Preview

Political Opponents of the Tsar and Their Methods and Aims

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
305 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Political Opponents of the Tsar and Their Methods and Aims
How far was political opposition to the Tsar divided in their aims and methods, 1881-1905?

Political opponents of the Tsar were clearly divided in their aims and methods, and consequentially may have contributed to the survival of Tsarist Russia. The main parties were the Social democrats (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks), Social Revolutionaries and Liberals (Octobrists and Kadets). Each of these radical parties had their own separate beliefs on what Russia needed and each aimed for some sort of change. However, within the groups, there were many issues, which they refused to work with each other to solve. The SR believed that Russia’s future lay with the peasantry and so they wanted to give peasants their own land and improve living conditions for working classes. They used tactics such as terrorism and assassinations, such as the assassination of Alexander II. The Liberals also aimed to deal with these social problems facing Russia while establishing a democracy. However, the Liberals, especially Octobrists, did not agree with the violent tactics. They preferred votes and discussions as a way to put across their opinion. In fact, the Liberals were the most moderate of all the radical parties in Russia. They wanted to abolish autocracy and have the power shared between a democratic government. Similarly, the Social Democrat party also wanted to establish a democracy but, once again, without their aggressive methods. While the SR had a terrorist wing, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks preferred using propaganda campaigns.
Although there are some similarities in the aims of the parties, the major differences in methods used meant that each group’s strength alone was not enough to achieve their own specific goals and even though the groups did have some tactics such as propaganda in common, it was not enough.

The parties all also pursued support from different groups of the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    The question is focused on the challenges mounted to Tsarist rule in the given period, and the extent to which divisions among opposition groups contributed to their failure. Answers may consider the four main strands of opposition, their internal divisions and their intolerance of each other. A tradition of revolutionary activity was established by the Populists and their appeal to the peasants, though they were weakened by the assassination of Alexander II and the repression established by Alexander III. The Social Revolutionaries tried to gain support among both peasants and townspeople, but were divided between anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the 1903 Congress, while the Liberals did not establish distinctive parties until after the 1905 Revolution. A simple description of some of the revolutionary parties will be marked within Levels 1 and 2, and progression will depend on the range and depth of relevant material.…

    • 555 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Chapter 27 Review

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages

    6: Anarchists and Conservatives arose in Russia and both were unhappy with the pace of change occurring in Russia. Anarchists wanted to abolish the government and the Conservatives wanted to reform more quickly.…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    However, Lenin’s contributions to the party would not of been possible if no for the actions Tsar Nicholas II. In 1905, the public support for the Tsarist regime was extremely low, in all classes and geographic locations, leading to a rapid expansion of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and general…

    • 680 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

    Firstly, the repressive policies of the Tsar was partly responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule as the Tsar made it very difficult for there to be any sort of opposition. This was because the Tsar implemented the Okraha (secret police) to exile anyone who opposed him. This created fear in opposition groups so they started operated from outside Russia. In addition to this, the Statute of State Security meant that the government opponents were tried so could not operate. This, with the help of Okhrana barred any opposition.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    To a certain extent the divisions among the opponents of the Tsar, such as the Bolshevik and Menshevik split in the Marx party after the 1903 conference, or even the divisions among different revolutionary parties entirely, e.g. Marx and the Social Revolutionaries, was responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in this period as this led to disorganisation and lack of effectiveness among opposition. However other factors, such as the loyalty of the army, despite mutinies during the 1905, allowed the Tsar to remain in control. Furthermore actions by the Tsar himself, although not that effective, for example the reforms in the October Manifesto and the continuing support of the ruling elite was accredited to securing the Tsarists power.…

    • 2563 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful 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

    Founded in 1898, the Social Democrats believed that Russia’s future lay with industrialization and a society built around the industrial working class. Their views were based on the theories of the radical nineteenth-century political thinker Karl Marx. However, the Social Democrats differed over how to apply Marx’s ideas to bring about a socialist revolution in Russia. This dispute split the party in 1903. One group, led by Lenin, took the name Bolsheviks, from the Russian word for “majority.” Several other groups that were by no means united became known as the Mensheviks, from the Russian word for…

    • 4038 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A group of radical intelligentsia became increasingly active. They wanted political freedom and deep social reform while maintaining a Russian culture, similar to the Japanese. Radical anarchists wanted to abolish all formal government. Alexander II tried to go back to conservatism when things got too radical but failed as he was assassinated by a terrorist bomb. Russia fell under the influence of Marxist leader Lenin, who initiated the spread of international capitalism and a promise of the rise of a proletariat class.…

    • 1068 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Russia was torn between the world war and the population was threatened as levels of starvation rose whilst industry fell. The provisional government could not do much to stop Russia plummeting as they did not have much power and the people of Russia failed to support them (1). The citizens of Russia were desperately looking for help and the Bolshevik party, created with the help of Lenin and Trotsky in the year 1917, had the answer. Slowly, they had managed to become one of the most powerful parties ever created, but many factors were to cause the consolidation of power. In this essay I will be comparing the significance of Vladimir Lenin in the Bolshevik consolidation of power with another important factor; Leon Trotsky.…

    • 1843 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nationalism is defined as follows: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. The definition suites the aspect of the Russian people of the time, however they felt patriotic towards many separatists, not the Tsar. Nicholas II failed to unit his people under one patriotic belt. After riots of Bloody Sunday, many citizens became loyal to a man named Gapon. Gapon was a “socialist priest” (Warth 88). Gapon further led to the dis-functionality of Nicholas II in WWI by forcing him to focus on riots at home rather than his armies, along with putting workers out of the factories protesting for better conditions. On January 6, 1905, Gapon wrote a petition to Nicholas II that addressed the fact he was unaware of his people’s needs. “The Tsar does not know of our needs, and we will tell him,” (Warth 90) is what Gapon preached to his followers as they roared in confidence for change, further blowing the bubble of Nicholas II’s control closer to the bursting point. On January 19, 1905 after riots got increasingly bloodier and he further dug his whole among his people, Nicholas II proposed a manifesto for workers to “air their complaints” (Warth 99.) As a result, he retracted his idea for a more “monarchy friendly” approach as to receive a deputation of “reliable workers.” This however, led to verbal and physical abuse of the deputies and engulfed mistrust further among the working-class citizens towards the monarchy. With failing to unite his people under the wing of the monarchy, Nicholas II’s armies were feeling the hurt from home. Work related crisis along with food shortages affected not only the production of Russia’s citizens but the might of Nicholas II’s armies. At Tannenberg…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Russian people wanted the government to change. There had been a dramatic increase in the number of radical newspapers. Therefore, people did not want a conservative reformation, but a radical revolution. They also did not trust the current government, because of many reasons, one of them being Rasputin.…

    • 715 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    By 1917, Russia was chaotic, the government had been thoroughly corrupted, strikes were rampant and all happening at once. The World War I had begun and Russia was having many casualties due to being ill - equipped against industrialized Germany, and amidst the countries it was the one to receive most damage. Due to the german attacks the Russian economy had been falling apart, and such a situation was only useful to the radicals, as they used it as an opportunity to join with the moderates among other forces, in order to overthrow the Czar and achieve their revolutionary goals. As time passed Russia’s situation only deteriorated, demonstrators and protestants took over the streets, the king’s armies killed many of them, but they still continued to attack full force. Then when an army took the protestants side, the tables flipped, Nicholas II, the Czar at the time was forced to abdicate his throne and so freed Russia of over four centuries of Czarist…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays