PAPER 3 : HL Option 4: History of Europe.

Section 12: Imperial Russia, revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union (1855–1924)

12: Imperial Russia, revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union (1855–1924)
This section deals with modernization and conservatism in tsarist Russia and the eventual
collapse of the tsarist autocracy, as well as the revolutions of 1917, the Civil War and the rule of
Lenin. There is a focus on the concepts of change and continuity, with examination and
consideration of the social, economic and political factors that brought about change.
• Alexander II (1855–1881): the extent of reform
• Policies of Alexander III (1881–1894) and Nicholas II (1894–1917): economic
modernization, tsarist repression and the growth of opposition
• Causes of the 1905 Revolution (including social and economic conditions and the
significance of the Russo-Japanese War); consequences of the 1905 Revolution (including
Stolypin and the Dumas)
• The impact of the First World War and the final crisis of autocracy in February/March
1917
• 1917 Revolutions: February/March Revolution; provisional government and dual power
(Soviets); October/November Revolution; Bolshevik Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky
• Lenin’s Russia/Soviet Union; consolidation of new Soviet state; Civil War; War
Communism; New Economic Policy (NEP); terror and coercion; foreign relation.

• Impact of the Second World War on civilian populations in any two countries between
1939–1945
Russia Timeline, 1855 - 1924
1855 Alexander II becomes Tsar
1861 Edict for the Emancipation of the Serfs
1881 Alexander II assassinated by the 'People's Will'. His successor, Alexander
III, begins a period of repression
1892 Count Sergei Witte becomes Finance Minister. The 'Great Spurt' of
industrial growth begins
1894 Nicholas II becomes Tsar
1898 Social Democratic Party founded
1901 Social Revolutionary Party founded
1904 Outbreak of Russo-Japanese War
1905 Year of Revolution, following Bloody Sunday
1906 Pyotr Stolypin becomes Prime Minister
1911 Stolypin assassinated
1914 Outbreak of the First World War
1917 February: Revolution - the Tsar abdicates, and the Provisional Government
is established
April: Lenin returns to Russia; April Theses
July: July Days
August: Kornilov Affair
October: Bolshevik seizure of power; Lenin establishes new government
1918 Outbreak of the Civil War.
'War Communism' introduced
1921 Civil War ends
Kronstadt Mutiny
'New Economic Policy' replaces War Communism
1922 Creation of the USSR. Lenin becomes seriously ill
1924 Lenin dies

• Alexander II (1855–1881): the extent of reform

Russian context and the nature of tsardom (c. 1850)
Geography, climate and land

● Tsarist Russia was the largest land empire in modern world history, stretching across
one sixth of the world's land surface - map.
● The vast empire stretched 6,000 miles from Poland and the Baltic States in the West
all the way to Vladivostok and the Pacific Ocean in the East.
● Huge size included an enormous diversity of climate, vegetation and physical
features, with the Black Sea having a sub-tropical climate while Siberia only has two
months without frost.
● Difficult climate and terrain in many areas made survival tough, and the majority of
the population worked with agriculture of some sort.
● Only 1.6% of the population in 1855 lived in cities or towns of over 100,00
inhabitants.
● The size and nature of the empire provided the Tsars with both opportunities (vast
natural resources and large population) and problems (before the railway was
developed it could take months to travel from one end of the empire to the other,
making fast communication impossible; and much of the land was of limited
productive use because of its climate). The size and diversity of the country in
particular made Russia difficult to govern, forcing the development of a centralized
military state to control it from the seventeenth century onwards.

The Russian population and national minorities

● Russia's population grew rapidly over the course of the nineteenth century, from 56
million in 1831 to 126 million people in 1897.
● The empire consisted of a wide range of ethnic groups, each with their own
languages, religions and traditions - the long list of different nationalities contained
within the Tsar's empire includes Finns, Poles, Ukrainians, Tartars and Armenians.
● The largest and most powerful group were the Russians, and in 1897 there were
55.6 million Russian speakers in the empire.
● In total well over a hundred different languages were spoken in Russia - this created
problems for Tsar Nicholas I (1825 - 1855) who opposed any sense of national
self-determination from minority groups.
● The Jews in Russia were the largest single Jewish community in the world, and
received particularly harsh treatment.

Russian Society

● Russian society in the nineteenth century had changed little over the last hundred
years, characterized by the dominance of the Tsarist system and its resistance to
change.
● Social system was founded on serfdom, and the vast majority of the Russian
population were peasant serfs - of 60 million people in European Russia in 1855, 50
 million were serfs, half state-owned half privately-owned. They could be sold and
beaten, on top of backbreaking daily work.
● Russia only had a small middle class - i.e. doctors, lawyers, university teachers.
Travel abroad made many critical of Russia's backwardness, but Nicholas I reacted
by restricting passports.
● A great distance existed between the minority of forward-looking, free-thinking
educated classes (often 'Westernizers', believing Russia needed to learn from the
West to develop and make progress) on the one hand, and the majority of the
monarchy and its supporters (often 'Slavophiles', believing Russian ways to be best)
and the peasantry on the other.

The Russian Economy

● Economy dominated by agriculture, and the country's rapidly growing population

were dependent upon this agriculture for survival - a bad harvest had a devastating
effect on the peasantry.
● In 1800 Russia had been the world's greatest producer of pig-iron, but by 1855
Britain was producing ten times as much. Russia's failure to modernize and develop
industrially at the same speed as Western Europe was partly a result of an
underdeveloped banking system, and partly due to serfdom preventing an available
source of workers for new industries.
● Development was also prevented by Russia's backwards communications and
transport system, making the transport of raw materials and finished goods virtually
impossible. By 1860 Russia had 1,600 km of railways compared to Britain's 15,000
km.
How was Russia ruled? Tsarist system of autocracy

● "The Emperor of all the Russias is an autocratic and unlimited monarch: God himself
ordains that all must bow to his supreme power", Nicholas I, 1832.
● The motto of Nicholas I's regime was: "autocracy, orthodoxy, nationality".
● Under the Tsar's autocratic system of government, the Tsar exercise supreme and
absolute political power and his word was the only source of law. All political
decisions lay with the Tsar, and anyone wishing to make any political or social
change in Russia was dependent upon securing the support of the Tsar to do so.
● The Tsar ruled the people as a stern father - as a senior police official explained, "his
subjects are his children, and children never ought to reason about their parents".
● Autocracy was supported by serfdom, as peasants were kept in state of ignorance
and superstition. Peasants believed that: (i) the tsar had been appointed by God, (ii)
the tsar was on their side and would be able to right their wrongs, (iii) a visit to the
Winter Palace would bring justice in any petty local dispute and (iv) the tsar knew
every detail of peasant life and would set things right. This 'autocracy-serfdom'
formula was at the centre of Russia's political and social system in the
mid-nineteenth century.
● To rule the country practically the Tsar was dependent upon the nobility. At the
centre there were 13 government departments run by Ministers drawn from the
nobility, but the Tsar appointed these positions and could sack them at any time, as
well as ignore their advice if he pleased.
● To run Russia beyond the capital, there were 114,000 administrators - provincial
governors and officials also drawn from the ranks of the nobility. Many nobles saw
government service as a way to increase their incomes though over-taxing and
bribery.
● Complete lack of political freedom for the population at large meant the only available
means of opposition was violence - either peasant revolts or terrorism.
● Nicholas I set up a secret police force to work against opponents of the regime, and
the army was used to maintain law and order and put down any rebellions. (The
army was largely made up of serfs, conscripts forced to serve for 25 years.)

Religion

● The Orthodox Church and faith played a key role in the lives of European Russians,
with religious icons and celebrations playing an important role for the people.
● Orthodox Church was a major supporter of the Tsarist regime, providing support to
the Tsar's claim to be expressing the divine will on earth. A key teaching of the
church was faith in God and unquestioning submission to God's will, encouraging
passive obedience to the Tsar. So the Church played an important role in upholding
the social hierarchy and promoting obedience rather than resistance to authority.
 ● It is worth also noting that the Church was not independent of the state, but ultimately
also controlled by the Tsar (through the government ministerial position of the Holy
Synod). The Tsar had absolute power over Church finances and appointments.

Alexander II (1855 - 1881)

Introduction

● Alexander II came to the throne in March 1855 at the age of 36, having been well
prepared and trained to take over from his father, Nicholas I. Historian Lionel
Kochan described him as "the best prepared heir the Russian throne ever had".
● On his deathbed Nicholas famously told Alexander to ‘hold on to everything!’ and
Alexander was committed to retaining the autocratic powers of the tsardom.
● However, Alexander was less of a disciplinarian than his father and was more open
to the arguments of others around him. Deeply influenced by defeat in Crimean
war and by liberal ministers, Alexander II undertook extensive reforms of Russian
society and government. In particular, he emancipated the serfs, which has been
described by Tim Chapman as "the single most important law or decree issued
by any tsar in nineteenth-century Russia" and is generally seen as one of the
most significant social reforms of the nineteenth century.
● Yet, the fundamental inconsistency between Alexander’s commitment to
autocracy and his moves towards liberal reform isolated him from both reformers
and conservatives alike. The growth of radical political opposition during his
reign, partly made possible by his liberal reforms, eventually led to his assassination
by terrorists of The People’s Will group in 1881.

Situation when Alexander II came to power: what problems faced the new tsar of the
Russian Empire?

● Defeat in Crimean war (1854 - 1856, fought on Russian territory against British,
French and Turkish troops over territorial control over the Holy Land) exposed how
serious Russia’s problems were in terms of communications (only 60,000 of its 1
million soldiers summoned to battle), industry (unable to equip Russian troops with
the modern weapons used by British and French soldiers), administration (corrupt
and ineffective) and the military (poorly equipped and suffered huge losses due to
illness and disease). Such embarrassing proof of Russian backwardness in
relation to the Western powers challenged the Slavophiles' argument that Russian
greatness was best maintained through autocracy and the status quo. The loss in
Crimea showed Alexander the need to modernize in order to strengthen Russia and
retain its status as a Great Power.
● Increasing criticisms of the institution of serfdom that constituted the basis of
Russian society and the biggest problem facing the government - how to deal with
this? Moral objections to serfdom existed (with even Nicholas I having recognized it
as “an evil” that needed to be addressed), alongside economic arguments for its
reform (with Westernizers seeing it as responsible for Russian backwardness as it
acted as a brake on industrial and agricultural development through preventing
enterprise and free movement of labour) and crucially military objections (with serfs
serving for 25 years making urgently needed army reform an impossibility).
 Increasingly abolition of serfdom was seen as necessary to allow progress and
modernization in Russia, but the question was how was this to be done?
● There was significant peasant unrest and social instability, with over 350 peasant
revolts between 1844 and 1854. When Nicholas I tried to recruit troops for the
Crimean war from the peasantry this peasant unrest increased considerably, and the
levels of violence demanded that the army had to be used to restore order.
● Defeat in the Crimea and the succession of a new, younger tsar created a political
climate more favourable to reform. Many people in Russia, especially
intellectuals, nobles and administrators, were convinced that change was necessary
and the early months of Alexander's reign saw an unusual consensus in favour of
reform. Alexander II encouraged this optimism and hope for reform by relaxing
press censorship and allowing free discussion of the serfdom issue. For those
wanting change, Alexander's reign started well.

What were Alexander II's aims in embarking upon his social and political reforms?

● Historians have been divided over Alexander's motives for emancipating the serfs
(see historiography section below for further details), but his general programme of
reforms can be understood in relation to his desire to strengthen and consolidate
the tsarist autocracy. It should not be forgotten that Alexander's childhood readings
in history had firmly embedded his belief in his own autocratic powers as tsar.
In support of this view there is Alexander's comment to the nobles in 1856 that it "is
better to abolish serfdom from above than to wait for the time when it will begin to
abolish itself from below." Rather than any liberal desire to emancipate the serfs,
this suggests a pragmatic concern with maintaining the powers of the tsarist
state in a time of complex challenges.
● In carrying out his reforms, Alexander hoped to secure Russia's position as a great
power following the humiliation in the Crimea, through improving the position of the
Russian state both internally and externally. He hoped for a peace and stability in
the countryside, with a prosperous and contented peasantry, and for a degree of
industrial growth that would strengthen and modernize the army and the
economy. In a nutshell, Alexander wished to chart the delicate middle-path of
making the changes necessary to modernize Russia without losing the support of
the conservative nobles who supported the Romanov autocracy. Given the
far-reaching and complex nature of the reforms' effects, it is an open question as to
how far Alexander's reforms created more new problems than they solved old ones
(see below for further discussion of these effects).
● In short, and to summarize, Alexander II wished to modernize Russia as a means of
strengthening the autocratic tsarist state. He wanted to achieve the social and
economic modernization of Russia, with all the benefits this would bring for the
state, without allowing the political modernization of allowing greater power to 'civil
society' and the wider population beyond the government (esp. the educated middle
 class and intelligentsia) as had already occurred in Western Europe. Put simply, he
wanted to have his autocratic cake and eat it!

The process of emancipating the serfs: what obstacles did Alexander face, 1855 -
1861?

● Though Nicholas I had recognized the 'evil' of serfdom, and the government had
been aware of the problem for at least 50 years, little had been done to tackle the
issue due to the following reasons:
1. The hostility of the nobility and the landowners to such a measure prevented
reform. As their financial and social status depended on how many serfs they
owned, these groups were reluctant to lose status and wealth in favour of the
peasants. As the tsar relied upon the nobility to rule the country he could not afford
to lose their support by forcing through this reform against their will.
2. The stability of the Russian social system was deeply dependent on the
institution of serfdom, and their were fears from the nobility and Slavophiles that
emancipating the serfs would lead to chaos and anarchy if the peasants were to be
freed from the control of their serf-owning masters.
● Trying to resolve these complex issues and agree on a law to emancipate the serfs
involved a long process of reaching compromise with the different powerful
interests that feared they would lose out, and it took Alexander five years to
complete his Emancipation edict from March 1856 to February 1861. As the
above obstacles suggest, the central issues at stake were land and control: should
the serfs be freed from their feudal obligations? How was society to be kept under
control without these obligations? Should the serfs be given any land? Should the
nobles be compensated for the loss of their land? How should this be paid for given
the poverty of the country following the Crimean war? When should any such
measure take effect?
● Ultimately, given the autocratic nature of political power in Russia, Alexander must
have exercised a personal commitment to emancipating the serfs (whatever his
motives in doing so), as any changes or reforms were obviously dependent upon his
approval to be implemented. Without his consent, no reform would have been
possible. Facing social and economic problems and the Crimean defeat, Alexander
chose to listen to reformers and personally played an important role in bringing about
this major reform.

Details of the Emancipation Edict (February 1861)

● Serfs granted personal freedom within 2 years, allowing them to own land, marry
without interference, use law courts and set up their own businesses.
● Freed peasants were granted ownership of their houses and the plot of land they
had worked on.
 ● Each serf was guaranteed a minimum size of allotment, but 75% of serfs received
allotments 20% smaller than the land they worked before and 80% of the size
considered necessary to feed a peasant family.
● The government then compensated landlords for land lost to peasants, on a very
high valuation of the land. Freed serfs were to repay the state this in the shape of
‘redemption dues’ over 49 years at 6% interest.
● The local mir was made responsible for collecting and paying the redemption taxes,
and thus exercised considerable control over each peasant.
● State serfs were granted the same terms, but the transition period was 5 years not 2
and they generally received larger plots of lands. Household serfs came out worst
of all: they received no land, just their freedom.

