Reactionary Policies

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.

By 1881, Alexander destroyed the proposals of reform that his father had created. He forced the reforming ministers to resign and made it very clear that his rule was one of autocracy. Met by many with dislike, however, Alexander did crush any hope of a peaceful reform by the Russian people and by doing so made it less likely that there would be opposition to him, as the people were unwilling to use violence for their cause.

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

“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

Whilst St Petersburg was growing and thriving around him, it seemed as though the Tsar turned his back on the requirements that come with large crowds of people such as, resources, food supplies, housing, etcetera. Due to his closed mindedness the overpopulation of factories, shortages of income and lack of basic necessities became a huge issue. The people stuck in this great poverty began to lose faith in the Tsar and once again sought for a new source of power. Another factor that adds to this cause is the fact that when the Russian society came up with the idea of a government, to help guide the Tsar towards helping his people and modernizing his laws and mindset, he refused to let the people have a say. Nicholas ultimately took away all power from what little government they did set up, called a ‘duma,’ when he set the ‘Fundamental Laws.’ These laws meant that he would overrule all of the duma’s decisions or suggestions. For example, the first law stated, “To the emperor of all the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power.” Then in 1907, the Tsar changed to voting laws to make sure that revolutionaries could not be elected. This meant that all the elected candidates were politicians that were great followers of Nicholas, meaning he got what he wanted. Consequently leaving no way of communication between Nicholas and the lower class of Russia, causing the tragic conditions to continue. As the poor became progressively poorer, malnourished and uncared for the Tsars inaction and lack of sympathy caused a radical

Thirdly, the Tsar had the benefit of controlling the army and the secret police force, the Okhrana. The Tsar was the commander and chief of the Russian army, he had total control of it and they had been loyal to the Tsar for many years (Nicholas I had an input in creating the Okhrana). The army and the Okhrana were used very efficiently by the Tsars. If anybody opposed the Tsar with violent protests or demonstrations, the army would be called in and many of the protesters would be shot and trampled on by horses. As well as removing current threats to the Tsar, the armies input effected possible opponents, as they knew what their own fate would be if they also tried to oppose the ‘Dear father’. The Okhrana was also very effective, it was known for infiltrating opposition groups and dividing them even further. If an opposition group member was caught, they would be exiled to Siberia to die a cold and

This led to instability in the government and resulted in people seeing reformist groups as an easy way to create change. And therefore people resulted in violence and uprisings put pressure on the Tsar creating a tense revolutionary ready Russia.

The biggest aim of Russification was to get rid of western influence that Alexander III believed had weakened the nation and reduced its national identity. He attempted to reverse the liberalization and remain true to Russian Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality by making the teaching of the Russian language mandatory throughout the empire, through the patronization of Eastern Orthodoxy, by the destruction of the remnants of German, Polish, and Swedish institutions in the respective provinces, and by weakening Judaism through the persecution of the Jews. He even made a policy called ¨May Laws¨ that banned Jews from inhabiting rural areas and shtetls and limited their job opportunities. Alexander The Great also believed that to be loyal to Russia and the Tsar you had to be a

Alexander III used Russification to get rid of any nationality in Russia that is not Russian or any person in Russia that does not support his reforms. “Along with secular reform, religious toleration was sacrificed during this period. Russia's Jews, perennial targets, were persecuted more harshly than ever, as were Russo-Germans, Poles, and Finns, whose crime was their failure to have been born 100 percent Russian”(1994). Alexander III started to become extremely harsh in getting rid of people that are not purely Russian, even though they did not have a choice to be 100 percent Russian or not. In doing this, he made Russia a uniform nation with no diversity, dividing the people who were 100 percent Russian from the people who are not Russian.

In Russia, Westernization was nothing new as the late nineteenth century had rolled around, for they had already been immersed in political conflicts of Western Europe by the earlier parts of the century. Russia’s Westernization had even been started by Peter the Great. Being so well adapted to the politics of the West, the conservative Russian nobility had feared revolutions by the liberal West. Russia then had attempted to

Alexander III’s stance on domestic issues came as no surprise. As a youngster, he was tutored by Konstantin Pobodonestev, a conservative, forceful man who strongly opposed Western ideology. Pobodonestev’s ideas and beliefs rubbed off on the young boy, and he blamed his father’s liberal-minded reforms as the cause for his murder. Seeking to strengthen the autocracy, he gave officials the power to declare a state of emergency, and to arrest or fine anyone unreliable. He also cleverly cut off schools by setting up discriminatory admission rules, against women, poor families, and the Jews. He then forced the expansion of Russian culture and language by forcing everyone in the nation to speak, write, and think in Russian; otherwise known as Russification. Alexander III preferred having as much control as possible over his people, something he did not have in common with his father.

I think that the use of repression is the main reason for the weakness of oppositions to Tsarism in the years 1881 – 1914. This is because of many different reasons and factors. One is because the Tsar enforced Russification of the country, meaning the people who were not necessarily a true Russian who enforced the Russian Orthodox Church were made to. People were taught about how Russia was great but not taught about the down sides and faults of Russia. The universities were shut down meaning there was less education to make people into the workers that Russia really needed. This resulted in many jobs

This essay shall address the issue of how the far the brutality of Bolshevik Regime ensured the maintaining of it’s power between the years of 1917-24. This essay shall explore topics concerning the ‘Dictatorship Of The Proletariat’, The Cheka, War Communism, The Red Terror and other potential reasons for the Bolsheviks remaining in power. This essay shall also explore the various views put forth by various Historians such as Robert Conquest and Richard Pipes.

n March 2nd 1917, the rule of a 300-year-old dynasty was laid to rest as Tsar Nicholas II signed his warrant for abdication, officially sanctioning the end of the Romanov Dynasty. The immediate cause permitting this action was the success of the February Revolution however; this event evolved because of several internal and external factors, both long and short term in nature. Predominant among all we recognise the perpetuation of an outdated system of rule, the repercussions of rapid industrialisation, emerging doctrines of liberalism, political inflexibility and the vices imposed by the First World War. These factors progressively embellished societal discontent among the Russian people and inexorably stimulated the insurrection of the February Revolution.

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The