How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 revolution? The most notable reformist groups that had an impact on the 1905 revolution were the national minorities, the army and the revolutionary parties. The national minorities leapt at the chance of changing autocracy, ending Russification and a democratic government by using Russia’s confusion against itself. It consisted of Jews who wanted civil rights, Polish and Finnish people (and other parts of the Russian empire) who wanted independence and many others. This turned into great violence across the empire, with peasants even attacking officials.
One of the main reasons why Stalin emerged as sole leader was because of how he used pragmatism to manipulate Lenin’s opinion of him to suggest that he was the most favorable leader to carry on Marxism throughout Russia. This key event that secured Stalin’s public support was around the time of Lenin’s funeral. His role as general secretary gave him the ‘grey blur’ title because of his reputation of being invisible, focusing his time on important paperwork. When Lenin released his testament, Stalin used his reputation to change it, which had previously had influential and opinionated views on Stalin, and if seen by the public, would inevitably have changed the success of Stalin’s emergence to a failure at becoming leader. Lenin’s real opinion of Stalin was highly negative.
The manifesto offered free speech, the right to form political parties and it created a “democratic” elected house of parliament – called a Duma. Despite the fact the Tsar promised all of these things for the people, after he had crushed the revolution he actually did very little to promote what he had promised. This is because he issued the Fundamental Laws, meaning the Tsar's ministers could not be appointed by the Duma, therefore denying the Duma a lot of what had been originally suggested. Furthermore, the Tsar had the power to dismiss the Duma and announce new elections whenever he wished, this further undermined democratic elements in government which showed that Nicholas II was untrustworthy and didn’t keep his promises. The Tsar’s ability to make false promises to the people was a reason for him being able to survive the revolution of 1905 but not of 1907 as people knew by then that he was untrustworthy.
When soldiers opened fire on demonstrators outside the Winter Palace on January 22, 1905, it was not in hopes of setting off a chain of events that would later be known as a revolution. Yet when hundreds of working class Russians were murdered that evening, Russia had changed. The protestors’ purpose was to beg the Tsar to exercise his authority on behalf of their miserable working conditions, though they were taken down by the onslaught of ammunition. It was enough to fuse off a chain of events that, if not for disorganization, a lack of coordination and military forces still loyal to the Tsar, might well have caused a revolution that changed Russia forever. One thing that changed very little in February of 1917 is the presence—or, more specifically, lack of presence—of actual revolutionary leaders.
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. This group would be known as the “Black Hundred”. This group brutally beat or killed peasants to take revenge as an effect this kept the peasants under control. The Tsar had to crush what was left of his opposition. The Tsar was desperate to get Russia back in control so in December the Tsar’s loyal army was used to demolish what was left of the working class strikers.
As the sailors were heroes of the 1917 revolution against the PG, their uprising came as a shock to the Bolsheviks, especially to Lenin. Nevertheless, Trotsky ordered the Red Guard to put down the uprising and Marshal Tukhachevshy rounded up the sailors, who shot them without a trial. Lenin realised that the peasants and some measure of economic liberalisation were essential for the regime to survive. Discontent could no longer be suppressed. Lenin said that the Kronstadt revolt was “the flash that lit up reality more than anything else”.
He pursued a policy of what has been called ‘counter reform’. Counter-reform was partly a reaction to the murder of Alexander II, but Alexander III also believed that his fathers ‘Great Reforms’ had been a mistake, weakening Tsarism and leaving it vulnerable and insecure. He introduced political repression of opponents, counter-reform, increased central control, financial reform and the policy of Russification as the core stone of his reign. His policy was to undo the reforms as far as possible. In many respects, there is no doubt that Alexander III was the most effective Tsar in such the short reign that he had.
Trotsky advocated a permanent revolution with Stalin didn’t want. Stalin viewed Trotsky’s ideas as a direct attack on him so he attacked swiftly. This resulted in Trotsky getting kicked out of the Bolshevik party because of his left wing views. This links into my next point in how Stalin became the favourite to replace Lenin and defeated the rest of the candidates. Luck played a big part into how Stalin defeated the left side of the party.
One key piece of evidence in favour of this is the Pravda article â€œdizzy with successâ€ which suggests that the purges spiralled out of Stalinâ€™s control. The Purges thrust the whole of Russia into a state of fear of what would happen to them. It affected all sectors of society and even a seemingly insignificant act could result in arrest. For example one woman was arrested for saying that Tukhachevsky, a high ranking military officer, was handsome after he was arrested. One key reason other than Stalinâ€™s personal paranoia for the Purges was to cleanse the party of careerists, yet dissidents and doubters were also at risk.
Why did the Bolsheviks face so much opposition between 1918 and 1924? Summary of overall line of argument: There were many reasons for opposition to Bolshevism, for example their attempt to destroy the bourgeoisie, War Communism, civil war, grain seizures and their attitudes towards religion. However, it is my opinion that war and its related issues were the prominent cause for opposition. Paragraph 1: Intro Content/Examples: Bourgeoisie, Peasants, Civil war and War communism, Religion, Cheka – war related issues most important Opening/Closing Sentences: The Bolsheviks faced a great deal of opposition in their rule between 1918 and 1924. Therefore, I am of the opinion that matters involving war were the greatest contributing factors to Bolshevik opposition.