Responses to emancipation

● Emancipation was both criticized and praised at the same time. Prince Kropotkin, a
serf-owner and anarchist, said that peasants met the reforms with 'enthusiasm' and
celebrated their liberation. However, other radicals hoping for greater change argued
that the reforms pleased no-one.
● Peasants tended to be dissatisfied with what they saw as the shortcomings of the
deal - i.e. they thought the land they worked was theirs by right and did not see that
they should have to pay landlords for it. There were in total 647 incidents of
peasants rioting following the Edict, with a notable example in Bezdna (where a
peasant urged his fellow serfs to seize land for themselves, and was then arrested
and executed for his part in the disturbances that followed).
● Nobility resented their loss of social importance and felt betrayed that Alexander II
had not fully consulted them in the process of drawing up his final draft.
● Effectively, then, the nobility were angered by what they saw as a radical
document while the peasants were disappointed by what they say as a
moderate document. This clearly shows the difficulties Alexander and his ministers
faced in trying to emancipate the serfs.

Evaluating the emancipation: what were its successes and failures?

● As Terry Morris and Derrick Murphy point out, viewing the emancipation as a
'success' or a 'failure' depends very much on what criteria it is judged against.
● + Viewed in legal terms of rights and liberties, the emancipation was a
monumental success: 40 million Russians were liberated overnight, and Russia
made a dramatic break with its social and economic past to an extent unparalleled in
nineteenth-century Europe.
● + Some historians (Hugh Seton-Watson, David Moon) have compared
emancipation favourably with USA’s abolition of black slavery in 1865 as it
 guaranteed land to the former serfs and did more to guarantee the personal
freedom of those liberated than occurred in the States.
● - Immediate impact of the emancipation was lessened by practical problems of
implementing the reform at local level. As the process was dependent upon the
support of the nobility, it was often slow and carried out in a way that favoured the
interests of landowners at the expense of the peasants.
● - Land settlements were thus unfavourable to the peasants: areas granted to the
peasants were too small, and landlords charged inflated prices. This left peasants
with less land than before, paying redemption taxes beyond the productive
value of the land for land they thought was theirs by right. Furthermore, former
domestic serfs who hadn’t previously worked the land didn’t receive any land at all
under the terms of the Edict. In the short to medium-term, then, the emancipation
probably (and ironically) actually worsened the wealth and living standards of
former serfs in many cases.
● - Though freed from the landlord, peasants were still under control of the mir
(peasant commune), which could restrict travel and freedom of enterprise in the
village. The mir tended to be backwards looking in terms of perpetuating traditional
farming techniques: by sharing land inefficiently in narrow strips, it helped to prevent
the transformation of former serfs into individual peasant land owners.
● - Emancipation therefore failed to solve industrial backwardness: lacking land,
facing economic difficulties and often prevented by the mir from being able to leave
the village for towns, the peasants were not transformed into a new class of
prosperous consumers.
● + On balance, even if emancipation did not improve peasants' living standards in the
short term it did lead to over 85 % of former serfs becoming landowners in some
shape or form within 20 years of the reform. Furthermore, historian David Christian
argues that emancipation was a success in achieving its immediate objectives:
peasant disturbances were reduced for the next 40 years, and serfdom was
abolished without provoking an immediate major rebellion.

Alexander II's further reforms

● As serfdom had been central to the functioning of the Russian state before 1861 (in
terms of the military, political, administrative and social structure of the country), its
repeal demanded a further series of reforms to enable to tsarist system of
government to operate effectively.

Legal Reforms

● Previously local legal issues had been handled by the landlord in his position of
owner of the serfs, while the formal legal system was characterized by secrecy and
corruption. With no lawyers or juries in courts, and presumed guilty until proven
innocent, the poor had little chance of securing justice.
 ● In 1864 Alexander introduced a modern Western-style system that aimed to be
an independent judiciary that was "equal for all our subjects". This included the
introduction of juries, judges to be well-paid to avoid bribery and courts open
to the public.
● + Possibly the most liberal and progressive of Alexander's reforms, this new
system offered Russians the chance of a fair trial for the first time. The court-rooms
offered many from the rising intelligentsia a new and exciting career option, and the
court-rooms enjoyed considerable freedom of expression. As Hugh
Seton-Watson argues, "the court-room was the one place in Russia where real
freedom of speech prevailed"
● - However, it should also be noted that political cases were removed from these
courts and the Secret Police could still arrest people at will. On balance, though,
these were remarkable reforms.

Local Government Reforms

● With the abolition of serfdom removing the legal basis of gentry’s control of the
peasantry, Alexander saw the need for changes in the governmental system. In 1864
local government assemblies called zemstva were set up, followed by urban
assemblies called dumas in 1870.
● These zemstva were potentially a radical liberal measure towards a system with a
degree of local self-government - a radical measure in a centralist autocracy.
However, Alexander intended them to support the traditional system of
government rather than to move away from this. In effect, Alexander was
appeasing local nobility by giving them some local political power in response to
their perceived loss of status with the serfs' emancipation.
● + The zemstvas and dumas had local power over public health, prisons, roads,
agriculture, and education, which provided new opportunities for local political
participation in ways they had not previously been possible. These local officials
therefore had the chance to engage in Russia's real social problems.
● - On the other hand, and revealing the clear limitations of this new form of 'local
power', the police remained under central control, the provisional governor
could overrule all zemstva decisions, the zemstva were permanently short of
money, which limited their practical options, and the voting system was heavily
weighted towards local landowners (they were far from democratic institutions!),
which made it easy for the conservative nobility to and their interests to
dominate assemblies.

Army Reforms

● Given that the military humiliation in the Crimean was effectively the catalyst to
Alexander's reforms, modernizing Russia's army was seen as crucial.
● Carried out by the liberal Minister of War, Dmitri Milyutin, these military reforms
included reducing the length of service for conscripts from 25 years to 6 years
 in service (and 9 years in reserve) and introducing universal military service for
all males over 20 (no longer allowing the wealthy to escape this).
● + Milyutin's reforms made the army more civilized and efficient - training and
discipline no longer included brutal punishments, and shorter services meant that the
army was no longer a 'life sentence'.

Education Reforms

● New atmosphere of toleration and reform, as seen with relaxation of press

censorship, was also notable with more liberal education policies.
● Important university reform meant that universities were given much greater
autonomy in their affairs (1863): lectures on European law and philosophy were
allowed, scholars were allowed abroad to study and a new breed of liberal
professors replaced many of the conservatives in place in Nicholas I’s reign.
Furthermore, poor students did not have to pay fees, and by 1859 2/3 of students
at Moscow university were exempt from fees.
● + The number of children attending primary school increased considerably as the
zemstva played a key role in increasing the number of elementary schools. Between
1856 and 1878, the number of children in primary school more than doubled from
450,000 to over 1 million.
● - The government's liberal policies made universities into a "powder keg" - student
radicalism grew and teaching lectures "appeared to be serving not only academic
and economic purposes but also the promotion of political instability" (David
Saunders).

Economic Reforms

● Crimean defeat demonstrated that economic modernization was an urgent priority -

military failure and inefficiency clearly had its roots in the backwardness of the
Russian economy in relation to those of the European Great Powers. In particular,
the government focused on trying to develop railways and increasing coal and
iron production and pursued a more vigorous policy of industrialization than
Nicholas I did.
● + The Russian railway system developed from 1,600 km in 1861 to over 22,000 in
1878 (though this was still small compared internationally and given Russia's
immense size). This growth in railways helped to provide the empire with greater
internal coherence (through improved communications) and to stimulate internal
trade ( chiefly though reducing the price of grain in the key cities of the north, which
in turn encouraged urbanization and further industrialization).
● + There were considerable increases in oil and coal production and new
industrial areas were emerging, though much of these were dependent upon
foreign investment (such as the Nobel brothers).
● + Steady population growth led to a growing market in the countryside for
manufactured goods - however, this 'peasant market' was extremely fragile as it
 was dependent on a good harvest, and transport difficulties still hindered further
market development.
● - One area that saw little reform was the government's taxation policies - the
peasants were still forced to bear the heavy burden of the poll tax, which the gentry
were exempt from and which rose by 80% over Alexander's reign.
● +/- On balance, though Russia made important steps towards industrialization
and economic modernization during Alexander II's reign, the rate of development
was still slow and uneven and Russia remained relatively backwards in this area.

Responses to Alexander II's reforms and the growth of opposition

● Instead of strengthening and stabilizing the regime, Alexander’s reforms led to

greater political opposition: trying to choose a delicate middle path Alexander
upset both conservatives (resenting loss of influence) and liberals (wanted reform to
go further). On the one hand, the reforms led to a ‘crisis of rising expectations’:
Alexander's reforms had raised hopes which he could not fulfill without
undermining the autocracy, in particular calls for a national assembly (parliament)
and a written constitution defining and limiting the Tsar’s powers. On the other
hand, his later reactionary impulses that attempted to reduce and damper these
expectations only angered reformers further and encouraged the growth of radical
extremism against the state.
● Furthermore, the freer and more open political atmosphere of the reforms, and the
toleration of Western liberal ideas in the university lecture-rooms, led to the growth
of a more radical opposition who demanded fundamental changes to Russian
autocracy and society, particularly among students influenced by the growing flood of
radical ideas in this period.
● The growth of dissatisfaction and opposition to Alexander for not continuing the
process of reform that he had started, and his failure to deal with radical political
opposition, eventually led to his assassination by terrorists in 1881.

Why did Alexander II's reforms slow down after 1866? Was there a shift from "reform
to reaction"?

● Having made key reforms in the 1860’s Alexander effectively stood at the crossroads
between autocracy and liberal reform, but he opted against further reform and
remained firmly committed to autocracy in the later stage of his reign.
● Indeed, following the growth of opposition to his regime (including terrorism and
assassination attempts of Alexander himself) and with the more radical political
climate of the 1870's, Alexander enacted a series of more conservative measures
that some historians have described as a reactionary "swing to the right" in contrast
to his earlier "liberal" reforms.
● Key examples of Alexander's repressive policies between 1866 and 1881 are:
liberal reforming ministers in his government were replaced with conservative
ministers who opposed further reform, including the reactionary Dmitri Tolstoy
who as Education Minister clamped down on the universities' independence and
introducing tougher entrance requirements. There was also less freedom of the
press and greater censorship. Also, following the first assassination attempt in
1866, the Secret Police ("Third Section") were given greater powers to arrest and
clamp down on radicals, and by the 1870's the country's prisons were full and an
estimated 150, 000 opponents were exiled to Siberia in Alexander's reign.
● Thus by 1880, historian W.E. Mosse has suggested, Alexander was "isolated from
the Russian people, unpopular with the educated public, and cut off from the bulk of
society and the Court. His fate had become a matter of indifference to the majority of
his subjects". This lack of support and popularity can be explained largely in terms of
Alexander's inconsistency and his contradictory policies.
● Some historians have argued that Alexander's 'conservative shift' and his ending of
reforms can be related directly to the first assassination attempt on the tsar's life
made in 1866 by Dmitri Karakozov, a disillusioned student radical. According to this
argument, this radical act shocked Alexander II into taking more repressive action
against opposition, and he spent the rest of his reign increasingly disillusioned
with reform and conservative in outlook. So in this interpretation, Alexander's
reign can effectively be split into two distinct phases: (i) an early liberal phase
committed to reform (c. 1855 - 1866), and (ii) a later conservative phase (c. 1866
- 1881), in which he turned against his earlier reformism.
● However, as Jonathan Bromley points out, this 'early liberal/late conservative'
argument, switching with the first assassination attempt in 1866, is too simplistic,
as it ignores the fact that the later part of Alexander's reign also included various
liberal measures. For instance, in response to revolutionary political violence of the
late 1870's Alexander responded both conservatively, with execution of radicals, and
liberally with the appointment of a liberal Minister of the Interior, Loris-Melikov.
The Loris-Melikov ministry replaced the reactionary Tolstoy, abolished the Third
Section and persuaded Alexander II to make the most fundamental reform of
his reign.
● Indeed, far from Alexander being a bitter conservative in 1881, just before his
assassination he had agreed in principle to one of the reformers and radicals' key
demands: a national assembly (parliament). Admittedly, this was only a limited
step away from autocracy, as a partly-elected body with some members still
appointed by the tsar, but it could conceivably "have been the beginning of the
establishment of a parliamentary system in Russia" (Soviet historian, P.A.
Zaionchkovsky). Ironically then, Alexander II was assassinated by radicals just as
he had conceded further, and potentially far-reaching, liberal reform for Russia.
● Rather than two separate phases, of reform and then reaction, Bromley argues that
Alexander's reign can be viewed as a consistent attempt to enact a more or less
coherent programme of "controlled reform". Reforms did slow down after 1866 but
 this did not mean a shift from reform to reaction. Instead, states Bromley, the
essentials of a limited programme of reforms had been achieved and "it was
time for the state to exert some discipline to keep the process under control".

Historiography: how far does Alexander II deserve the title of ‘Tsar liberator’?

● The key historiographical debate concerning Alexander is how far he deserves the
title he received of being the 'Tsar Liberator'. The central issue that historians have
disagreed upon is what Alexander's motives were in carrying out his reforms?
Does it make sense to refer to Alexander II as a 'liberator'? Important to think about
here is what does the term 'liberator' mean or imply? A fully-formed Western liberal
that believed in individual liberty and representative government? Or perhaps
something more limited, such as emancipating those formerly held in legal bondage?
● Some historian have denied Alexander’s role as a great reformer and liberal.
● What evidence do they support their argument with? They point out that Alexander
was motivated by a desire to strengthen autocracy not replace it. As W. Bruce
Lincoln claims, by the end of his reign and even after all of his reforms “the concept
of the state embodied in the person of the autocracy was in no way altered”.
● Soviet historians also rejected Alexander's title of 'liberator' and claimed that he
emancipated the serfs to benefit the nobles rather than serfs, as a way of providing
them with income and thereby regenerating the landowning class. This view
stresses the economic reasons for emancipation, and argues that there was a
"crisis in the servile economy": i.e. that the economic system of serfdom was not
functioning and failure to reform it could have led to either a mass rebellion or
economic collapse.
● Why do Soviet historians argue this? Because as Marxists these historians
place a greater emphasis on the role of long-term, structural economic factors
rather than the role of individuals and their decisions (i.e. Alexander's) in explaining
historical events. They also had a clear political agenda to justify the Bolshevik
revolution and the consolidation of the Communist State, which meant that they
tended to also regard any attempts to reform the tsarist system as doomed to fail as it
was a backwards and repressive system.
● The problem with the Soviet argument, then, is that it presupposed a Marxist
interpretation of the past and found evidence that fitted with and confirmed this
view, rather than first looking at the evidence and then forming a balanced view.
Western historians, such as Jerome Blum, have disputed the basis of the 'economic
crisis' argument put forward by the Marxists that suggested the Russian economy
was in crisis and that landlords were severely indebted by inefficient agriculture and
the serf system. Blum argued instead that serfdom remained profitable for both
nobles and serfs and there was no 'crisis' that forced Alexander's reforms.
● Some historians have even stressed the military benefits of reform, also beneficial
to the ruling class, in explaining the motivation for reform. A.J. Rieber goes as far as
 stating that the emancipation and reform process was motivated solely by military
considerations and the desire to strengthen and protect the state through a strong,
modernised army. This is probably going too far, but it does point to the strategic
concerns that influenced Alexander, which speaks against any simple view of him
liberating the serfs simply due to moral/ altruistic/ liberal, reasons.
● Most historians now agree that Alexander was not cynically exploiting reform for
political advantage, and instead argue that the inconsistent nature of his reforms
can be related to the specific strengths and weaknesses of Alexander’s
character: sometimes brave, sometimes confused and not especially intelligent: “the
laws which freed the serfs emerged from a process that the Tsar barely understood
and over which he had only partial control” (David Saunders).
● As an autocrat he recognized his duty to try and fix a system that had clearly failed
Russia in the Crimea, yet he was not sure as to the best way to do this, and he
became scared whenever he saw potentially radical consequences to his reforms.
Thus Hugh Seton-Watson saw Alexander at the crossroads between autocracy and
modern liberal constitutional development, and judged him a failure for seeking an
unrealistic compromise between the two and refusing to abandon autocracy.
● David Saunders, a recent authority on this period of Russian history, offers a more
balanced assessment of Alexander’s achievements: though his reforms didn’t solve
all of Russia’s problems, they did cause far-reaching change. As Saunders
concludes, even if his reforms were “conceptually limited, poorly executed,
incomplete, unsustained and insecure, the measures enacted by Alexander II
nevertheless transformed the Russian Empire”.

3.
Alexander III (1881 - 1894)
Introduction

● Alexander III came to the throne abruptly in March 1884, aged 36, after his father's
assassination at the hands of The People's Will. As the second son of Alexander II
he had not been educated and prepared for the Tsardom as a child, until 1865 when
his elder brother died and he became heir to the Tsardom. Then the conservative
figure of Konstantin Pobedonostev played a vital role in shaping his thinking about
the role and function of the Tsar.
● Alexander was a conservative by nature and was the physical emodiment of the
traditional idea of what a Russian Tsar was supposed to be, both in figure and in
his actions. At 1m 95 he was forceful, strong and capable of being an angry bully
towards those who opposed him. His suspicion of Western ideas and fashions
was shown by his wearing of a thick beard in traditional Slavic fashion.
● The traditional view of Alexander III has been of a conservative reactionary, with
historians and commentators contrasting Alexander as the repressive opposite of
his father, the 'Tsar liberator'. However, while there is some truth in this - Alexander
III was in many senses a conservative who hoped to stop further political
liberalisation - such a view tends to oversimplify the more complex truth that
consitutes the reign of the Tsar liberator's son.

Context of Alexander III's succession: reasons to be conservative?

● His father's assassination by radical terrorists reinforced his natural conservatism.

Alexander III was shocked and appalled by the terrorists' disloyalty, but like many
conservatives in Russia he tended to blame his father's death on his moderate
aims for reform. In a sense, the reactionary tone of most of Alexander III's reign
can be understood largely as a response to the assassination of his father.
● Alexander III was greatly influenced in his outlook by the ideas of Pobedonostsev,
his reactionary tutor. Pobedonostsev was a perceptive critic of Western values,
who argued that the democracy and liberalism adopted in Western Europe offered
only illusory freedoms and as alien foreign ideas should not be adopted in Russia.
He believed that all opposition should be ruthlessy crushed and that freedom of
the press and constitutions represented threats to the state. Pobedonostsev
proposed the strengthening of autocracy and tradition rather than further reforms,
and supported the Orthodox religion and Russian nationality against any other
religions or nationalities in the Russian Empire. As Alexander III's tutor, elder and
intellectual superior, Pobedonostsev exerted a considerable shadow over the
Tsar's reign.
● The generally chaotic nature of the Empire as a whole following Alexander II's death
suggested the need for strong leadership to steady the country. Indeed, while it
is easy to object to some of Alexander III's policies, it should also be remembered
that Russia was still significantly backwards in many senses, administratively
 primitive and economically weak. This is the context of Alexander's stern,
authoritarian policies.

Alexander III as "conservative reactionary": the evidence and arguments in favour of

this view

● Given his political convictions and his wish to send a clear message to opponents of
Tsardom, Alexander III started his reign with a strong statement of conservative
reaction. The terrorists responsible for his father's death were executed, and
10,000 suspected opponents across the country were arrested. Greater
censorship was re-introduced and his father's plans for a written constitution and
further reform were immediately scrapped.
● The conservative nature of Alexander's rule shown in his early actions as Tsar was
confirmed and given formal shape in his "Manifesto of Unshakeable Autocracy"
issued to the nation in April 1881. This document clearly showed the influence of
Pobedonostsev in its rejection of democracy and further reform, and the intent to
have "full faith in the justice and strength of the autocracy" that he believed God
had bestowed upon him. This manifesto (and possibly also the fact that he took his
motto as that of Nicholas 1's: 'Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality') made
Alexander III extremely unpopular with Russia's educated Westernized population,
and liberal government ministers of his father's reign resigned in protest (including
Loris-Melikov).

Between 1881 and 1894 Alexander III and his government followed a series of policies that
made conservative adjustments to his father's reforms in the 1860s:

● Local Government: radical plans to destroy the zemstva completely were dropped,
but the introduction of Land Captains and changes in the voting system served to
strengthen autocracy and the position of the nobility in the countryside and
reduce peasant self-government. The Land Captains were introduced in 1889,
and as they were drawn solely from the nobility, had total authority in local
administration and could thus override the authority of the zemstva they
contradicted Alexander II's earlier local government reforms. Similarly, given the
conservative dislike of democracy and elected assemblies, new laws were introduced
in 1890 and 1892 to alter the electorate and reduce the popular vote in rural and
urban elections - for example, in St Petersburg the electorate was reduced by 2/3
from 21,000 to 7,000 following these reforms.
● Peasantry and social policy: the peasants experienced the Land Captains and
other aspects of Alexander's rule as so repressive that some feared that he
planned to re-instate the institution of serfdom. A clear example of this
repression, that shows Alexander's fear and attempt to control them, was his move in
1893 to ban peasants from leaving the Mir, placing a complete restriction on their
freedom to move and strengthening the control the Mir exerted over individual
peasants.
 ● Powers of the State and repression: following the assassination the 1881 Statute
of State Security gave the government more powers to pursue revolutionaries. This
gave the state the power to declare any part of the country under "extraordinary
protection" and thereby ban public gatherings, close schools and universities
and charge and individual for political crimes. The powers of the Secret Police
were also extended to allow them to imprison suspected opponents of the state
without trial, and conditions in prisons were made more severe.
● Censorship was increased, as the government attempted to limit the circulation of
'harmful' ideas in newspapers, books and libraries, and education came under
closer government control in the attempt to further limit opposition and
revolutionary ideas. Universities lost some of the independence granted to them
under Alexander II, while the raising of school fees was a deliberate ploy to keep
lower-class children out of primary and secondary education. Podenostsev believed
firmly that education for peasant children was both a waste of time and resources,
depriving their parents of help at home while failing to prepare them for their future
lives in agriculture.
● Russification and anti-semitism: under Podonostsev's influence and position as
the Procurator of the Holy Synod (state head of Orthodox Church), a strict policy of
Russification was followed towards the non-Russian groups of the empire. This
policy of suppressing local cultures and promoting Russian characteristics was not
invented by Alexander III, but it was appllied with new determination in his reign.
Worse affected by this cultural nationalism was the Jewish population, who faced
anti-semitic prejudice and oppression. Anti-semitic legislation banned Jews from
the civil service, limited their education opportunities and where they could live, while
the government was happy to encourage violence and pogroms against Jewish
communities as a means of diverting popular discontent.

The case against: evidence that opposes the view that Alexander III was a
"conservative reactionary"

Although there is clearly no shortage of evidence of Alexander III's conservatism, it would be

wrong to dismiss him completely as a backward-looking reactionary. He was well aware of
the need to modernize Russia's economy, and in this sphere his reign saw some
impressive, and even progressive, change. Though he resisted social and political
change wherever possible, he didn't reject reform completely, and some of his economic
policies built on the work started by his father when he emancipated the serfs.

● Alexander III's first Minister of Finance, Nikolai Bunge, was a reforner who
introduced important changes between 1881 and 1887. He created the Peasants'
Land Bank in 1882 to help peasants purchase their own farms, whcich wad so
successful that by 1904 peasants had bought 1/3 of the nobility's land. He also
abolished the Poll Tax, paid only by peasants, in 1886, which helped to reduce the
financial burden the peasants faced.
 ● Faced with the expansion of major cities and an increase in urban strikes, Bunge
tried to reduce the appeal of socialism by offering limited concessions to the
workers in the shape of laws to protect their rights at work. Between 1883 and 1885
he introduced laws to improve working conditions for women and children, and
in 1886 there was further labour legislation concerning payment and dismissal to
protect the workers. However, it should also be noted that there were only 300
inspectors for the whole of Russia so there was little way of acutally enforcing
these laws, which were therefore largely ineffective.
● Bunge's replacement as Finance Minister, Ivan Vyshnegradsky, was less interested
in social reform and workers' rights and focused entirely on industrializing Russia
at whatever the cost. He launched a huge export drive of grain and secured an
important French loan to fund this industrialization drive, and by 1892 the Russian
state had a budget surplus for the first time ever - though this was achieved at
massive social cost. Between 1881 and 1894 coal production in Russia almost
doubled, while the production of pig-iron was more than double - clear indications of
a successful industrialization drive.

Broad results and consequences of Alexander III's policies:

● Supporters of Alexander III argued that his firm policies allowed a period of stability
which allowed the Russian state to be strengthened and for Russian pride to be
restored after the turbulence of the 1860s. According to this view, the lack of
revolutionary disturbances during Alexander's reign was seen as proof that his
repression of opposition had been successful, and these supporters celebrated
Alexander III as a great peacemaker.
● However, while an appearance of peace might be true in the short term, in the
longer-term this was a fragile illusion - repression would only encourage the
growth of further and more extreme opposition to the Tsarist regime. The
clearest example of this is the case of Lenin: the execution in 1887 of his elder
brother, Alexander Ulyanov, for his role in a bomb plot to kill Alexander III, played an
important role in driving the 17 year old Vladimir Ilyich Ulanov towards political
radicalism and revolutionary Marxism, which would in due course have massive
consequences for the future of Russia and the fate of the Romanov dynasty.
● While successful economic policies led to improved government finances during
Alexander's reign, this was achieved at massive social cost. In particular, Finance
Minister Vyshnedgradsky's focus on exporting grain to fund industrialization - in his
words, "we must go hungry, but export" - contributed to the severe famine of
1891-2 that cost the lives of between 1.5 and 2 million peasants. Politically, the
government's failure to respond effectively to relieve the suffering caused by the
famine encouraged support for revolutionary opposition movements, while the
important role played by the zemstva in managing the relief effort demonstrated a
new 'responsible' liberal strand of opposition to the Tsardom, which in turn led to
pressure for greater democracy.
Conclusion:

● Overall, Alexander III's reforms of the 1880s and 90s served to strengthen
traditional social estates (ie. the nobility) and undermine his father's reforms of
the 1860s, which satisfied conservatives. In this sense, the traditional view of
historians of Alexander's reign as one of repression and reaction is at least partly
correct, though it might also be pointed out that stabilizing the state would have
been an essential task for any ruler to carry out following the dramatic assassination
of 1881, and Alexander's strengthening of the autocracy allowed Russia to improve
her international position.
● Furthermore, it would be a mistake to characterize Alexander III purely as a
conservative reactionary. His economic policies saw Russia make important
progress towards becoming a modern, industrialized nation, and in economic terms
it can be argued that Alexander III was at least as great a reformer as his father
was socially and politically.
● Ultimately his greatest failure lay in his refusal to modernize Russia socially and
politically to fit the changing realities of a modern, industrializing nation. When
the government should have been adjusting itself to the new economic situation,
Alexander III clung to and strengthened autocracy, a system of rule developed for an
illiterate nation of peasants, which was no longer entirely the case in the 1880s. This
failure to reform autocracy created great tension which would ultimately push the
country towards crisis and contribute to the collapse of Tsardom in 1917.
● Another fatal legacy left by Alexander III that contributed towards the downfall of the
Romanov dynasty was the idealized vision of Tsarism, with its staunch and
inflexible commitment to autocracy, that he imparted to his son, Nicholas II, who
would inherit the throne upon Alexander's death in 1894 and rule as the last ever
Tsar.

Comparing and contrasting Alexander II (the Tsar Liberator, great reformer etc.) and
Alexander III (the great reactionary): some food for thought

● Should you be given the fairly typical exam question that asks you to compare and
contrast the reigns of Alexander III and his father, rather than repeating the standard
view that simply contrasts Alexander II the 'Tsar Liberator' with Alexander III the
'conservative reactionary' you might want to consider the following, slightly more
interesting lines of argument to try and impress the examiner with. Of course, in
some ways Alexander III did indeed reverse his father's reforms, BUT:
● Though Alexander II might have liberated the serfs and made some 'liberal' reforms
in the 1860s, in many ways he was just as much of a reactionary as his son.
(Think back to the limitations of Alexander II's reforms, his disillusions with the
response to the reforms and his imprisoning of political opponents!) With this in
mind, it is difficult to maintain that Alexander II was actually much of a liberal at all, so
that this part of the contrast with his son collapses. Indeed, it can be argued that
 both shared and pursued similar aims: strengthening the autocracy and
improving Russia's international standing.
● Though Alexander III did undermine the limited social and political reforms made by
his father in the 1860s, his policies in the 1880s and 90s made important steps
towards the economic modernization of Russia, particularly in relation to
industrialization. In some respects, it might even be possible to argue that the
traditional view can be turned on its head and that Alexander III was a reformer
where Alexander II was a reactionary - though you must be careful not to take this
too far, you need to preserve a balanced view and a sense of perspective in your
answer. Keep your argument closely pinned to the evidence you can support it with
in your essays!

IMP- Please refer

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxpYmhpc3
RvcnlydXNzaWF8Z3g6N2I4ZmVlMzkwM2RkNzU5ZQ.

D) Nicholas II (1894 - 1917)

What was Nicholas II’s character? How well-suited was he to rule Russia? Is it
surprising that he was the 'last Tsar'?

■ Came to power in 1894 after his father’s death. Shy and lacking in confidence, NII
was not prepared to be Tsar and did not want this role. As he wrote in his diary in
1894, "I am not prepared to be the Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know
nothing of the business of ruling." Unwilling to rule!
■ Historians agree that NII was not equal to the challenges facing Russia - Hans
Rogger, "Nicholas had no knowledge of the world or of men".
■ Many faults as a ruler: “not fit to run a village post office”, as Trotsky memorably
phrased it. He was weak, stubborn, not willing to make decisions, poorly organised
and not keen to engage in political issues or read political reports etc. Unwilling and
unable to rule!
■ Furthermore, given his upbringing at the hands of AIII and Pobedonostsev, NII was
firmly committed to tsarist Conservatism. He wished to maintain autocracy as the
God-given and ordained structure of political power in Russia. He believed that
democracy would lead to the collapse of the Russian empire. and pledged to
uphold autocracy as firmly as his father had in his coronation speech in 1895 (in
which he also dismissed claims of democrats as "senseless dreams".)
■ NII’s refusal to adapt politically to the changing social and economic conditions in
Russia at the turn of the century was re-inforced by his wife, the Tsarina
Alexandra, who was a strong believer in autocracy and could persuade NII not to
listen to those moderates who argued that some reform was needed to save the
tsardom.

Key problems facing Nicholas II

■ Backwards economy - needs to modernise and industrialise in order to compete

with Britain, France etc and remain a ‘Great Power’. A strong industrial economy
was essential if Russia were to remain an important military power. This meant a
concentrated effort would be needed to move Russia away from its backwards and
agriculture-dominated economy.
■ National poverty - backwards and inefficient agricultural economy struggled to feed
the rapidly growing population, let alone provide the government with any surplus for
national security etc. Furthermore, the ‘peasant problem - of ‘land hunger’, low
income, debt and starvation - was liable to lead to uprisings and revolts which
threatened the stability of the tsarist regime. Modernisation as a means to
employ, and pacify, overflow of workers in the countryside.
■ Dangers of modernisation in terms of social and economic forces it released, which
would challenge the tsarist regime and leader to still greater political opposition - i.e.
calls for parliament and democracy would be greater if an industrial working class
living and working in poor conditions develops in cities, and with the growth of an
 educated workforce and the middle classes. Key issue: how to get the political
benefits of economic modernisation without making concessions to opposition calls
for political change?

Key and overriding aim:

■ Maintain autocracy and strengthen Russia’s position economically and militarily

through modernisation. However, this modernisation was to happen without social
and economic reform. So overall aim = modernise without revolution! Or having
your Tsarist cake and eating it!

Main events during Nicholas II's reign to consider:

■ Witte and industrialisation drive

■ Russo-Japanese War (1904-5)
■ 1905 Revolution - as sparked by Bloody Sunday
■ Stolypin and agricultural reform
■ the Dumas and the rise of organised political opposition
■ impact of WW1
■ abdication after February revolution, 1917

Opposition
·

Key dates and events:

1857 - Alexander Herzen, The Bell, critical of Western developments and industrial
capitalism.

1863 - Nikolai Chernyshevsky, What is to be done? - socialist pamphlet with guidelines

on revolutionary activism.

Polish Revolt

April 1866 - First attempt on the Tsar's life - Dmitri Karakozov, a disgruntled noble
student.

1873 - 74 - Narodniks and populism: 'going to the people'

1876 - more radical 'Land and Liberty' formed, under leadership of George Plekhanov.

1879 - still more extreme 'The People's Will' set up (narodnaya volya) as 'land and
liberty' splits into peaceful and violent factions over question of whether terror should be
used in pursuit of their aims.

1 March 1881 - assassination of Alexander II at the hands of 'the people's will' led by
Mikhailov.

1886 - execution of Alexander Ulyanov, a student part of a group aiming to kill Alexander
III. This was Lenin's older brother.
Why opposition? What did they oppose?

■ Nationalities: Polish revolt, 1863. Polish desire for land reform, and re-establishing
Polish nationhood, led to unrest and demonstrations killing 200. Planned conscription
of Poles into the Russian army led to armed rebellion in February 1863, which lasted
a year across the countryside before it was put down by granting land reform. This
showed that non-Russian nationalist aspirations within the Russian Empire were not
possible, and contributed to the adoption of Russification policies in the future.
■ Ideological rejection of the regime: nihilists who argued for a total rejection of
existing institutions and moral values, in favour of unrestricted individual freedom.
Turgenev's novel: "A nihilist is a man who does not bow before any authorities, who
does not accept a single principle on trust". (1862) Mikhail Bakunin's anarchist
political philosophy preached overthrowing the regime by violence, and replacing it
with the self-governing form of the peasant commune.
■ Slavophile argument against Western capitalism: linked to the above, an
ideological rejection of development towards greater industrial development along
Western lines and greater centralised state power. Instead, preserving the specifically
Russian institution of the mir (peasant commune) was put forward as a goal for the
future - see 'Populists' below.
■ Political opposition: radical demands for a written constitution and a national
parliament, to limit the autocracy and allow the people a greater political role.
■ Emancipation of the serfs: nobility resented the loss of a third of their land (though
they were compensated for this, much of this went to pay off existing debts) and a
loss of their social influence and prestige; peasants resented that they had less land
than before, but now had to pay redemption taxes for this! 647 incidents of peasant
uprisings after the edict was issued - i.e. Bezdna. To the intelligenstia, the limited
nature of the reform showed that Alexander II was incapable of meeting the needs of
ordinary Russians, and it therefore caused more revolutionary activity against the
state.

What was the nature of this opposition?

■ intellectual, exclusive and secretive - educated and middle classes, not peasants or
workers.
■ universities - students! Idealistic youth - gentry and middle class- of the narodniks in
the 1870s.
■ unorganised, sporadic local uprisings of the peasantry - i.e. 647 incidents of rioting in
four months after the emancipation edict in 1861.
Aims and actions of key opposition groups:

■ Populism - leaders drawn from the middle and upper classes, developed as an
ideology out of slavophile thinking of the 1860s, such as Alexander Herzen. These
populists disliked Tsarist autocracy and wished to replace it with local government
based on the mir, the village commune - a very Russian form of local democracy. For
the populists - the narodniks - were agrarian socialists who idealised Russia's
agricultural past, and rejected capitalism and industrialism as destroyers of peasant
communities. In populist thought, the mir was to be the democratic model around
which Russia's socialist future could be built.
■ Populist disagreement about how revolution should be achieved: Peter Lavrov and
moderates who argued for gradual change via educating the peasants which would
evolve towards the withering away of the state vs more extremists, such as
Chernyshevsky, who wanted more direct action to be taken now to seize revolution
(mirroring later debates between Bolsheviks and other socialists about the timing of
the revolution).
■ 'Going to the people', 1873 - 74 - the populist campaign, following Herzen's ideas,
that saw thousands of intellectuals and students going out into the countryside to
spread the idea of a socialist revolution to the peasants. However, very little was
achieved to this end. The movement lacked clear central organisation, and
campaigners had diverse aims: some wished to spread revolutionary propaganda,
but some wished to spend time with the peasants to learn their ways. The peasants
did not receive the positives favourably, and many called the police - leading to
hundreds of the narodniki to be arrested. Clearly, as Marx had argued and as Lenin
would later be aware, the peasants did not at this point possess sufficient
'revolutionary consciousness' to consider revolution a viable option!
■ 'Land and liberty', 1876 - failure of the 'going to the people' led to disappointment
and the discrediting of the moderate populists, which then drove the movement
towards terrorism and political violence as 'land and liberty' was formed. Vera
Zasulich shot and wounded the governor of St Petersburg, and then managed to be
found 'not guilty' in her trial, which shocked AII and drove him to hold such political
cases behind closed doors.
■ 'The People's Will' (narodna volya), 1879 - still more extreme organisation
developed after 'land and liberty' broke up. 'People's will' argued that social revolution
would not be possible without first achieving a political revolution. Its programme
aimed to rescue Russia from the autocracy and demanded key democratic reforms:
national constitution, universal suffrage, freedom of speech and press, local
self-government and national self-determination. Their use of political terror
culminated in the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, but ironically this allowed
Alexander III to crack down on opposition movements and many leading figures of
the People's Will were imprisoned. So their violent opposition to autocracy
 succeeded in increasing tsarist oppression and persecution of anyone who dared to
oppose the autocracy!

How extensive and effective was this opposition?

■ Given the need for such opposition to remain secretive and underground in order to
survive, it is difficult to accurately assess the extent of it. However, for most of the
above movements the number of members and supporters ranged from a couple of
hundred to a few thousand.
■ Judged against the aims they hoped to achieve, the opposition movements during
the reign of Alexander must be seen as largely ineffective. Even though they
succeeded in killing the Tsar, little was achieved in terms of reducing the power of the
autocracy or gaining the support of the peasantry for a revolutionary uprising against
the state.
■ These opposition groups were significant, however, insofar as they 'laid the
groundwork' for later revolutionaries and raised central issues that had had to be
addressed - such as were the peasants ready for a revolution? Should political
violence be used against the state? Who should lead the revolution? What role
should the small group of dedicated revolutionaries, as put forward by
Chernyshevsky, play in all this? Clearly, such considerations had an impact on Lenin
and the Bolsheviks.

Why did it not achieve greater success?

■ its nature (secretive) meant that revolutionary opposition could not mobilise peasant
discontent, the greatest threat to stability.
■ no practical alternative to existing regime offered - lack of political tradition in Russia,
meant that opposition thinking tended to be utopian in character, rather than rooted in
realities of governing a state.
■ no clear united front of opposition - but various different, often conflicting, strands of
thought about 'what is to be done'!
■ conservative interests too strong - even if nobility might have been cross with
Alexander after the emancipation, they were still not going to support revolutionary
opposition against him!
■ The People's Will might have succeeded in killing AII in 1881, but this did not lead to
greater reform or revolution - instead it strengthened the resolve of the establishment
to clamp down on opposition, as seen with the harsh treatment of revolutionaries
during Alexander III's reign.
Backwardness and Witte's attempts to modernize,
c. 1890 - 1905
Key indicators of backwardness:

■ Agriculture inefficient and backwards: peasants used medieval tools

and old-fashioned land usage. This meant Russian farming was much less
efficient per acre than UK or the USA. (Caused by mir’s preventing of
innovation, and lack of investment in agricultural technology).
■ While industrial output had increased during the reigns of AII and AIII,
it was still at a low level when compared with the industrial powerhouses
of Western Europe and the USA. (Late industrial development was partly
a result of an underdeveloped banking system, and partly due to serfdom
preventing an available source of workers for new industries.)
■ Development was also prevented by Russia's backwards
communications and transport system, making the transport of raw
materials and finished goods virtually impossible. By 1860 Russia had
1,600 km of railways compared to Britain's 15,000 km. This increased by
c. 5,000 km by 1890, but this still left Russia far behind the West,
especially given its huge size!

Sergei Witte and the answer to Russia’s problems!

■ Sergei Witte, a Russian nobleman of Dutch origin, served as Minister of

Finance from 1892 and 1903 and oversaw some impressive changes to
the Russian economy.
■ Witte’s belief was that the key to Russia’s continued ‘Great Power’
status rested on successful and rapid forced industrialization.
Developing industry would be a way to avoid dependency on more
developed economies and also create a strong modern state in Russia.
■ Witte’s plan to deliver an industrialized Russia was based on a four-fold
plan to fund the programme of capital investment: i) protective tariffs
on foreign goods to protect against competition from Europe, ii) attraction
of foreign capital in the shape of loans, esp from the French, iii)
placing currency on the Gold Standard to encourage further foreign
investment, and iv) squeezing resources out of the peasantry and
workers - through low wages, high taxes and exporting ‘surplus’ grain.

Successes of Witte’s industrialization drive?

 ■ Rapid increase in foreign investment: from c. 200 million roubles in
1890 to 900 million in 1900. This contributed to the development of
heavy industries.
■ Impressive advances in industrial output, esp. in heavy industry - i.e.
overall output increased by 400% between 1890 and 1910, with coal, iron
and steel production increasing accordingly.
■ Particular focus on development of railways, which Witte saw as a way
of improving communications and stimulating industrial demand for goods
associated with railway building. Railway coverage expanded from c.
7,000 km in 1890 to c. 60,000 in 1905. Plus engineering feat of the
Trans-Siberain railway to connect with Vladivostok, stretching 9,600
km.

Limitations of Witte’s policies

■ There may have been impressive advances in industry, but Russia was
still far behind her European rivals.
■ Similarly, while railways might have been increased, overall rail
coverage was still minimal when compared with, i.e., USA, and the
Trans-Siberian was largely symbolic - only one track! Plus, other forms of
communication lagged behind - i.e. roads, and shipping.
■ Dependency on foreign capital for industrialization meant that interest
payments on the loan had to be made regularly - 20% of government
spending annually om servicing this debt! Political opponents of Witte also
accused him of being unpatriotic in his courting of foreign capitalists.
■ Squeezing the peasants for grain and taxes led to starvation during bad
harvest years (i.e. 1900 and 1902), and thus an increase in peasant
uprisings. Furthermore, his focus on industry meant that he paid little
immediate attention to the serious agricultural problems Russia was
facing which affected the vast bulk of the population!
■ Though only a small proportion of the population employed as industrial
workers (c. 2% in 1900), these faced low wages, long hours and poor
living conditions, protests at which led to calls for more political power
for workers.

Overall assessment of Witte

 ■ On the one hand, his policies strengthened Russia leading up to
WW1. Huge capital investment led to considerable industrial and railway
developments, bringing clear economic and military benefits to Russia. In
this sense, successful economic modernization achieved from a very low
base - though it should also be noted there were clear limitations to this
economic modernization, it should not be over-exaggerated.
■ On the other hand, the fact there were no political reforms to match
this economic modernization created a tension which undermined
Russia before 1914. For instance, the growth of a disgruntled industrial
working class in the cities created fertile conditions for the growth of
radical opposition in the face of poor conditions. Furthermore, his
industrial drive failed to address the fundamental agricultural
backwardness of Russia.
■ In 1903, Nicholas II transferred Witte to the Chairman of the Committees
- this was arguably largely a symbolic position, and NII was removing
Witte from position of influence in the face of conservatives and
landed gentry who disliked his modernising policies. Witte, and his
somewhat liberal tendencies, would also be of importance to NII in the
aftermath of the Russo-Japanese war after 1905.
■ Historian Hugh Seton-Watson is not alone in claiming Witte as "one of the
outstanding statesmen of the 19th century."

Russo-Japanese War (1904 - 05)

Causes of the Russo-Japanese War, 1904:

■ Nicholas II’s determination that Russia should not be left out of the European
‘scramble for colonies’ across the world, drove an expansionist policy in the Far
East. Russia’s long-term economic interests in the East were shown by the
building of the Trans-Siberian railway (1891) and the railway across Manchuria
(1897), which brought valuable political and economic access to the region.
■ Growth of Russian presence in Korea - i.e. 25 year lease of ice-free Port Arthur, 1898
- caused friction with Japan. Japan was a growing power in the region, who also
wished to benefit and expand into the collapsing empire of China and whose
nationalist pride resented Russian territorial gains in Manchuria.
■ Tension between Russia and Japan increased as Russia did not remove
‘temporary troops’ from Manchuria in 1903. Russian apathy led to a failure to come
to a peaceful agreement about ‘spheres of influence’ in the region, and Japan
launched a surprise naval attack on Port Arthur in February 1904. War as dispute
over trade and territory in Korea.
■ Nicholas II had been encouraged into launching a war following this Japanese
attack, both by the Kaiser of Germany, who was pleased to see Russia distracted
by events in the East, and by domestic political considerations. Disastrous
economic situation in Russia in 1904 - bad harvests causing starvation for
peasants and high food prices, economic depression causing high unemployment for
industrial workers - led to strikes and peasant riots which Minister of the Interior
Phleve thought would be best countered by a “short victorious war” against the
Japanese. War therefore used as an attempted distraction from domestic problems:
Phleve, “to stem the tide of revolution, we need a successful little war.”

Course of the war:

■ On land: superior Japanese troops circled and cut off Port Arthur by May 1904,
placing the Russians under siege until they surrendered and lost the port in
January 1905. Russian attempt to win back the port failed with the crushing defeat
at the Battle of Mukden (which involved c. 600, 000 troops). Humiliating and
crushing military defeat for Russia.
■ At sea: naval campaign the decisive factor in determining the war’s outcome, as
Japan’s success depended on its being able to reinforce its troops on the mainland.
Russia’s key fleet did not arrive until May 1905, and then it suffered a crushing defeat
in the Battle of Tsushima. Out of 35 Russian ships, 20 were sunk and 5 were
captured, while the Japanese only suffered minimal losses.

Why did Russia lose?

 ■ General expectation that Russia, as a ‘Great Power’, should easily overcome the
‘Yellow Peril’ of the lesser Japan. Russia presumed a fast and easy victory over
their Asian opponents.
■ However, in fact Japan enjoyed many key strategic advantages: easier access to
war (short sea route vs Russia’s single railtrack), greater troop numbers (180,000
which could easily be re-inforced vs Russia’s 100,000), fanatical nationalist troops,
and Russian weaknesses caused by its chaotic command structure and competing
generals.

Consequences of the war: what was the significance of the defeat for Tsar Nicholas II?

■ Tsar Nicholas II forced to accept the humiliating Treaty of Portsmouth to end the
war. Given Russian belief in their won racial superiority, this was hugely
embarrassing for the Russian state, especially in the eyes of the European Great
Powers. Even if the terms of the treaty were lenient (Witte’s tough negotiations
meant Russia would pay no war reparations and keep hold of Manchuria), the bare
fact of military defeat was a disaster for the Tsar and his government.
■ War can be seen as a huge mistake for Nicholas, as it became the catalyst for
revolution in 1905. Lack of military preparations and eventual crushing defeats led
to vast increase in discontent and calls for reform, as greater parts of the Russian
public saw the government as incompetent. Furthermore, the war worsened the
economic plight of the peasants and workers in causing food and fuel shortages,
high prices and unemployment. This made promising conditions for the spread of
opposition ideas - as socialist leader Plekhanov wrote the war “promises to shatter to
its foundations the regime of Nicholas II”. This situation, and the increase of
opposition towards the Tsar, contributed directly to Bloody Sunday, 22 January
1905.

1905 Revolution
Causes of 1905 revolution:

■ Immediate spark: Bloody Sunday, 22 January 1905. A peaceful march of 150,000

St Petersburg workers hoping to bring a petition to the Tsar. Led by Father Gapon,
a priest with connections to ‘police socialism’, the protesters petitioned against harsh
working conditions and high taxes. Non-violent and loyal to the Tsar, this was the
last occasion the Russian people approached the Tsar in his role as ‘father’ of
the people. Cossack troops fired on the protestors killing an estimated 1,000
people.

