Preview

Explain why opposition to Russian Governments was so rarely successful throughout the period 1855-1964

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1646 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Explain why opposition to Russian Governments was so rarely successful throughout the period 1855-1964
Explain why opposition to Russian Governments was so rarely successful in the period 1855-1954?
Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.
All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy. Alex III quickly saw to a more repressive form of autocracy with his reign seeing the state not

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    I think that the use of repression is the main reason for the weakness of oppositions to Tsarism in the years 1881 – 1914. This is because of many different reasons and factors. One is because the Tsar enforced Russification of the country, meaning the people who were not necessarily a true Russian who enforced the Russian Orthodox Church were made to. People were taught about how Russia was great but not taught about the down sides and faults of Russia. The universities were shut down meaning there was less education to make people into the workers that Russia really needed. This resulted in many jobs that were needed to produce essentials had less people to do them so not enough merchandise was there. This also meant the Russian Orthodox Church taught the children in schools, as they had no teachers from universities to teach them. The cycle of Russification was coming around again as they were being taught the Russian history but not any defeats in wars and how to be a perfect Russian. Those who did not belong to the church were uneducated because they believed that only Russians who were part of the church should have the privilege to be educated.…

    • 648 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1855, opposition to the Tsarist Government lacked an effective unifying ideology. This remained the case throughout the 1855-1964 period, even once the communists had taken power. A key contributing factor towards this was the lack of unity opposition possessed. Opposition throughout the period came from several sources, however it was dominated by division in opinion and ideology, only fully uniting in the February revolution of 1917 which brought down Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty. Even then opposition still differed in opinion, however it was unified by one common cause. Throughout the period, the peasantry were providing opposition to Russian Government. However opposition was repeatedly ineffective. The Polish revolt of 1863 during Alexander II's reign was crushed by the army in much the same way as the 1953 East German revolt and the 1956 Hungarian rebellion were crushed under Khrushchev's tenure. A continuing feature throughout the period is the key role which the army played in limiting opposition from the peasantry, with military force frequently being deployed throughout the period. Lenin used it in the Civil War against the Green armies of the peasantry and Stalin used a similar style of brute force in the assault on the peasantry during the collectivisation process, albeit on a much grander scale. The army was very important to the state and their loyalty to Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution was vital in ensuring he was not deposed then instead of twelve years later. The peasantry also lacked a shared ideology and there were several other factors which meant that a full scale peasant revolt was never likely to occur. The demographic and general backwardness of Russia, whose weakness was repeatedly shown by failures in war throughout the period, meant that the peasantry were never going to unify because poor communications and transport links simply…

    • 1167 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is one of the ironies of Russian history that, at a time when the nation most needed a tsar of strength and imagination, it was a man of weakness and limited outlook who came to the throne. Nicholas II was the eldest son of Tsar Alexander III. When he succeeded his father in 1894, he had very little experience of government. There are two main aspects to Nicholas’ II’s reign; firstly the problems he faced as a tsar at a particularly critical stage in Russian history, secondly the growth of opposition in Russia to the tsarist system. Would the new Tsar Nicholas II be a reformer or a reactionary? There is no doubt as to what the answer is. Reform had a bad name by the time Nicholas became Tsar. Also his upbringing and education made him cautious of change so it is no surprise that he continued the repressive policies he had inherited from his father. This further angered the intelligentsia and the critics of the tsarist regime; they began to prepare to challenge tsardom. I will be exploring the problems Nicholas II faced and how effectively he dealt with them in the period of Russian history from 1894 – 1905.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There was a great deal of opposition to the tsarist regime between 1861 and 1881 and many were successful. The opposition came from the liberal minded intelligentsia who were determined to change what they believed to be outmoded and inhibiting Russian ways. The Populists, who aimed to win over the peasantry to their socialist ideas by stirring up their resentment of the Tsarist Autocracy.…

    • 751 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay I will analyse a combination of reasons on how the Bolsheviks came to power and discuss events such as the February and October revolutions, the fall of the Tsarist rule and the Provisional government.…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The reforms and policies made during the last Tsarist years were not in the interests of the people but were made simply to maintain the power of the Tsar and his nobles. Most people would argue that during the years 1917-1964 there was more political freedom and less repression than in the Tsarist years. The provisional government did not meet the needs of the Russian people. They were an unstable and temporary government, and many people on the furthest parts of the Russian empire did not know about their existence. This provided them with many issues, such as trying to enforce democracy onto people they did not understand what democracy actually was. Many historians believe that at this point the people of Russia did not know themselves what form of government they wanted and due to the lack of education they did not know what form was best for them. In October 1917 came the Bolshevik revolutions. With their leader, Lenin, the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government and came into power. The leadership of Lenin was met with great approval from the people. Lenin promised political freedom unknown to them under the Tsars and Provisional government. In his rule…

    • 1370 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    the Russian peoples want for political change. Their want for political change is due to the strict, oppressive and censored regime of state they lived in. Following the assassination of his father Alexander II, Alexander III undid the reforms previously made by his father and introduced his own reforms during his reign of 1881-1894. One major reform introduced by Alexander was the Russification of Russia. This restricted the language in Russia to Russian only; it also openly started attacks on Jews. Despite the Jews being a minority group within Russia, the Jewish population was vast and a majority of Russians were Jewish, therefore the Russification of the Jews meant that the Tsar lost the support of a lot of the Russian population which led to further opposition. Alexander also launched a campaign of repression to all those supporting political reform, he also restricted press freedom as well as ensuring foreign books & newspapers were rigorously censored. This led to unrest in Russia as many felt their freedom was taken away and were against the form of control they now…

    • 1139 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1894, Nicholas II ascended to the throne following the death of his father, Alexander III. Woefully unprepared for such a role, Nicholas II has been characterized as a naive and incompetent leader. At a time of enormous social and political change in Russia, Nicholas held fast to the outdated, autocratic policies and opposed reform of any kind. His inept handling of the military matters and insensitivity to the needs of his people helped to fuel the 1914 Russian Revolution.…

    • 1212 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The year of 1866 can be seen to have been a turning point in the Tsar’s policies becoming more reactionary and reversing many of the changes his reforms had brought. The reforms had been put in place in an attempt to propel Russia out of its increasingly backward state; as much as reforms such as the emancipation of the serfs, greater freedoms and opportunities in education and relaxation of censorship occurred with good intentions, much opposition arose. This came alongside the Tsar’s own personal problems, accompanied by increasing pressure from both events of the time and individuals.…

    • 681 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The peasants made up the bulk of Russia’s population, of whom Tsar Nicholas II had little understanding of. The peasants were severely poor and in debt from the mortgages they were forced to take out after their emancipation in 1861. One of the peasant’s main motives behind their involvement in the 1905 revolution was fear that the government would repossess their homes, as they had fallen behind on their mortgage repayments during economic decline. The peasants wanted reform, and were fed up with paying fees to their landlords etc. These circumstances shaped the majority’s opinions of the tsar and his government, who believed that the tsar was incompetent. However, these views had been held for a long time. The peasants became more dissatisfied with the state as policies were set up in order to speed up Russia’s modernisation.…

    • 1173 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The accuracy of this statement is absolute. It is apparent that the majority of citizens residing in Pre-Revolutionary Russia were not satisfied with the way in which their Autocratic government ran the country. There were numerous factors which contributed to the citizens discontent with the nation. Living conditions were poor, working conditions were even worse, being the first western nation to loose to Asia, the failure to promote freedom within the Duma as well as the Tsar’s complete and utter ignorance to the people were all causes of this unrest.…

    • 1056 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the ‘Fundamental Laws of the Empire’, it Is written that “all must bow to the supreme power, not only out of fear but also out of conscience.” This sends a clear message to all that communication with the Tsar is irrefutable and repressive. The social construct of the autocratic system saw the intense disparity of peasants, which made up 82% of the population, and the working class (4%). The Tsarist autocracy gave power to the tsar not only to control all power and wealth, but also control the distribution of it, meaning people were not endorsed by merit. For example, the army’s authority was not assigned based on proficiency or skill, rather on what could be sold or bought. Autocratic Russia was not interested in the improvement of social equity or economic…

    • 478 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    He was largely successful in ushering in the end of serfdom and freeing millions of Russians, thus reinforcing his title as liberator but arguably he was unsuccessful in truly satisfying and recognizing the actual needs of the peasants themselves. The limited nature of the reform proved that the Tsar’s government was incapable of meeting the needs of ordinary Russians and ironically, incited only more revolutionary and terrorist activity. However, whether viewing the…

    • 1724 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    After the death of Nicolas I, the Tsar’s heir, Alexander II, rose to power in 1855 and led Russia to an era of changes. Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II should be praised and not criticised for his social, judiciary, and military reforms as he successfully abolished serfdom overnight, implemented a more modern judiciary system, and enhanced the military system.…

    • 790 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Alexander II and his son Alexander III were two different minded leaders who both sought for the best of Russia by changing the ancient ways of Russian beliefs and modernising them to allow Russia to become a world power once again. The father and sons ways of thinking where completely different as the father went for a more liberal approach for Russia, while his son had a conservative view when changing Russia. But both the Tsars’ believed in Russification and the emancipation of the serf’s in-order to allow Russia’s economy to grow and match that of other European nations. Though both had their differences as Alexander II believed that the allowance of a freer populace would help solidify Autocratic control, which would in-turn allow Russia to grow. While his son Alexander III believed that the oppression of the populace would solidify the autocratic power. Both Tsars knew that in-order to continue the Russian empire that drastic domestic policies where in need to solidify power, and control.…

    • 1208 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays