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

    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

    Another factor that was responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule was the reluctance of the Peasantry to support opposition. The Peasants were extremely uneducated and they didn’t understand how these policies could change their lives. The Tsar had been the political power since the 13th century so it was all that they knew. They believed that the Tsar was appointed by god so whatever he did, they believed it was for the best. They were fearful that if they joined an opposition group the Tsar would be able to ‘see’ them and…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    | * The land given to the peasants was not of good quality, the peasants also had to pay the state long term installments. The peasants were also responsible to the village commune that forced them to pay their installments and not be free of the land. * The local assemblies couldn’t attain much because of the interruption of bureaucrats afraid that it would turn into a self –government. * Alexander’s reform policies led to increasing reform movements that led to a populist group assassinating him, making his son turn against any reform and go back to repression. His reform policies also set the foundation for the fall of Russia’s Monarchy in 1917.…

    • 708 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists. Each group had its own ideas on what was needed for Russia and each group wanted change, however, there were many problems within the groups and none of them were willing to work with each other. The Populists who were mainly concentrated on establishing a democratic government used violent tactics such as terrorism and assassinations, the most famous being the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. However, the Liberals, who also wanted to establish some sort of democracy did not agree on using violent tactics, they preferred to discuss things in meetings and banqueting campaigns. The Liberals were the most moderate of the opposition groups and wanted to keep the Tsar, but remove autocracy and have his current power shared between a democratic government. The Marxists, like the other two groups, also wanted to establish some sort of democracy; however, once again, they did not agree on using violence, they preferred to use propaganda campaigns, as did the Populists and Liberals, but not violence. These divisions meant that each opposition 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. If each group had considered changing their tactics or been slightly more lenient, they may have succeeded.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 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
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    When Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 he wasn’t facing any single issue left by a single Tsar he was facing the culmination of the three previous rulers’ mistakes that they had left behind or inherited and made worse. However the biggest problems had arguably been left by Russia’s most “liberal” Tsar, Alexander I.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thousands more uprisings took place, but were all repressed by Nicholas II’s troops. This caused Nicholas II to create and elected legislature called Duma, however he still continued to resist government reform (Biography.com Editors Para. 13-14). This caused increase tensions in Russia. The Romanov’s also put many unsatisfactory policies into effect.…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 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

    During the period of 1881- 1914 opposition towards the Tsar in Russia increased. The main reasons as to why opposition towards the Tsar arose in Russia can be seen to be as a result of the discontentment growing between the Russian people. A strong sense of discontent spread throughout Russia, this because Russia had suffered from extreme domestic and economic troubles in this period. The most significant troubles which Russian citizens experienced –eventually leading to the opposition of the Tsar ,was their want for political change, strict censorship, oppression of the Okrana, their want for political change , their poor standard of living , lack of trust of Tsarist government following the Russo-Japanese war and finally the 1905 revolution .…

    • 1139 Words
    • 5 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
  • Good Essays

    When Alexander II became the Tsar, Russia was in total disarray. Her once widely respected and feared army was humiliated on the battlefields in the Crimean Peninsula, 80% of the people were in poverty and illiterate. Russia was still stuck in the middle ages while the rest of Europe was steaming in through the Industrial Era. Alexander II saw this as a need for change, primarily in response to the Crimean War, however to be able to do this, he also had to change the Russian society, therefore in 1861 he abolished serfdom, becoming the most significant events in Imperial Russian history, giving him the name as the ‘Tsar Liberator’ (Watts, Peter, History Review, 2014). However, although Alexander II’s reforms did pave the way for a more educated,…

    • 1434 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Nationwide Revolution

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In 1905 the massacre of innocent people during a peaceful protest outside the winter palace in St Petersburg sparked the start of a nationwide revolution. This mass murder of the innocent protestors became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. During the revolution strikes occurred across the nation involving more than 400,000 people, peasants attacked and raided the homes of their landlords and the Tsar’s uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei, was assassinated. Although Bloody Sunday was the immediate reason for the revolution, there were several causes which had caused long term grievances towards the Tsarist regime among the population of Russia leading up to 1905. These include the developments in the countryside and the lives of the peasants, the treatment of the inner-city working class and ethnic minorities, the repression and growth of the political opposition and the impact of the Russo Japanese war. Although all these factors contributed to the initiation of a revolution in Russia, I believe that the attitudes towards and treatment of the working class and the peasants was the most prominent reason for the uprising in 1905.…

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 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