To regain the support from people, he needed to carry out the reforms in the October Manifesto. His improvements included different aspects, such as political, social and economic approaches. However these were expedients rather than real reforms. He also appointed Peter Stolypin as the prime minister to stabilize the country. Nicholas II had tried his best to regain people’s support and stop the revolution tide through the reforms after the 1905 Revolution.
In reaction to this, he shut down the assembly in order to keep power for himself. In doing so it was one of the first actions he took which portrayed some similarities to that of the Tsar, but he defended his actions declaring Russia needed to be told what to do in order to live the communist ways, or as it was called ‘dictatorship of proletariat.’ However Lenin did manage to win some of the Russian approval. Another immediate effect of the revolution was on the 8th of November he made a speech in the hopes of gaining the support of masses throughout Russia in order to establish control everywhere. In his speech he promised the land was to be given to the peasants and seized from the rich. This pleased a lot of people as the population had 80% peasants.
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. Socially, Alexander II introduced arguably the most radical reform in 1861 by emancipating the serfs and granting peasants freedom. This is by far the reform that affected the population most widely in the period – by granting this, peasants were allowed to own themselves in body and soul and could dictate their own lives as far as they could. Class bias was reduced and education was given more widely across Russia, regardless of social standing. This certainly fights against the view that Alexander II was reluctant in his reforms on the surface – however, once investigated, the limits of emancipation are clear.
However, Nicholas II had no choice to create the Duma because of the 1905 revolution; so he reluctantly did so he did not completely lose his position. The Communists were a lot more willing to reform politically. Krushchev, similar to Lenin, was keen to reform politically for example decentralisation; he transferred economic planning to more local
How significant was the work of reforming leaders in changing the nature of Russian government and society in the period from 1856-1964? Intentionalist historians such as Westwood, would say that the most significant factor for changing the nature of Russian government and society was the work of reforming leaders, such as Alexander II who carried out the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”1. I agree with intentionalist’s views to an extent because reforming leaders did have a major impact in pushing reforms through however other factors of change must be considered. I also agree with a structuralist point of view, that the Russian people and key pressure groups like the Social Revolutionaries also played a significant part in changing the nature of Russian government and society. In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war.
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.
To what extent was 1822 a turning point in British politics? The year 1822 is seen by some as a key turning point in British politics as it saw the introduction of liberal Tories, enforcing liberal attitudes upon parliament. However, I would argue that 1822 was not a turning point, but rather a year of half-hearted enforcements of reforms in order to avoid political unrest. In 1822, Lord Liverpool hoped that by introducing four key individuals, by the names of Canning, Peel, Huskisson and Robinson, into the cabinet, the social reforms they would introduce would reduce demand for political reform. I would argue that this decision would suggest continuity as opposed to change within the political system as it was a way for the Government to seem more liberal.
Many government opponents would have been protesting about how unfair the Russian system was towards peasants and hence through trial by jury, they would have been sympathised with. For example, the case of Vera Zasulich, a radial extremist, fought back against the system and shot dead a hated police chief in St Petersburg and was acquitted. This was viewed as the wrong verdict by the government and the Tsar and so had to be changed to stop it from re-occurring. Furthermore, the Okhrana was established which physically repressed the majority of peasant rebellions. As well as restricting
‘To what extent did Russia undergo economic and political reform in the years 1906-1914?’ To some extent, Russia went through both political and economic reform in the years 1906-1914. 1906 saw the definite end of the 1905 revolution, and Peter Stolypin was mainly responsible for securing the position of Tsardom. He used both reforming and reactionary methods to achieve his goal, although any form of change was halted by the start of World War 1 in 1914. The first way in which Russia had moved towards economic reform in the years 1906-1914 is through Stolypin’s policies to improve agriculture and to create a wealthier class of peasants known as Kulaks. It is apparent that he achieved this as 50% of peasants owned their own land by 1915 due to the introduction of the Peasant Land Bank on 15th November 1906.
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.