The regime had turned upon its own workers, and Tsar Nicholas II was held directly
to blame. As Richard Charques states, this “did more than perhaps
anything else during the whole of the reign to undermine the allegiance
of the common people to the throne.”
 ■ Short-term catalyst: defeat in war against Japan, in 1905, led to increased
opposition to the Tsar, who was viewed as incompetent. The war was also
important in intensifying and worsening longer term social and economic
problems, as it caused food shortages, high prices and unemployment - the factors
which motivated many to take part in the march on the Winter palace that resulted in
Bloody Sunday.
■ Long term social and economic problems: Witte’s industrialization drive had led to
greater pressure on workers and peasants, in terms of higher taxes and low
wages. This worsened long-standing problems and caused resentment which
resulted in tension, violence and riots.
■ Long term political problems: refusal of Nicholas’s regime to make any political
concessions towards representative government and a less oppressive rule meant
there was growing political opposition to the regime - from both middle class
liberals, the more revolutionary socialists.

Nature of the revolution: the course of 1905

■ After the events of Bloody Sunday, over 400,000 workers were on strike in St
Petersburg by the end of January, and this spread to other cities and the
countryside.
■ June 1905, and mutiny aboard the Battleship ‘Potemkin’, when sailors refused
their captain’s orders to shoot protesting sailors took control of the ship. This mutiny
spread to other units in the army and navy, though the majority remained loyal to the
regime.
■ Local peasant disturbances spread across Russia, with over 3,000 of these
needing the army to control them and causing almost 30 million roubles of damage.
■ By the end of the year 2.7 million workers had been on strike, with the railway
workers’ strike in October almost bringing the economy to a standstill.
■ Various national minorities within the Russian empire called for greater independence
from the Tsar's rule - including the Finns, Poles and Ukrainians.
■ Politically, various opposition groups believed that the time had come to force the
autocracy to change. Middle class liberals, many involved in the zemstvo at a local
level, established the ‘Kadets’ party and demanded universal suffrage to a
national assembly. On the left, Leon Trotsky and the Mensheviks established
the St. Petersburg Worker’s Soviet (worker’s council) in October, and by the end of
the year 50 of these had been formed across Russia.

How and why was the Tsar able to survive 1905?

■ Loyalty of the army retained. Regime able to use state instruments of oppression
- police, army and strikebreakers - to restore order: Trotsky was arrested, a strike in
 Moscow was crushed killing 1,000, and other riots across Russia were brutally
crushed.
■ Rebels lacked unity and direction. Peasants, workers and middle class liberals all
wanted different things - liberals scared by revolutionary cries of the workers! Most
wanted concessions from the Tsar, not outright revolution. The Left lacked
leadership, as Lenin was in London and Stalin in Siberia. Uprisings largely
spontaneous and uncoordinated.
■ Concessions granted to liberals and peasants, thus dividing the opposition.
Following advice from his advisers, Nicholas made political concessions in the
‘October Manifesto’, which promised a legislative duma and liberal freedoms of
expression. This helped split the moderate liberals from the revolutionaries, and
secure the loyalty and support of these liberals for the regime. Nicholas also made
concessions to peasants by cancelling redemption payments, and this helped to
restore order in the countryside.

Consequences of the revolution

■ Importantly, the state-approved violence of Bloody Sunday served as a crucial

severing of the bond between the Tsar and his people. Loss of popular support
for Nicholas II.
■ Politically, a national duma had finally been established, bringing in a brief era of
parliamentary government to Russia - though Nicholas had moderated his original
concessions considerably by 1906. This still represented the possibility of the
development away from autocracy and towards a limited monarchy in Russia.
■ The St. Petersburg Soviet was established, an impressive show of working class
solidarity giving an example for future revolutionaries. However, the importance of
the soviet should not be overstated, as Soviet historians tend to do in describing
1905 as a ‘dress rehearsal’ for 1917. This Soviet only lasted 50 days, and the
second strike it called for in November failed comprehensively.

Stolpin and land reform (1906 - 1914)

 ■ Petr Stolypin was appointed chief minister in 1907, and like Witte is seen as one of
the few who could have saved the regime, if Nicholas had been prepared to listen to
him more carefully. Stolypin played an important role in restoring order and
crushing opposition after 1905, and also in introducing some reform measures
that contributed to relative stability in the years leading up to WW1.

Stolypin and reactionary counter-terror

■ As a ruthless provisional governor before coming to the duma, Stolypin was

well-prepared to use violence to deal with opposition in the years following 1905.
■ Faced with an increase in radical violence in 1907 - with 3,000 killed by terrorists -
Stolypin responded by carrying out over 1,000 death sentences. He also put
pressure on trade unions and newspapers, and by 1908 these policies seemed to
have worked with considerably less political assassinations recorded.

Stolypin and agricultural reform

■ Stolypin was aware that beyond violent repression, reform was essential if the
tsardom was to be maintained, and where Witte had looked to industry Stolypin
attempted to get to grips with the deep-rooted problems of Russian agriculture.
■ The idea underlying Stolypin’s reforms was that the best way to strengthen
support for the regime was to create a class of prosperous peasants. The key
problems that he needed to address were: i) negative effect of the mir on economic
development, ii) ineffective land usage in the village leading to inefficient agriculture
and iii) the ever-present ‘land hunger’ among peasants.

Reform measures:

■ Redemption payments to the mir cancelled, giving peasants free ownership of

their land and giving them the option to leave the mir and become individual
landholders.
■ Cheap loans offered by ‘Peasants’ Bank’ to allow more capitalist peasants to buy
strips of land from their neighbours and consolidate into larger, more efficient
holdings. These ‘kulaks’ could then effectively withdraw themselves from the village
community and be more independent.
■ Peasants who sold their land could either become wage labourers, move to the new
cities or take a government grant to populate uncultivated Siberia.

Successes
 ■ Agricultural production increased, leading to record harvests in 1913 - though
some historians claim this has more to do with the weather than reforms, and output
was still low compared to Western standards.
■ By 1916 24% of households in European Russia owned their own land, and
more were in the process of doing so. By 1914 over 1/3 of peasants had left the
mir.
■ Over 1.5 million migrated to Siberia between 1907 and 1909, which helped to
broaden the base of Russian agriculture.

Failures

■ Huge tracts of the best land was still owned by the Tsar and the gentry - and only
10% of peasants had managed to consolidate their land into a larger farm by
1914.
■ Reform did not address problem of overpopulation and the ‘land hunger’ this
generated.
■ The reforms produced a growing class of alienated poor peasants, some of whom
drifted into cities to work, others who became discontented farm labourers. This was
a dangerous class of people, who lacked much in the way of material wealth and
stability and were therefore susceptible to revolt and radicalism.
■ Stolypin’s attempt to construct a middle ground of ‘enlightened conservatism’ ended
up giving him enemies on both sides of the political spectrum, conservative and
radical alike, before he was assassinated in 1911 by a left-wing radical with
connections to the Secret Police (!!!).

Assessment:

■ Stolypin said that 20 years of peace were needed if Russia was to be stabilized,
but his reforms only had 7 years of peace before WW1 broke out. Difficult to say if
his reforms could have proved the basis for a prosperous class of independent
farmers as a way of solving Russia’s agricultural problems, as the impact of the First
World War and the 1917 revolutions meant they were not given the chance to
continue!
■ Some historians - the ‘optimists’, generally Western and non-Marxist - have argued
that the Stolypin era was one of hope and possibility: agriculture and industry
were making progress, there was some limited political reform, perhaps progress
towards a more modern, liberal Russia would have been possible if not for the First
World War? Such a view sees Stolypin as a positive reformer who could have
saved the Tsarist autocracy.
■ However, against this view is that of the ‘pessimists’ who argue that little real
progress was made either politically or economically. Stolypin’s agricultural
 reforms still left poverty-stricken peasants and a greater number of industrial
workers in the cities, both factors likely to contribute to instability. This position is
often taken by Soviet and Marxist historians, who argue that any attempt to
rescue Tsarism was doomed to failure, as revolution was the only possible
outcome to the social and economic forces at work in early twentieth-century Russia.

The Dumas (1906 - 1917)

Initial promises withdrawn: the constitution of 1906

■ Despite the liberal promises of the ‘October manifesto’, 1905, Nicholas went back on
some of his concessions in the ‘Fundamental Laws’ of 1906, which re-asserted the
supreme power of the tsar as autocrat (in contradiction of the manifesto). These
laws limited the power of the Duma before it had even started by stating that the
Tsar, and not the Duma, would appoint ministers, conduct foreign affairs, have
the right to rule by decree whenever the assembly was not in session -
furthermore, the Duma could not pass laws without the Tsar’s agreement, making it
dependent on his approval for any action!

The composition of the Dumas

■ The first Duma (1906) was made up largely of liberal and centrists - Kadets and
Octobrists - as left-wing groups refused to participate. However, this first Duma was
also hostile to the government and made major demands for reform in terms of land
reform and releasing political prisoners. It was therefore dissolved by the Tsar after
just 73 days.
■ The second Duma (1907) was more representative, in that in included more
members from both the extreme right and left. However, this led to these extremists
using the Duma for their own propaganda, making it a loud and disruptive session of
three and a half months before the government closed it down.
■ After 1907 the Tsar and Stolypin had recovered enough from 1905 to retreat further
from the reforms of the October Manifesto and thus rigged the electoral system
further in favour of the conservative forces of landowners at the expense of
industrial workers. Landowners had 50% of the vote, while workers had just 2%,
which led for a much more conservative assembly. The third and fourth Dumas
therefore represented mainly the propertied and middle classes, and hovered
between reform and reaction. Even though Nicholas was reluctant to co-operate with
the Duma they managed to achieve some successes in this period in terms of
social refoms.
■ Faced with the immense challenges of WW1 Nicholas still refused to allow the
Duma an active role in the war effort. This led to a virtual alternative government
emerging, and eventually a Duma plot to overthrow the Tsar! Nicholas II's
rejection of the ‘Progressive Bloc’s’ call for a new government in 1915 also played an
important role in encouraging liberals to oppose tsarist rule and in politically
isolating him in the lead up to the February revolution.

Evaluating the Dumas: were they an important break with autocracy?

Yes, they represented an important constitutional step forwards because …..

 ■ political parties were legally established for the first time In Russia, and even if
Nicholas II did not allow a truly representative body to be formed, open political
debate was tolerated and printed in the press - unimaginable in 1904!
■ The Dumas were also able to pass some legislation for social progress: i.e. 1912,
compulsory insurance for industrial workers, and 1908 universal primary education
introduced (which was 50% completed by 1914).

However, against this view, the Dumas should not be seen as a step forward because …..

■ Fundamentally, Nicholas still regarded the institution of the Duma with

contempt, and not something that he should have to co-operate with. This did not fit
in with his worldview of autocratic rule!
■ The government and Nicholas were still able to block any legislative issues
proposed by the Dumas that it disliked.
■ The representative nature of the dumas was severely limited both by the
Fundamental Laws (1906), and altering the electoral laws (1907). Conservative
groups, esp. landowners, were over-represented, and peasants and especially
industrial workers were severely under-represented.

Did the Dumas help to strengthen Nicholas’ position after 1905, or did they contribute
to his downfall in 1917? How far did the institution solve the long-term political
problems of Russia?

■ On the one hand, granting the Duma after 1905 helped put the Tsar in a stronger
position. The duma provided an arena in which the various political groups (liberals,
SD, SR) could argue and become more divided. This, together with Stolypin’s
ruthless suppression of opposition, helped to marginalize the opponents of the
regime’s position after 1905.
■ On the other hand, though, the Tsar’s negative attitude towards the Duma - as
shown in the Fundamental Laws, the alterations to the electoral system, failure to
co-operate in dealing with WW1 - would have disastrous long-term effects for the
Romanov dynasty. Nicholas’ lack of commitment to the transition to constitutional
government meant that the political parties of the Duma remained largely
unreconciled to the regime. In the final analysis, a stubborn and reactionary
commitment to autocracy on behalf of Nicholas II prevented progress towards
a more modern Russia, contributing directly to the February revolution.

Impact of the First World War (1914 - 1917)

Impact of WW1 on Russia and Nicholas II's rule:

Most historians agree that the First World War played a crucial role in bringing down
the regime in February 1917. How?

■ Military failures. Despite initial popularity of the war amongst the Russian people,
and increased patriotic support for the Tsar, heavy military defeats and huge death
tolls in 1914 and 1915 led to disillusion and anger at the way the war was being
conducted. Nicholas II worsened the situation by assuming control of the Russian
army at the front from September 1915, making him personally responsible for
future military defeats and leaving the Tsarina and Rasputin in Petrograd.
■ Role of Tsarina and Rasputin: left in charge of the government, these two
decreased support for Tsarism further by making such a horrible job in charge:
dismissing competent Ministers and replacing them with incompetent ones. This led
to chaos, and worsening conditions in the cities. Powerful opponents mocked these
two, and the Tsar was blamed for leaving them in charge. Even though Rasputin was
murdered by a loyalist in 1916, who hoped thus to reduce the damage being done to
the Tsar’s reputation, it was too late. Support for Nicholas from the army and
higher levels of society faded away, leaving few prepared to defend him in 1917!
 ■ Failure to make political reforms: allowing the ‘progressive bloc’ of discontented
liberals a greater role in running the country might have helped ease the pressure
on Nicholas II and for Russia to have become a constitutional monarchy. However,
Nicholas’ ‘dogmatic devotion to autocracy’ meant that he refused to allow a
greater role for representative bodies, leaving himself to answer for the condition of
Russia personally. His refusal to compromise on his autocratic principles contributed
importantly to his downfall in February 1917.
■ Impact of war on living conditions: eventual collapse of the Tsardom in 1917 not
caused ultimately by ideology or political ideas, but by the desperate suffering
experienced by the Russian people as a result of WW1. War caused huge distress,
as there was a shortage of food, fuel and goods, as well as high prices, inflation
and worker unemployment. Urban workers were hostile to the Tsar’s regime, while
peasants were angry about the loss of young men at the front.

February Revolution 1917

What led to the downfall of the Tsar?

1 Tsarist Russia was a huge country with a diverse population, making it a very different
country to govern.

2 In 1900, an overwhelming majority of the population were peasants.

3 Russia was an autocracy, ruled by a tsar who was at the head of a vast, unresponsive
and inefficient bureaucracy.

4 The tsars used repressive measures to keep control but despite this a number of
opposition parties developed.

5 The last tsar, Nicholas II, was an ineffective and weak leader, unable to cope with the
pressures of modernising Russia whilst trying to retain autocratic institutions.

6 The task of modernising Russia was one that even the most able leader would have
found difficult.

7 Nicholas received a warning in 1905 when revolution broke out all over Russia. He
survived the 1905 Revolution by making concessions but was unwilling to make the move to
a more democratic, representative form of government.

8 The First World War put the Tsar and his regime under tremendous pressure and in
February 1917 it collapsed.

Guiding questions:

What was the impact of the First World War on Russia?

What were the causes and events of the February Revolution of 1917?

What are the views on historians regarding the cause of the February Revolution?

Why was there a revolution in February 1917?

Why were the Bolsheviks able to seize power in October 1917?

Why were the Bolsheviks successful in October 1917?

1. Make notes from these sites on (a) the nature of fighting on the eastern front (b)
difficulties faced by the Russians in the fighting of this war (b) their military successes
(and why successful) (c) their military failures (and why failures)

2. In pairs research and make detailed notes of the impact of the war on:

● Food and fuel supplies to cities

● transportation
● role of and support for the Tsar
● Role of Rasputin
● Growing political opposition
● morale of army
● economy (inflation)

3. Add your notes to a mind map/spider diagram.

Provisional Government and Dual Power

October Revolution 1917

Was the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917 inevitable?

1 The Bolshevik Party and its programme became the focus for all opposition
to the Provisional Government and support for them grew rapidly during the
summer.

2 The frustration of soldiers and workers exploded in the July Days, partly
engineered by middle-ranking Bolsheviks. But the Bolshevik leadership was not
ready to take power and the uprising fizzled out.

3 The Bolsheviks were not the tightly disciplined, unified body that some have
supposed, although its organisation was better than that of other parties.

4 Kerensky tried to use Kornilov to gain control of Petrograd but Kornilov had
his own agenda.

5 The Kornilov affair was disastrous for right-wing forces and the Provisional
Government but gave the Bolsheviks a boost.

6 Lenin urged his party leadership to stage an immediate uprising but,

initially, they were reluctant.

7 Trotsky persuaded Lenin to put off the uprising until the All-Russian
Congress of Soviets so that the Bolsheviks could claim to have taken power in the
name of the soviets.

8 Kerensky’s inept attempts to ward off the Bolshevik coup played into their
hands.

9 During 24–26 October, the Bolshevik take-over was carried out successfully

10 Large numbers of ordinary people supported the idea of the soviets taking
power, but not the idea of the Bolsheviks taking power in a one-party state.

Key dates and events in 1917:

March

2 Provisional government formed (Tsar abdicates)

June

16 June offensive

July

3-4 July days

August

26-30 Kornilov affair

October

25-26 Bolshevik seizure of power

Analysing the factors that caused the October Revolution and which
explain how Lenin was able to seize power

1) NOTE: for LONG and MID-TERM causes - Social, Political, Economic -

see causes of February Revolution, as these issues which caused the
abdication of the Tsar are still present in October 1917 and form the
foundation for the ongoing crisis in Russia which Lenin and the
Bolsheviks are able to exploit.

Social + political problems

■ Middle classes: Small number but growing number of merchants, bankers and
industrialists as the industry developed. The intelligentsia sought more participation in
politics!
■ Land and agriculture: Methods were inefficient and backwards- still used wooden ploughs
and very few animals and tools. Not enough land to go around, vast expansion of peasant
population in the later half of the 19th century led to overcrowding and competition for
land. Peasants wanted social change!
 ■ Urban workers and industry: Around 58% were literate, twice the national average which
meant that they could articulate their grievances and were receptive to revolutionary
ideas. Wages were generally low and high number of deaths from accidents and work
related health issues. The industry production was very low in the start of the 19th century
but increased fast and by 1914, Russia was the fourth largest producer of iron, steel and
coal. Instability in cities and the misery of the workers led to social + political instability in
the towns.

Economic problems:

Inflation: From 1914-1917 inflation increased by 400 percent

Crisis in cities : Overcrowded + poor housing + poor living and working conditions (created by
economic problems in Russia) led to social tension in Cities

2) Continued impact of WW1 (social and economic problems):

The war caused acute distress in the cities, especially Petrograd and Moscow. The war meant that
food, goods and raw materials were in short supply and hundreds of factories closed and
thousands of workers put out of work. Led to inflation and lack of fuel meant that most were cold
as well as hungry- urban workers became were hostile towards the PG. In the countryside,
peasants became increasingly angry about the conscription of all young men who seldom
returned from the Front.

3) Weaknesses and failures of the Provisional Government (political

problems, interrelated with social and economic problems):

Political problems, interrelated with social and economic problems

The political failures of the government undermined their power and authority, which
created the circumstances for Lenin's RTP:

1) Nature of PG helped Lenin to power. PG was not elected by the people, it saw itself
as a temporary body, which could not make any binding long-term decisions for
Russia.

2) Divisions in PG helped Lenin to power. In PG there were divisions between

socialists + liberals who often blocked each others decisions. This internal weakness
of the PG crippled their ability to enforce control over the country.

3) Nature of PG helped Lenin to power. The PG had only power over government
affairs, real power lay in the hands of the soviets (worker's unions). Soviets had all
the practical power in petrograd such as the control over factories and railways.
4) Government passes legislation that allowed freedom of speech, press as well as
the dismantling of the secret police. Now political parties could mobilize publically and
attract members more easily. The opposition to the PG got it a lot easier to rebel, and
the PG had dismantled the secret police, so they couldnt stop the uprisings.

The four above factors made Lenin's RTP possible, as they made the PG a weak
political body, which could not resist any oppostion.

The PG also committed several blunders during the months leading up to the october
revolution, which benefitted the Bolsheviks directly.

June offensive:
In June PG launched an all out offensive on Germany to put the country in a better
position in the war (WW1). The offensive (called June offensive) ended in disaster
and PG was deeply discredited. As a result, the Bolsheviks and other political parties
got increased support.

July days:
In July a spontaneous uprising occured, which consisted of 500 000 soldiers, workers
and sailors rebelled in Kronstadt. They later marched to petrograd to demand
overthrow of PG. However, the rebellion was dismantled as PG still retained control of
some loyal Russian troops. Even though this affair hurt the reputation of the PG, it
also damaged the Bolshevik reputation as the PG blamed them for the whole incident.
Fitzpatrick argues that "the whole affair damged Bolshevik morale and Lenin's
credibility as a revolutionary leader"

Kornilov affair:
In August 1917, general Kornilov took his army and marched to Petrograd to
overthrow PG. He was discontent with the way PG handled politics and WW1.
Alexander Kerensky, leader of PG, panicked and since he was unable to put up an
adequate defence by using loyal forces, he armed the Bolsheviks so they could help
him. However, Kornilov's army did not reach Petrograd as some of his soldiers
mutinied and railway workers sabotaged the railways. Now the PG reputation was
shattered and the government started to disintergrate. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks got
more support because they were percieved as the defenders of Petrograd, and they
were also armed now compared to other political parties.

4) Ideological appeal of Lenin and Bolshevism, and role of Lenin (appeal of

radical alternative, charismatic and dynamic leader, taking advantage of
crisis situation in Russia in 1917 with all the problems listed above)
Lenin's political ideas attracted widespread support among the Russian people. On
16th of April 1917, Lenin held a speech called the April Theses. The sppech called for
a 1)World wide socialist revolution 2) Land reform to peasants 3) immediate end to
WW1 3) immediate end to cooperation with PG 4) Urged Soviets to take power.
The ideas in the speech were made into simple but effective and radical slogans such
as "all power to the soviets" or "bread, peace and Land". These slogans attracted a
lot of support for the Bolsheviks, as they appealed to the workers. They provided the
workers with a radical solution to the problems in Russia.

The speech also made the Bolshevik party unique, since their standpoint about the
war issue was unique. No other political party wanted an immediate end to the war.
The uniqueness of the Bolshevik party attracted them a lot of support among the
workers.

In the April Theses Lenin also revised Karl Marx ideas, which claimed that Russia was
not ready for a revolution. Lenin however proclaimed that Russia was in fact ready,
and revolution had to happen now because the PG was so weak at this point in time!
Lenin succeeded to persuade the party, and in the end of April the revolution was
being planned. Without Lenin and his speech, the Bolshevik revolution would never
have taken place.

Lenin's leadership also inspired the masses to join the party + revolution. Lenin held
many speeches during 1917, and his rhetorical skills attracted enormous amounts of
public support. Lenin was also a practical leader and could adapt his policies to the
wants and needs of the workers. Thus he gained even more support.

5) Role of Trotsky in executing the revolution (ruthlessly efficient organiser)

Trotsky was elected Chairman of Petrograd Soviets in 1917, which gave him immense
practical power over the city (control of bridges, railways etc.), which was a valuable
assest to Bolsheviks. Trotsky also used his position as Chairman to claim that the
Bolsheviks were seizing power in the name of the Soviets, and hence workers
accepted that Bolsheviks conducted the revolution. It was not until Lenin closed down
the new parliament that workers realized that they had been fooled.

Trotsky also played a key role in setting up and organizing the red army, as well as
the actual take over of power. Trosky also persuaded Lenin to wait until october to
conduct the revolution, when Bolsheviks had firmly established their power in the
Soviets.

Trotsky was as also an excellent orator and helped to inspire the masses.

Historiography of the October Revolution and Lenin's RTP - minority coup

d'etat vs popular revolution?

Communist view Party's view of October revolution:

-Inevitable result of class struggle
-Lenin's leadership was vital
-Popular revolution, inspired + organized by Bolsheviks and in particular Lenin

Liberal view of October revolution (e.g. Robert Conquest, Richard Pipes)

-Coup d'etat, Bolshevik used the weaknesses of th PG to seize power
-Bolsheviks had only limited popular support
-Bolsheviks were successful because of the leadership of Trotsky + Lenin

Revisionist view of October revolution (e.g. Orlando Figes)

-Emphasizes impotance of revolution from below (i.e. popular revolution)
-However, Bolsheviks "hijacked" popular revolution and ruthlessly betrayed the people
by imposing a single-party dictatorship, suppressing the Soviets

Lenin (1870 - 1924)

 1) Why do single-party states emerge? Looking at the examples of
Bolshevik Russia, 1917, 1924-29, and Nazi Germany, 1933

2) Elements in the new system - or how do leaders of single-party state take

advantage of the existing system to come to power?

3) Comparison of the early background of each SPS leader:

4) Historiography of Lenin and Hitler's RTP:

Lenin
Key questions -

1) How important was Lenin's individual contribution?

Role of individual vs role of circumstances!

2) Was October 1917 a minority coup or a popular uprising?

Robert Service
Was October 1917 "Lenin's revolution"?
Admittedly, "Lenin had a heavier impact on the course of events
than anyone else", but there "were other mighty factors at
work as well in Russia in 1917" (i.e. exhausted workers,
war-weary soldiers, angry peasants - almost all waiting to
be led to a revolution!)

P. Kenez
Coup d'etat or popular revolution?
Most striking feature - not Bolshevik action or workers', but
"complete disintegration of governmental authority" . In this sense,
not a coup d'etat but rather the "Bolsheviks seized power because
the country was in the throes of anarchy".

Trotsky
Key role played by Lenin, as an individual and leader
"had Lenin not managed to come to Petrograd in April 1917, the
October Revolution would not have taken place."
"If neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petrograd, there would
have been no revolution" - the Bolshevik leaders would've stopped it.

Soviet view
As dictated by the demands of Party ideology and the Marxist view
of history: October 1917 was a popular revolution led and enacted
by the workers and peasants, with Lenin and the party's guidance.
Pomomarev: "the working class led the struggle of the whole people
against the autocracy and against the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie"

Western liberal view

Richard Pipes and Cold War interpretation opposed to the USSR and
Communism.
October 1917 led to Stalinism and totalitarian dictatorship: thus it
was not a 'popular revolution', but a 'tiny minority' of fanatical Bolsheviks
who seized power and forced their ideas on the masses.
Pipes: "October was a not a revolution but a classic coup d'etat .....
The 'masses' ...were not told they were taking over until after the event."

Revisionists and synthesisers

The revolution itself may have been a coup, but the political action of the
soldiers, workers and peasants can not be ignored, as it provided the
greater context in which the Bolsheviks operated.
Orlando Figes: October revolution was a coup only supported by a small
minority, but "it took place amidst a social revolution, which was centred
on the popular realization of Soviet power..... The political vacuum brought
about by this social revolution enabled the Bolsheviks to seize power in the
cities."
Key questions - HITLER

1) Was the Weimar Republic doomed to fail?

2) Was Hitler's rise to power inevitable, given

Versailles, defeat in WW1 and the nature of German
society?

Nazi propaganda - Goebbels

Developed a powerful myth in the 1930s that Hitler's rise
to power was providential - i.e. fated to happen. According to
this Nazi version of events, Hitler was destined to rule Germany
and between 1929 and 1933 the German people finally came
to understand this, and put their faith in Hitler.
Critique: obviously the subjective nature of this interpretation
speaks for itself. Though the Nazi vote did increase from 2.6
% in 1928 to 37% in July 1932, the majority of Germans never
voted for Hitler in a democratic election - he was appointed via
the 'backstairs' intriguing of the Right. Most modern historians
argue that there are a number of factors that need to be
considered beyond Hitler himself to understand his RTP, esp. the
circumstances created by the Great Depression and the way this
exacerbated the weaknesses of the Weimar Republic.

Ian Kershaw
Nothing inevitable about Hitler's RTP - circumstances, chance
and 'backstairs intrigue' brought him to power!
Weimar Republic seemed likely to survive without the Great
Depression.

"There was nothing inevitable about Hitler's triumph in

January 1933"
"External events ... put the Nazis on the political map" - i.e. the
Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression.
"The future for the Weimar Republic looked promising.
And without the onset of the world economic crisis from 1929
it might have remained so."
"In bringing Hitler to power, chance events and conservative
miscalculation played a larger role than any actions of the
Nazi leader himself."
"The handover of power to Hitler on 30th January 1933 was
the worst possible outcome to the irrecoverable crisis of
Weimar democracy. It did not have to happen. It was at no
stage a foregone conclusion."

Geary
Weimar Republic seemed likely to fail in any case, given
circumstances of its creation etc.

"No one in their right minds would claim that the terms of the
Treaty of Versailles did not play a major role in the collapse of
the Weimar Republic."
"The Weimar Republic had failed to build on the fundamental
compromises achieved in 1918 and to use them to create a
deep rooted legitimacy of its own: it had lost the struggle for
the hearts and minds of the people."
"The economic crisis acted as a trigger, occasioning the
abandonment of a political system that had already lost its
legitimacy."

TROTSKY

Consolidation of new Soviet state (1917 - 1918)

Problem What was How did How
the problem? Lenin deal effectively did
with it? he deal with
it?

Getting Having taken Set up Fairly

new power in the sovnarkom effectively,
governme name of the to exclude given the
nt on its Soviet, Lenin Mensheviks circumstances.
feet tried to keep and SRs, Managed to
power to the and ruled stay in power
Bolsheviks. bu decree against the
Precarious without odds, and
hold on Soviet earned
power, with support. support of the
no guarantee workers and
it could Lenin gave peasants.
enforce its the workers
decisions - what they
i.e. no wanted -
money from responsive
Bank. to pressure
from below
(Acton).

Land Peasants’ Land Satisfied

ownership demand for decree - peasants, but
land - allowed went against
unresolved peasants to the
issue from take over Bolsheviks’
Kerensky’s the estates idea that all
Provisional of the the land
Government gentry actually
without belonged to
compensati the state - in
on. Land the socialist
belonged to vision,
‘the people’, privately
and could owned land
no longer had no role.
be bought,
 sold or
rented.

Running Economic Workers’ In many

industry crisis, and control places workers
need for decree - actually went
production in gave further and
the face of factory took direct
workers’ committees management
demand for right to control, but
greater control Bolsheviks
control production couldn’t resist
and this pressure
supervise for reform.
manageme
nt.

Oppositio What should Opposition Success -

n the press shut opposition
Bolsheviks down; weak and
do about political unco-ordinate
opposition opponents d.
political were
parties? arrested;
Kadets, Right Cheka
SRs and (secret
Mensheviks? police)
established;
class
warfare
encouraged
as means of
terrorising
the MC.
Other Pressure on Threats Gained
socialist the from the support from
parties Bolsheviks to railway the peasants
form a union by working
democratic persudade together with
government Lenin to LSR, and
representing allow managed to
all socialist elections dissolve the
parties. for CA to go CA, which
ahead; he potentially
also held would have
talks with threatened the
other Bolshevik’s
parties, but authority.
deliberately
collapsed
them -
though he
did make
an alliance
with the
Left SRs to
gain
peasants’
supports.
CA rejected
as
bourgeois
democracy,
and shut
down after
a day.
 Peace How to end Lenin knew Horrified
with the war he needed patriots across
Germany without an peace - classes and
expensive pledge in encouraged
peace rise to them to
settlement; power, and oppose the
Russian German Bolsheviks.
army troops
collapsed progressing Caused splits
leaving . in the
Germans Bolshevik
free to set Treaty of party - as they
their terms Brest thought this
for peace; Litovsk: allowed
Trotsky’s Germany to
‘neither war - 1/6 of survive as an
nor peace’, population imperial
and refusal power.
- 27% of
to sign.
farm land Left SRs left
the
- 26% of sovnarkom,
railway leaving the
lines Bolsheviks
truly alone.
- 74% of
iron ore and
coal
reserves

How did the Bolsheviks survive the first few months in power?

■ The Bolshevik government was in a fragile condition in the first few months, facing
strikes and protests from other socialists over one-party rule.
■ There were divisions within the party over a proposed socialist coalition. Some
leading Bolsheviks temporarily resigned in protest at Lenin’s failure to support the
coalition idea.
■ Lenin always intended to rule on his own and asserted this in his own party and in
government.
■ Lenin’s early policies had to be modified in response to pressures from the masses.
■ The Bolsheviks crushed opposition and developed forces of terror and coercion,
especially the Cheka.
 ■ Lenin persuaded the Bolsheviks to sign the unfavourable Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. He
knew he had to have peace for his government to survive.
■

Civil War (1918 - 1921)

How did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War?

1 The Civil War was very complex with many forces operating over a large
territory. It was a very confusing period during which the sides were not clearly
defined.

2 White forces made substantial gains in late 1918 and up to the autumn of
1919, putting the Bolsheviks in a crisis situation. By October 1919 the Bolsheviks
had turned the tide, picking off White armies one by one, and thereafter pushed the
Whites back until their final defeat at the end of 1920.

3 The Reds were in a better position geographically, and had better organisation,
better communications and a clear line of command. However, the Red Army had
problems, particularly the high desertion rate.

4 Trotsky made a significant individual contribution to winning the war by his

organisational abilities (transforming the Red Army), his energy and his personal
bravery.

5 The Whites lacked good leadership, unity and co-ordination between armies
during campaigns. They were riven by internal divisions and squabbles.

6 The Whites lacked support from the peasants and national minorities because
of their reactionary policies.

7 Lenin adopted War Communism to meet the needs of the army and to conduct
a civil war on the ‘internal front’.

8 Terror was an essential component of this internal civil war to defeat

counter-revolution.

9 Communists saw War Communism as the route to socialism.

10 Most people’s experience of War Communism was that it was a terrible time of
privation and chaos.

S) War Communism (1918 - 1921)

NEP (1921)
Key features of the New Economic Policy

Grain requisitioning abolished

Grain requisitioning was replaced by a ‘tax in kind’. Peasants had to give a fixed proportion of their
grain to the state, but the amount that they had to hand over was much less than the amounts taken
by requisitioning. They could sell any surpluses on the open market.

Small business reopened

Small-scale businesses under private ownership were allowed to reopen and make a small profit. This
included businesses like small workshops and factories that made goods such as shoes, nails and
clothes. Lenin realised that peasants would not sell their produce unless there were goods that they
wanted on sale.

Ban on private trade removed

The removal of the ban on private trade meant that food and goods could flow more easily between
the countryside and the towns. Privately owned shops were reopened. Rationing was abolished and
people had to buy food and goods from their own income. The money economy was back!

State control of heavy industry

The state kept control of large-scale heavy industries like coal, steel and oil. It also retained control of
transport and the banking system. Industry was organised into trusts that had to buy materials and
pay their workers from their own budgets. If they failed to manage their budgets efficiently, they could
not expect the state to bail them out.

U) Red Terror (1917 and onwards)

V) Foreign relations (1917 - 1924)
Key themes/motifs in Russian history
 ■
Change from above - Russia had a strong tradition of political, social and economic
change from above, i.e. brought about by the rulers. Clear examples of this are both
Alexander II's series of reforms in the 1860's and 70's and Lenin's attempt to
establish a Communist state between 1917 and 1924. This 'change from above'
reflects the autocratic nature of political power in Russia and the absence of
democracy, both under Tsarist autocracy and Communist dictatorship.
■ War as the "locomotive of history" (Trotsky) - War was also a key catalyst for
change in Russia, with various wars between 1855 and 1924 leading to major social,
political and economic changes. Key examples here include the Crimean War (1854
-56, with defeat leading to Alexander II's reforms), the Russo-Japanese War (1904 -
05, with defeat contributing to the revolutionary year of 1905) and the First World War
(1914 - 17, with defeats undermining the Tsar's authority and, combined with the
economic distress caused by involvement in the warm, helped bring the Tsar down in
the February Revolution of 1917). The Provisional Government's decision to keep
fighting the war undermined its authority and assisted the Bolsheviks in seizing power
in October. Finally, the Civil War (1918 - 21) led to major political and economic
changes under the Bolsheviks, most notably 'War Communism' and then the NEP.
■ Revolution also functioned as a key force for political change in Russia. The 1905
Revolution led to the October Manifesto, and the creation of the Duma, Russia's first
elected parliament. The February Revolution in 1917 led to the end of 300 years of
autocratic rule by the Romanov dynasty, and a brief period of liberal democratic
government under the Provisional Government. The October Revolution then ended
the Provisional government and saw the creation of the world's first Communist state,
leading to a transformation of Russia's social, political and economic structure.

Guiding questions:

What initial policies did the Bolsheviks carry out in order to secure power?

Why did a civil war start?

What was the nature of the fighting in the Civil War and why did the Reds win?

What were the results of War Communism?

What was the impact of the New Economic Policy?

What were the social policies of the Bolsheviks?

The new government established by the Bolsheviks was the Soviet of People’s
Commissars or Sovnarkom. Lenin was chief Minister and all of the first Commissars (or
ministers) were Bolsheviks. However, outside of Petrograd, the Bolsheviks were not in a
strong position in November 1917. In the countryside they had virtually no influence and
they faced strikes and protests from other socialists who objected to being excluded. The
actions of the Bolsheivks in the first few months were thus key; these involved the
following:

1. Initial decrees

The Bolsheviks passed several decrees that were a clear attempt to win popular support:

Land Decree, Oct 1917: This gave peasants the right to take over land from the gentry and
divide it up amongst themselves

Workers’ control decree, November 1917: This put the running of factories in the hands of
the workers. factory committees were to control production and finance and to ‘supervise’
management

Rights of the People of Russia decree, November 1917: This gave the right of
self-determination to the national miniorities within the Russian Empire.

2. Control of the army

A real danger for the Bolsheviks was the army; the Generals and officer class were
unlikely to be sympathetic to the new government. However the High command was
already weakened by the politicisation of the army that had taken place after the
abdication of the Tsar and the ordinary troops were quickly won over when Lenin moved
swiftly to end the fighting. An armistice with signed with the Germans which was followed
by the humiliating Treaty of Brest Litovsk which gave Germany one third of Russia’s land
(see below). The army disintegrated quickly after this and although the generals
themselves were anti-Bolshevik, they could not rely on the loyalty of their troops to fight
against the Bolsheviks.

3. Establishment of the Cheka

Lenin was determined to suppress all political opposition and so in December 1917,
Sovnarkom established its own secret police, Cheka which had as its aim to destroy
‘counter-revolution and sabotage’. This meant that anyone who might be seen to be
opposed to the new government could be arrested: class enemies such as the
‘bourgeoisie’ but also opponents on the left. In addition a decree was passed in October
to ban opposition press.
4. Ending the Constituent Assembly

When the Bolsheiviks took power in Ocober 1917, they claimed that they were doing it on
behalf of the Congress of Russian Soviets and with the support of other socialist,
revolutionary parties such as the Social Revolutionary Party. Lenin’s April Theses had
included the demand of ‘All power to the Soviets’ and so it was believed that this is
exactly what would happen. However, when the Constituent Assembly met in November
1917 it was clear that Lenin had no intention of sharing power with other Socialists.

The results of the elections

to the Constituent Assembly could not be tolerated by Lenin: they had gained only 24% of
the vote and had been out voted by nearly two to one by the Social Revolutionaries.
Lenin’s reaction was fast and ruthless. After only one day, the Constituent Assembly was
shut down at gunpoint by the Red Guards. Lenin argued that the people’s will had already
been expressed through the October Revolution and thus the Constituent Assembly was
no longer needed as it was ‘an expression of the old regime when the authority belonged
to the bourgeoisie’.

Thus it was clear from the start that the Bolsheviks intended to rule as a one-party
dictatorship.

Other decrees passed in the first few months introduced the following:

● Maximum eight-hour day for workers

● Social insurance to cover old age, unemployment, sickness benefits
● Abolition of titles and class distinctions
● Abolition of justice system
● Equality for women with the right to own property
● Nationalisation of banks and industry
● Democratisation of the army meaning abolition of ranks and election of officers
 ● Nationalisation of church land
● Separation of Church and state; marriages and divorces now handled by the
state
In addition to the above decrees, the Bolsheviks also secured peace with the Germans via
the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. This resulted in the loss of the following:

● Lithuania, Livonia, Estonia

● The Russian held area of Poland
● Bessarabia (given to Romania)
● Ukraine, Belarus and Georgia where semi-independent government were
established.
● In total this resulted in the loss of lost one-sixth of its population, 27% of farm
land including the ‘grain basket’ of the Ukraine, 26% of railway lines and 74%
of iron ore and coal reserves.

Finally, Lenin also established the Cheka, the secret police.

1. Which elements of society would have been (a) pleased (b) unhappy with the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk?

2. Read the Decree below (click on the eye) which established the Cheka. Which classes
are targeted in this Decree? What are they accused of and what actions are to be taken
against them?

3. Overall who were the 'winners' and who were the 'losers' of Bolshevik policies in the
first few months of their rule? In your answer consider workers, peasants, civil servants
such as lawyers, army officers, members of other political parties, soldiers, women,
factory owners

4. What were the results of War Communism?

The Kronstadt Sailors

In order to effectively win the civil war, the economy was geared to what became known
as War Communism. This involved nationalising industry. The control that had originally
been given to the workers immediately after the revolution was taken away and all
industry was put under state control. Industry was geared to war production; discipline
was re-introduced along with fines for absenteeism and internal passports. Workers had
to work long hours with low wages. Grain requisitioning in the countryside now became
official policy and there was a ban on private trading. Rationing was introduced with those
who were now termed as 'former people', the middle classes, given the smallest rations.
Any resistance to these measures was dealt with brutally by the Cheka, the secret police.

The result was economic chaos and famine. The peasants would not produce grain that
would be taken by the requisition squads; this meant drastic shortages and, with the
disruption to the economy made worse by the impact of civil war, famine developed
leading to millions of deaths. The factories also failed to increase production; indeed with
the conditions in towns desperate, many workers fled to the countryside to find food or to
escape conscription. This led to a 50% decline in the populations of Moscow and
Petrograd. Inflation was rampant and with money worthless, workers were paid in goods
rather than money.

What can you learn from this source about the impact of War Communism on the upper
and middle classes?

Despite the economic chaos caused by War Communism, many in the party believed that
this type of system was true revolutionary Communism. They hated the market system
and believed that centralised control and the ending of private ownership was key to
establish true socialism. Thus, many were reluctant to abandon it when the civil war
ended. However, the need for change was made clear by the widespread anti-Bolshevik
uprisings that took place in 1920 – 21. There were hundreds of peasant risings in these
years due to the impact of requisitioning. At the same time there was a wave of strike in
the cities. However, the most serious threat to the regime came from The Krostadt Rising
of 1921.

The Kronstadt Rising

Sailors based on the naval base on the island of Kronstadt near to Petrograd had been
loyal to the Bolsheviks both during the October Revolution and during the Civil War.
However they now became concerned that the ideals they had hoped would be achieved
by a communist revolution were failing to materialise. Conscious of the misery in the
countryside and the towns through the letters that they received from families, they
rebelled against their superiors on the base and issued a list of demands.

1. What can you learn from these demands about the state of Russia by 1921?
2. In pairs discuss Lenin's options once he received these demands

Lenin acted swiftly to end the rebellion. Although the first attack on the Kronstadt base
failed, eventually 50,000 Red Army troops crossed the frozen ice towards the base. The
sailors resisted fiercely; however, in the end the base was recaptured. Any ringleaders
who had survived were shot and any who had escaped were hunted down by the Cheka
and killed or sent to a concentration camp.

Nevertheless, Lenin realised that the Kronstadt rising needed to be taken seriously. At the
Tenth Conference of the Communist Party, in March 1921, he announced that the
Kronstadt rising had ‘lit up reality like a lightening flash’. He now moved to tackle the
economic chaos by introducing the New Economic Policy (NEP). This was not, however,
to be accompanied by any lessening of Bolshevik control over society such as had been
demanded by the Kronstadt sailors; indeed it would become even tighter.

5. What was the impact of the New Economic Policy?

Starter: What is meant by the second of the headlines here?

At the 1921 Party Conference, Lenin told the delegates:

We must try to satisfy the demands of the peasants who are dissatisfied, discontented,
and cannot be otherwise. In essence the small farmer can be satisfied with two things.
First of all, there must be a certain amount of freedom for the small proprietor; and,
secondly, commodities and products must be provided.’

This change in thinking led to the following measures which became known as the New
Economic Policy or NEP:

● There was to be an end to grain requisitioning. Instead peasants were to pay a

tax in kind (i.e. grain) to the government; this was much less than the amounts
taken by requisitioning. They would then be able to sell the remainder, their
surplus crops, for profit on the open market.
 ● Small businessmen were to be allowed to own and run medium sized firms and
factories and to make a profit. This included businesses that sold goods such
as shoes, nails and clothes. It was essential to have such goods available to
purchase – otherwise the peasants would still have been unwilling to sell their
goods for money.
● Private traders were to be allowed to buy and sell goods for profit on the open
market
● Rationing was abolished. A new revalued currency was to be reinstated for use
in trading

State industries such as coal, steel and coal, which Lenin called ‘the commanding heights
of the economy’, were to remain in government hands. Nevertheless NEP was
nevertheless a significant move away from state control of the economy. Russia now had
a ‘mixed’ economy where elements of capitalism existed alongside socialism. Many party
members considered NEP to be a betrayal of the principles of the October Revolution.
However the Kronstadt Rebellion persuaded them that the party needed unity and they
needed NEP as a ‘temporary measure’ in order to maintain power. As Bukharin argued,
‘we are making economic concessions to avoid political concessions’.

ALSO FIND ATTACHED:-

1. WHAT TO EXPECT IN PAPER 3

2. IB command Terms

3. Essay structuring HANDOUT

4. Useful vocabulary for writing essays HANDOUT

(As you read, identify and highlight examples where the candidate has done the
following:
Introduction:

● Shown an understanding of the demands of the question

● Set out their argument

Structure of Paragraphs:

● Provided ‘signpost’ sentences linking to the question and setting out an

argument
● Provided appropriate evidence which supports the argument/claim set out in
opening sentence
● Given links between paragraphs

Content

● Shown a sense of chronology

● Shown a detailed knowledge of the period
● Indicated an understanding of historical debate
● Used historians as evidence to support their augments

Language

● Used appropriate historical terminology

Conclusion

● Linked back to the question and answered it

SAMPLE ANSWER HANDOUT-

To what extent was the February/March Revolution caused by the effects of the First
World War ?
This essay was written by a final year IB student (not timed). It got into the top markband scoring
13/15.
The examiner's comments are as follows:
● Response is clearly focused, shows a high degree of awareness of the demands and
implications of the question. Well and effectively organised.
● Knowledge is accurate and relevant. Events are placed in historical context.
 ● Evidence and examples chosen are relevant, appropriate and effectively used.
● Points are substantiated. Reasoned conclusion. Some evaluation of different
perspectives.

To improve: Need to establish counter-claim relative stability of Tsar’s regime in 1914 i.e.
evidence of economic growth and political progress. More depth of details, evidence and
examples. More historiography synthesized.

