How Successful Was The Tsarist Regime Between 1861-1881? Achieving Its Aims?

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.

They had to rely on the nobles in the areas to act in the interest of

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

Nicholas II was known, not only for being the Emperor of Russia but also for his character and personality which undoubtably led him to his own downfall. Nicholas was often referred to as not being ready to become Tsar as well as being a weak leader. Firstly, Nicholas II himself, amongst a very large proportion of Russian society, believed that he was not prepared to be coronated Emperor. Nicholas himself stated “What is going to happen to me and all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.”. (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). Nicholas was aware of what he was getting himself into and that he was not prepared for such a role. This is further corroborated by the

They were suffering under an asinine government and they took every opportunity to criticise it. The middle-classes were extremely unstable at this point in Russia but they were not ready for revolution. The stability of the government was erratic. It had a very narrow support base this was mainly due to that fact that it was willing to use extreme force and it sent out very anti-Semitic messages, which made it unpopular.

“The power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give

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.

How far were divisions amongst opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule, 1881 - 1905?

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.

After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically, to allow it maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring the answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial making little change in particular to the Russian political system.

The social democrats were created in 1898 and was a Marxist party. Some people favoured improving the lives of workers. Lenin wanted to overthrow Campitalism. Also there was Social Revolutionary party which was founded in 1903 by Victor Chernov. They got people to join this party by promising peasants their own land, they also promised to get rid of the autocratic state and

Even though the state budget more than doubled because of Witte's work , the dependece on loans from abroad , which had to be paid back, should not fall in oblivion.Moreover Witte didn't aid the local industries and the agricultural modernasation since he thought the peasant could just be forced into

These were called liberals or ‘Cadets.’ The two other groups were more passionately opposed to the Tsar and believed revolution was the key to Russia’s problems. The Socialist Revolutionaries were a radical movement that believed violence was the only way to revolution, and support for them was wide spread. Their aims were to divide the huge estates from the nobility and hand them over to the peasants.

During Russia’s transition to communism in the early 20th century, conflict and unease permeated every part of life. Nothing was stable and very little of what the Bolsheviks had fought for had come to fruition by the time the USSR disbanded in 1991. The “classless society”, which was to work together for the prosperity of everyone, never became a reality. In the end, the majority of Russia’s 20th century was an utter failure on a grand scale. However, there were many amazing products of the system do to the great importance of education in Russian culture. Priceless novels were written, timeless movies were made, and great scientific endeavors were realized despite the rigid control placed upon Russian persons by the government. In