Opposition to the Tsarist regime increased due to a number of reasons many of which could have been helped and others that were more natural. The key aspects of the opposition of the Tsars was Wittes programme of industrialisation, which while vital to Russia, exchanged the loyalist peasants into the disgruntled working class. While there were problems that the Tsar could not control such as the great amounts of other nationalities wanting independence and resisting Russification, such as the Poles and Jews. In 1881 opposition started due to ordinary people having little to no rights, as it was a criminal offence to question the Tsar and with no parliament to try and change the course of their country they would have to rely on the rich autocratic Tsar to decide to make changes to help the common people. As the government had strict censorship on books and journals when information did get through it would usually be made even more powerful as the government had attempted to ban it.
However, many other factors played a role in the demise of the Parliament such as the fact that they were ill-organised, the lack of popular support and their inability to enforce decisions. Frederick William IV was partially responsible for the failure of the Frankfurt Parliament as he was unwilling to accept the ‘crown from the gutter’. William IV was aware that acceptance of the leadership may lead to war with Austria. Austria had no wish to see a united Germany and wanted to keep it weak and divided in order to dominate. Frederick William shared this view and was unwilling to potentially cause a war with such a powerful state.
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.
This basic form of opposition was never truly effective as their actions were simply put down by the government partly due to their failure to unite and lack of ideology and political demands. This was, however, not the only internal opposition to Tsar Alexander II with the “Going to the People” movement emerging in 1874. Here young members of the Russia intelligentsia went to the peasants breaching to them about their ideas about how life should be lived. This proved unsuccessful, they failed to appeal to the peasantry and the regime managed to arrest members showing them to be ineffective at this point. However, the populist movement developed from here, eventually splitting into two groups; the Black Partition and the People’s Will.
Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
M.L Bush said that ‘It was interconnected regional rebellions rather than one fluid movement’ because once the rebels had gone back to where they lived dotted across the North of England they would all have to meet up rather than go down to London in one group. Also the rebels outnumbered the King’s army 4:1 when they were confronted at the River Don. Instead of accepting the King’s pardon they should have risked battle once they dispersed they were no longer a threat to Henry. They were the stronger force but they tried to negotiate before they had achieved anything. This is another point towards poor leadership because there was no clear plan in how they were going to get their terms accepted only what terms they wanted.
There are many cases in which the Tsar’s position and the government’s position are genuinely threatened such as the mass demonstrations leading to many strikes which had the potential of economic failure. On the other hand there are also cases where they are not seriously threatened the mutinies of the armed services for example did not carry on after the war. The revolutionary’s aims had no intentions to threaten the position of the Tsar or his government however some people could argue that it did because of the misinterpretations of their demands. The Tsar and his government faced three main opponents the industrial workers, peasants and the reformist middle class. The fact that peasantry took part in the 1905 revolution (also known as Bloody Sunday)shows that the suspicions of the peasants changing were true and to the Tsar and his government this could have appeared to be a threat because they always feared peasantry development, the Tsar and the Empress especially.
* 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.
During this revolution, Lenin didn’t play any important role, however, just as well as the 1905 Revolution, he was using this experiences to make something more carefully planned. In the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin wrote and announced what is known as the April Thesis, in which he attacked Bolsheviks for supporting the Provisional Government. Lenin accused those Bolsheviks who were still supporting the Provisional Government of betraying socialism and suggested that they should leave the party. Some people took Lenin`s advice, arguing that any attempt at revolution was certainly going to fail and would lead to another repressive, authoritarian Russian government. Because of his April Theses, the October Revolution and the July Days would have never sparked up.
Firstly there was lack of mass support since the Frankfurt Parliament was mostly made out of middle class people, with only one peasant and no workers. Therefore this overwhelming majority did not represent the people who were about 70% peasants. According thus to the demographics a revolution would fail because it would lack manpower, and instead of asking help from the peasants, the revolutionaries preferred to ask help from the rulers. Frankfurt Parliament has also been accused of wasting valuable time. Marxists argue that if the Parliamentarians, who were neither extreme nor violent, had taken faster action, Wilhelm IV and the other rulers would be unable to refuse the new state and its constitution.