Preview

How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
824 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?
How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?

Tsarism thrived for hundreds of years but as Russians became more educated they decided that communism and a dictatorship was too harsh and after a few revolutions Tsarism was a thing from the past. In the years 1881 to 1905 many things changed in Russia for the better and for the worse.
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.
As well as this, Universities came under Government control. This meant that University students could not spread anti-Tsarist ideas as they were brainwashed that Tsarism was the best. In 1881, Pobedonestev enforced orthodoxy, this together with the censorship of many newspapers prevented the spread of anti-Tsarist ideas and ideals of democracy failed to reach people in Russia. An example of this is that Herzen’s book ‘The Bell’ was banned in Russia due to its anti-Tsarist ideas but was still smuggled in.
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

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    One thing that had changed in Russia from when Alexander had come into power in 1881 was that there was increased repression regarding politics. The Statue of State Security was introduced which brought government-controlled courts into the country and could now put on trial political opponents and they could also be arrested too without the need of a jury. This shows change as a lot harsher punishments were introduced that could be imposed on opponents of the government such as being sent to and exiled in Siberia and being hunted down by the Okhrana – Russia’s secret police. Although there was repression of political opponents before Alexander III’s reign, the punishment wasn’t as harsh and the violence that was encouraged by extremist groups was a lot more widespread and happened regularly compared to when Alexander III had introduced the Statue of State Security where attacks were something that didn’t happen as often. Therefore, it contributes to the idea that Russia was unrecognisable in 1894 compared with 1881.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • 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

    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

    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.…

    • 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

    The peasant society itself is a strong factor in the survival of the Tsar as, despite regular small and ultimately fruitless uprisings…

    • 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

    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
  • Better Essays

    The autocratic rule that dominated the 300 year old dynasty was also a key factor in its destruction; the social unrest, clamour for political reform, backwardness of the Russian economy and the lack of reforms were all created by the Tsarist regime. The Romanov family ruled with an iron fist and used brutal violence to control its subjects. The repressive policies such as Russification and lack of effective reforms prevented the modernisation of the social and political aspects of the nation. Autocratic rulers promoted the feudalistic style class system which created extreme poverty in the lower classes and gave the people no political power. The introduction of ideas of liberty and an elected government into Russian society, contributed to the creation of revolutionary groups that aimed to overthrow the autocratic rulers and establish more liberal governments. This was first seen with the attempted political coup of the Decembrists that ultimately failed, however they were significant as the introduced a revolutionary trend and liberal views to the people. With the introduction of liberal views and equality, the people began to show their anger and frustration, caused by the Romanovs, through protests and revolutions, of which ultimately ended the Romanov Dynasty. The style of autocratic rulership is a key factor that impacted the fall of the Romanovs primarily because of the social issues it created.…

    • 1611 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    By 1881, Russia had greatly changed. Reforms had been carried out, creating less of a gap between the social classes, and making society a fairer place. There were also developments in industry, helping Russia catch up with the western world. However, the country was still ruled in a way that out pleasing the autocracy over helping the peasants, and there was still not total freedom for everyone.…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Due to Nicholas II’s failure to accomplish the citizen’s goals and to negotiate with them, the Russian Revolution began. Peasants struggled…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    While in theory , the manner in which Russia was ruled undertook a considerable overhaul following the 1917 revolution . In reality the Country was governed with the Tsar and general security remaining as the ultimate authority with no real development occurring. Methods of oppression , propaganda and abusing civil rights were paramount in the rulings of all of the leaders be it Tsar or Communist. The largest change in the way in which Russia was ruled can be seen in the changing economy moving from open trade in the 1800's to the strict state capitalism of the 1900's. However few reforms had a direct impact in the way Russia was ruled thus meaning there was more continuity than change in the period 1855 to 1964.…

    • 1188 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tsarist system of government was not modified to any significant extent during this time period as the rule of the Tsars was consistently underpinned by the support of the Church, the army and the bureaucracy. The Church especially, as they derived much of their power from the Tsar, was extremely loyal as any threat to the Tsar meant a threat to their power also. This is why Alexander the Third’s rule of repression was supported by those who owed allegiance to the Tsar, as anyone in a position of power would owe a debt to the Tsar, so would be reluctant to question his authority. Furthermore, the Church was given power over the primary schools, to make sure all children heard were pro-Tsarist messages. The fact that the Tsar was supported by the most powerful in society demonstrates the fact that the system of government was not modified to any major extent, as it was never threatened by anyone powerful enough to make a real difference.…

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    History

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe that one of the main reasons for the Tsar’s abdication and the collapse of the Romanov rule was the poor state which Russia was in. Russia’s economy was at the worst it had ever been. The economy was far worse than other countries in the War. There were millions of peasants in Russia who had very limited amount of money. With such a limited amount of money, many peasants were unable to buy food, and drink to help them to survive. Peasants believed that they weren’t getting rewarded fairly for the work which they were doing. The upper classes’ benefit greatly due to work done by the Peasants. This created a negative atmosphere around Russia and helped fuel the need for a change. Peasants wanted change; they wanted to be rewarded more for their efforts at work. Russia was in an economic crisis. They had borrowed a huge amount of money from capital countries in order to fuel Russia’s war effort. This was a problem for Russia because they simply didn’t have the money to repay these countries. During the war the country had suffered inflation. Prices had risen dramatically for everyday items such as bread. The country was suffering and the Russian people’s families were dyeing in a war which wasn’t being funded. The Russian people were bound to be discontent and they only had one person to blame and that was the Tsar.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays