concessions. So he instituted the October Manifesto which was promises that were made to cancel all redemption payments (peasants), create a duma, increase living and working conditions. He also encouraged Kulaks to buy up the strips of land from the Mir as he set up land bank, which would encourage them to produce their own grain and increase the grain industry. But even thought many peasants would now have their land many of the youths of the landlords would rise up against the peasants for killing their parents.
How important is the character and personality of Nicholas II to an understanding of the reasons for the February Revolution? There are many reasons for the February Revolution of 1917, the character and personality of a Tsar who was conservative and nervous in the position that he felt, God had wanted him to take, is just one. Other factors include the feelings of hostility that arose after the revolution of 1905, growths of parties within Russia, including the ideas of both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and of course the war of 1914 and the hardships it brought to the Russian people. The view of some historians is that the revolution of 1917 was spontaneous, but when considering the conditions of the majority of Russian people during this revolutionary period, one must see that this cannot be the case, the country was ripe for change… and for revolution. This essay will aim to examine each factor in turn, before coming to a solid conclusion on the main reasons for the revolution in Russia, in 1917.
Nicholas II was faced with various issues during his reign from 1894-1917. His ineffectual personality was partly to blame for his ineffectual ruling. He was not able to listen to the needs of his public, and so violent uprisings such as Bloody Sunday occurred. His response was to initiate the October Manifest and the instigation of the Russian Duma, but neither of these pleased the public and so the February revolution of 1917 occurred, which ultimately created the fall of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy.
Stalin was more popular because of Trotsky’s “political paralysis” he couldn’t be a good public speaker. This links to my next point because they both result in Stalin’s getting more power. Stalin made an alliance with Zinoviev and Kamenev to form the triumvirate. The triumvirate’s main aim was to defeat Trotsky. Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want.
It was all set up perfectly, except one major flaw, Nicholas was unfit to lead according to many. In 1932, Trotsky, a key figure in the Russian revolution stated, ‘His ancestors did not pass on to him one quality which would have made him capable of governing and empire.’ It is through primary sources like this we can see how people thought of Nicholas and their opinions on his ability to lead. He was labelled as bored, inept, naïve, ignorant and indecisive. Because of all of these, as his reign lasted longer and longer, his ability to lead began to wane, and slowly his grasp on Russia began to slide. In relation to the leadership of the Tsar,
How did Stalin rise to power between 1924 and 1929? Lenin’s death was a perfect example of the major factors contributing to Stalin’s rise to power; luck. In the time leading up to Stalin’s death, Lenin and Stalin had been arguing more and In January 1924, Lenin’s death left a place to be filled within the early communist party. Despite Lenin’s wishes that the party be run communally by the remaining seven members of the Politburo, it was soon clear that the rivalries and differing opinions would make this wish an impossibility. During Lenin’s reign as leader of the party, Stalin was seen as a ‘grey blur’ in the background of political proceedings.