When Russia entered into the First World War in August of 1914, the history of the country would
be irrevocably changed forever. Russia’s participation in the catastrophic European war that had
been catalysed by a dispute in the Balkans would shake the country’s political, economic, and
social foundations to their core. Three years into the conflict, popular unrest in Russia would
erupt in the revolution of February/March 1917 that overthrew the Tsar and the old order in
Russia. The effects of the First World War on the political situation, the economy, and the attitude
of the military in Russia between 1914 and 1917 will be discussed as key factors leading to the
February revolution of 1917. However, a counter claim, that long term economic and political
issues meant that Russia would have been vulnerable to revolution even without the impact of
the First World War will also be considered
The effects of the war on the political institutions in Russia played a key role in the outbreak of
revolution. It was apparent from the earliest days of the conflict that the regime would continue to
pursue autocractic government during the course of the war and marginalise the power of the
Duma. This was evident in how the regime reacted to the Zemgor, non-governmental agencies
which formed from local municipalities and organised military production and aid for wounded
soldiers. Despite the effectiveness of the Zemgor in helping the war effort the Tsar was highly
suspicious of any organisation working outside of his control and would not give any official aid to
them. The inelasticity of the political order was further seen in July 1915 when members of the
progressive bloc, who previously made up some two-thirds of the Duma, attempted to
re-convene the Duma in order to replace incompetent leaders appointed directly by the Tsar but
were dismissed by him. The growing rage of once moderate liberals was exemplified by a
speech made by progressive bloc member Milyokov in November 1916 when he asserted that
working within the Tsar’s institutions had become an impossible, and it was an impossible
political situation. By far the largest political mistake the Tsar made was in August 1915, when he
left Petrograd to go to the front lines of the conflict and left the Tsarina in charge of the political
home-front. This not only made the Tsar personally responsible for Russia’s military failures and
defeats on the Eastern Front, in the eyes of the public it also left the Tsarina in charge. This
further inflamed public opinion against the regime and undermined its credibility as the Tsarina
was German and was seen as completely under the influence of the preacher Rasputin.
Rasputin was a controversial figure with a licentious reputation. He was widely seen as a
madman and a pervert by the public and his apparent political control and relationship with the
Tsarina’s was a scandal and excellent propaganda for revolutionaries. Rasputin's personal
meddling in politics, including constantly removing ministers further added to public outrage.
Through its paranoia directed at private groups, incompetence and lack of democracy, and the
scandal caused by leaving the German Tsarina and “mad monk” Rasputin in charge, the political
elite in Russia had alienated the public to the point of revolution and a political crisis by
December 1916. The negative political impact of Rasputin was understood by the aristocracy
who assassinated him in December 1916. Despite Rasputin’s removal, the political crisis
continued. All credibility in Tsarism was lost, and Nicholas II was forced to abdicated on 2nd
March 1917.
The economic effects of the First World War on the Russian nation were also devastating. It
became immediately apparent in August 1914 that Russia was not economically prepared for
war, railroads were blocked up with troops and supplies being moved to the front and civilian
goods were simply not being transported. The shift in production to military goods over civilian
purposes hurt farmers as production of agricultural equipment fell to 15% of pre-war levels. In
combination with the loss of major grain producer Poland to German forces in autumn 1915 and
the imposition of maximum prices for food that led to peasants not selling their produce, cities
like Petrograd were receiving only 1/3 of the food that was needed. Overcrowding in cities as a
result of refugees from the west added to the decline in living conditions therein and public
outage over the handling of the war effort. This was compounded by inflation as the Russian
central bank abandoned the gold standard to pay worker’s wages, this led to a doubling in wages
but a quadrupling in food prices. By 1916 in order to acquire bread people in cities had to queue
for hours on end. Inflation had reached 300%. The final straw for many Russians was the ban on
Vodka sales in 1916. The economic conditions brought about by the war led to a dramatic
decline in the living standards of the Russian people, especially in the cities and this contributed
to anger against the government and the war, which culminated in the revolution. One of the
direct causes of the outbreak of the revolution on the 23rd of February 1917 was the imposition of
bread rationing which led to a mass protest by women demanding ‘bread and the end to the war’
in Petrograd. It was these protests that escalated into the revolution that overthrew the Tsar.
The military failures of the Russian army during the war and the overall handling of the war effort
on the part of the regime were key in its downfall. The Tsar lost the support of his own military
leaders. The outbreak of war in August 1914 temporarily resulted in a sense of unity against the
common German enemy and in nationalist support for the Tsar. However, the initial enthusiasm
was short lived, by September 1914 the Russian army had been defeated and suffered heavy
losses at the hands of the German military in Tannenburg and Maurisian lakes. The losses
continued into 1915 and by the autumn of that year Poland had been lost and by December
some one million Russian soldiers had been killed. The Russian army was severely limited in
terms of military technology compared to the German army, and poorly supplied. There were
one million rifles too few for the Russian troops, and for every German killed, three Russians
were killed. The military leaders of the Russian army were highly incompetent; selection was
based on loyalty to the Tsar as opposed to merit and at the outbreak of war there was no general
war plan and no clear chain of command. The sole exception was General Brusilov. The massive
losses suffered by Russia by the winter of 1916, which totalled 4 million dead and the immensely
bad handling of the war fuelled public outrage as the war effort led to severe economic damage
and the human cost began to effect nearly every family in Russia. The defeats and appalling
conditions on the Eastern Front led to mass desertions in the mainly peasant conscript army.
Thousands fled the front lines, partly because law and order had broken down in the countryside
and these soldiers wanted to join their fellow peasants at home who were seizing land. The
demand for an ‘end to the war’ was a key feature of the protests in Petrograd in February 1917.
Many now saw Russia as being unable to win, and revolutionaries such as the Bolshevik Party
wanted to end the war as it was not a war of the ‘imperialists’ and ‘capitalists’. With a breakdown
in military discipline, mass desertions, horrific casualties and defeats, in the end it was the
military, the Tsar’s own generals, that advised him to abdicate in March 1917
However, some historians, such as George Kennan, have argued that it was the long term
factors that were the mean causes of the revolution of February 1917. Key to this argument are
the long term political failures of the Russian Tsarist regime. Although successfully maintaining
his grip on power in 1905, the tsar had been convinced to propose the October manifesto in 1906
that set up a parliament, the Duma and promised a degree of free speech in Russia by Sergei
Witte. In reality the October manifesto was never properly implemented and between 1905 and
1914 the Tsar and Stolypin would dismiss two separate Dumas, adjust the electoral franchise to
exclude all but the wealthy and would constantly meddle in each to ensure their power remained
consolidated. The radicalisation of the elements of the middles classes as a result of the Tsars
failure to heed liberal warnings of failing to confer power to the Duma, were coupled with an
increase in working class militancy. After the Lena Goldfields massacre of 1912, and protests,
strikes and militancy grew in 1913 and 1914. In July 1914 a massive strike was held that involved
1/4th of the workforce in Petrograd and was primarily led by ‘radical elements’. The long-term
unwillingness of the Tsar to engage with the Duma nor to allow any form of pluralism in Russia
was key to the growth of far-left elements among the political opposition in Russia. The political
nature of the widespread strikes increased between 1913 and 1914. Russia was on the brink of
revolution in the summer of 1914, and therefore the outbreak of war merely delayed the
inevitable. The nationalist rally of support for the regime did not last. The failure of the Tsar to
keep to his October Manifesto promises meant that during the political crises in December 1916
he had no room for manoeuvre and the regime was overthrown two months later.
The long term economic failures of the regime also played a key role in its collapse. There had
not been the hoped for ‘trickle down’ effect that Witte had gambled on when financing his
modernisation of the infrastructure and investing in industrialization. There had been famine in
the early 1890s and conditions for workers in cities were incredibly harsh, long working hours,
poor housing, a lack of sanitations and low wages. The Tsar’s advisor Stolypin attempted to
implement reforms from 1906 that would increase productivity in agriculture, ensure the regime
could increase tax revenues and improve the living standard of peasants. He hoped this would
then stabilise the situation in the countryside. Stolypin’s reforms set down that more successful
farmers could buy their own land. Land ownership was also considered important in galvanising
rural support and thus make the countryside loyal to the Tsar. These reforms largely failed as by
1914 only 10% of peasants had been able to purchase land. Furthermore, as more people
migrated to the cities, working class literacy rose from 40% to 60% between 1905 and 1914
adding to the radicalisation of the proletarian able to read revolutionary pamphlets, and
discontent was compounded by no attempt on the part of the regime to supply any form of
unemployment, illness or old age benefits. Furthermore, by 1914 the working class had seen it’s
wages stagnate and it’s working hours increase. The widespread strikes that developed from
1911, the shooting of strikers at the Lena goldmine in 1912 and the general strike that followed
suggests that the regime was on the brink of economic crises prior to the outbreak of the First
World War.
In conclusion, although the long term problems caused by the regime’s inability to concede any
meaningful political power nor to implement economic reforms that would benefit Russia’s
working class and peasantry, meant that the Tsar faced considerable threats to his control by
1914. However, it was the immense miscalculation of the Tsar in taking personal control of the
war and thus assuming responsibility for Russia’s defeats on the eastern front, together with
delegation of political control to the Tsarina and Rasputin that undermined the last vestiges of
credibility in the regime. The political crisis that had developed by December 1916 was matched
by the deepening economic crisis. Thus, the First World War exacerbated long term issues, and
ultimately led to the removal of military support for the regime. Without the support of his key
coercive tool, the Tsar was overthrown. The impact of the war was the decisive factor in the
Tsar’s downfall in 1917
5. General strategies for essay writing
1. Introductions

A key part of any essay - so activities that focus just on writing an effective introduction to an essay
are well worth doing. This could be a starter or a plenary of a lesson.

1. Give students a title and 5 minutes to plan. Then each student writes just the
introduction. Some students could then read out their introductions to the rest of the
class for discussion.
2. Alternatively, take some introductions from an essay that the students have just written;
copy and stick them on to one sheet of paper. The class can then read them and discuss
what are the good parts of each introduction and what aspects could be improved. (Or
write out three of your own for discussion!)
3.

Discuss the reasons why Stalin rather than Trotsky had become leader of the Soviet Union by
1929

Consider the following two introductions to this essay title.

In pairs decide what you like about each one. How would you improve each one?

Click on the eye to get examiner comments on the introductions and then write your own introduction
to this essay.

Example One

After Lenin’s death in 1924, a power struggle surfaced which would last until 1929 ending with
Joseph Stalin’s emergence as the sole leader of Russia. This incident can be seen as the result of a
combination of both Stalin’s personal qualities and of mistakes made by his opponents. Numerous
factors favoured Stalin in his political campaigns such as his vast power base in the Communist
Party, his personal merits, the numerous mistakes made by his opposition, and his frequent strokes
of luck. This essay will describe how Stalin exploited these elements in order to achieve his ultimate
goal – leadership of the Party.

There is a good context here and the student has made it clear as to the points that they will be
covering in the essay. However, note that the essay title names Trotsky and the last sentence implies
that the student is not going to be addressing the exact title that has been given! Also telling the
examiner that you will be answer the question is not very useful - in your last sentence you could set
out your key argument, which factor/s are the most important.

Example Two

In 1924, Lenin died and within two years Stalin was the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union with
all opposition to him crushed. This previously unregarded Secretary, with seemingly no outstanding
qualities had come out on top in a tense power struggle involving some of the greatest Russian
intellects at the time. So how did ‘comrade card-index’ become one of the most feared men in the
entire world, taking control of the second greatest super-power at the time, when his fellow party
members though him little more than clerk? With hindsight, and the benefits of several perspectives
into the matter, we can see that although helped greatly by the incompetence of his rivals, and
benefiting surprising luck, Stalin demonstrated great political skill and cunning, in the power struggle
for Lenin’s position of leader.

Be careful of rhetorical questions - you should be giving answers not restating the question! Also be
careful of exaggerations and of maintaining accuracy. Russia was not 'the second greatest
super-power' at all in this period. Again Trotsky has not been mentioned - it seems these students
have learnt an essay about Stalin's rise to power and have not adapted it to the actual question
being asked on the paper!

Consider the following essay question:

To what extent should Stalin’s economic policies be considered a success for the Soviet
Union?

Below you will find an introduction and a series of paragraphs for this essay question (written by
different students)

Look at the introduction

1. Which bit of this introduction gives contextual background to the question? (highlight in one colour.
Is there enough background – is there anything you would add or change?)

2. Where does the introduction link directly to the question to show the reader that they are going to
be specifically answering this question? (highlight in a different colour)

Now look at paragraphs 1, 2 and 3

1. Highlight the opening sentences to these paragraphs.

Do they act as a ‘signpost’ for the rest of the paragraph? (i.e. can you tell what the paragraph is
going to be about?) Do they link back to the wording of the question?

2. Do the paragraphs give detailed evidence to support the argument made in the opening
sentence? Give examples

3. Is too much detail given as evidence in places or is it too generalised/inaccurate? Are there
statistics to support judgements on the economy? Are historians' views included? Highlight any
issues with the evidence
4. Does the final sentence of each paragraph come back to the question and restate the argument
being made?

Now look at the conclusion

5. Does it come back to the question and answer it?

Past IB Paper 3 Exam Questions

Specimen

9. To what extent did Alexander II succeed in his attempts to modernize Russia?

10. “The outbreak of war in 1914 postponed the downfall of Nicholas II but also
contributed to his overthrow in the first 1917 Russian revolution.” To what extent
do you agree with this statement?

Nov 2009

7. To what extent did Alexander II’s policies succeed in fulfilling his aims?

14. Analyse the causes and immediate consequences (up to 1921) of the
October 1917 Russian Revolution.

May 2009

8. “What happened in Russia during the reign of Alexander II (1855–1881) was

more of a revolution than many that went by that name elsewhere.” To what
extent do you agree with the assertion that Alexander II’s policies were
revolutionary?

14. Analyse the causes of the 1917 February/March Russian Revolution.

Nov 2008

13. Assess the successes and failures of Nicholas II between 1894 and 1917.
14. “The Bolshevik state under Lenin between 1918 and 1924 was a ruthless
dictatorship, caring little for the Russian people.” To what extent do you agree
with this statement?

May 2008

8. Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the second half of the
nineteenth century.

15. Analyse the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks in the second
(October/November) 1917 Russian Revolution.

Nov 2007

8. “Despite his apparently liberal policies, Alexander II was just as conservative

as Alexander III.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

13. Why was the Provisional Government in Russia unable to consolidate and
maintain its power in 1917?

May 2007

8. “Considering the difficulties he inherited, Alexander II of Russia should be

praised not criticised for his reforms.” To what extent do you agree with this
judgment?

15. Compare and contrast the roles of Lenin and Trotsky in the 1917 Bolshevik
Revolution in Russia, and in the foundation of the new Soviet State until 1924.
Nov 2006

8. To what extent did Alexander II’s reforms cause more problems than they
solved?

13. Compare and contrast the causes and consequences of the 1905 and
February/March 1917 Russian Revolutions.

15. How important was Trotsky’s role in the establishment and development of
the Soviet state between 1917 and 1929?

May 2006

9. Compare and contrast the policies of Alexander II (1855-81) and Alexander

III (1881-94) of Russia.

15. Analyse the long term and short term causes of the 1917 February/March
Russian Revolution.

17. For what reasons, and in what ways, was a Marxist/Communist state set up
in Russia between 1918 and 1928?

Nov 2005

7. Analyse the reasons for, and the nature of, opposition to tsardom in Russia
between 1855 and 1894.

13. Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution, but lose his throne in the
February/ March 1917 revolution?
15. Compare and contrast the part played by Lenin and Trotsky in the
development of the USSR between 1918 and 1924.

May 2005

8. For what reasons, and with what results, did Alexander II try to reform
Russian institutions?

14. To what extent was the revolution of February/ March 1917, in Russia, due
to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II (1894-1917)?

16. To Lenin wrote, “One step forward two steps back; it happens in the lives of
individuals, and in the history of nations.” To what extent can this quotation be
applied to Lenin’s revolutionary career and his rule of the USSR 1918 to 1924?