How Far Do You Agree That the Use of Repression Was the Main Reason for the Weakness of Opposition to Tsarism in the Years 1881 – 1914?

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

The Bolshevik October Revolution brought Vladimir Lenin to power. Lenin’s vow to end the war and open negotiations with the Germans provoked the Allies and led to the detachment of a military excursion to oppose the newly established government and aid rebels who had begun a civil war to oust the Bolsheviks.

Russia struggled to provide food for its populations. Citizens took control into their own hands, Ludovic Naudeau wrote in October 1917, “One morning recently I was awakened by the cries of my neighbor in the next room. His boots had been stolen. The same day the manager of a newspaper office told me that he had been robbed six of pairs of pantaloons, … “Four hundred thefts every night!” he cried; that is the average for the last two weeks,”(One Aspect of Bolshevist Liberty). Russia could not even uphold itself because the economy was not successful compared to other countries. This led people to desire a change in the government; therefore this led to the Russian Revolution. People went to different maters to get what they wanted such as stealing since they were not getting the aid that they needed and they needed financial support. This caused them to protest against their government because many people from the lower class could not take care of their families. This cause led to a greater impact compared to Tsarist weak authority.

Lenin was able to consolidate Bolshevik rule in Russia by combining popular policies and repression: To what extent do you agree with this statement.

The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.

This demonstrates that since the stress of waging war was tremendous, it should be no surprise that the first war could be a primary cause of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, the major powers of Europe hurt Russia in World War I; yet, by 1917, all the combatants horrifically suffered from the strains of war economically, proving this to be a long-term cause. This was, to a great extent, considerable because the military defeats and social strains of World War I had created a crisis in Imperial Russia. Before, Russia had some military accomplishments and they were on their way to being successful. Nevertheless, their triumphs were not long-standing; hence, Russia was not able to be victorious due to the fact that Russia decreased in economy because of the limitations in Russia. Similarly, restraints included the shortage of food and the huge problems with getting the obligatory materials for the army during World War I, which shows that this was momentous. Along with Russia being defeated and having a scarcity of supplies, Russia also showed economic oppression due to the pressure in jobs workers faced.

The Stability of Russia in 1914 In 1914 Russia's stability was questionable; the Tsar's regime had been under considerable strain due to the unsuccessful uprising in 1905. The Tsar still had the support of the army, which helped to put down many attempts at revolution. However, there was still brewing resentments about the harsh conditions of the Tsar's government that threatened to explode at any time.

Stalin was more effective than any other ruler of Russia in the period 1855 – 1964 in dealing with opposition. How far do you agree?

In the period from 1906-1914 Russia had appeared to have stabilised due to the social reforms brought in by Stolypin. However this only really created the illusion of stability due to many underlying problems that led to the 1905 revolution not being dealt with, therefore Russia had stabilised very little in this period which in turn would lead to further unrest in the future.

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.

Lenin had a greater impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other Ruler. How far do you agree with this view of the period from 1855 to 1964?

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

Another key reformist group was the social democrats they were created in 1898 and believed strongly in western ideas and Marxism. The group also wanted a society that gave power to workers and peasants. Which was the opposite of the Tsar’s views. Therefore in order to achieve this they would need a revolution in Russia and a change in the government. Similar to the socialist revolutionists they believed that creating violence was the best way to achieve this. But in 1905 it split into two groups these were known as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. These groups created large widespread unrest to created political change. As we can see the violence and unrest caused by these groups would’ve pressured the Tsar and therefore are a main cause of the revolution.

The opposition included the intelligentsia which involved Miikhail Bakunin, the populist which involved Mikhail Romas, black partition and the Peoples Will. These groups were successful to a certain extent between 1861- 1881 in achieving its aims. These groups had both long term and short term objectives some of these groups were successful others not.

The October 1917 Revolution is undoubtedly a momentous and extremely important event in Russia’s history, one that ousted the centuries-old Tsardom that ruled over the empire, in favour of the radical communist movement in the form of the Bolsheviks, headed by one Vladimir Iliych Lenin. However, did this sudden move from autocracy to a supposedly more progressive democracy actually bring about the modernisation of Russia industrially, agriculturally and culturally, or was it simply a rebranding of a totalitarian state that would continue to oppress the