Essays on Russian Revolution

Questions and Anwers: Russia

1. What effect did the Decembrist Revolt had upon the character of Czarist rule?

The rising of the Decembrist Russia was due to a momentary confusion over the succession. In 1825, Alexander I died suddenly. Alexander's younger brother, Constantine, who was next in line, had no desire to assume the troublesome burden of ruling and unsettled and distrusted empire, so he renounced his right of succession in favour of his brother Nicholas. Nicholas, however, had been left unaware of the official details of the change and on learning of Alexander's death he proclaimed Constantine emperor at St. Petersburg, at the same time as Constantine in Warsaw was proclaiming Nicholas. For nearly three weeks in December 1825 the throne remained vacant.

Russian officers and troops had come into contact with currents of liberal thought, with new social conditions, and with new political institutions in western Europe during the struggle against Napoleon. Upon their return home they saw that the idea of the rights of man was regarded with contempt by their rulers, that their country by trodden under the heel of an autocracy which made all progress impossible. As they had no legitimate means making their desires known, they organised secret societies which agitated for reforms, including the establishment of a constitution. These societies, afterwards called the Decembrists, were planning a widespread uprising but, when Alexander suddenly died, resolved to take advantage of the uncertainty that existed regarding the succession to attempt a coup d'etat. But the plotters had no clear plan or organisation and had made no adequate preparations. They were crushed with great severity. Thus, the Decembrist Revolution came to an end and a regime of the darkest autocracy began.

Nicholas I, a narrow-minded man with strong conviction, never forgot the rebellion. It is reported that for the rest of his life he trembled at the "spectre of revolution". To forestall any further attempts to change the status quo he fought liberal ideas relentlessly, seeking to stamp them out by every means at his command. A ruthless suppression of all liberal views was organised by the police--- the "Third Section of the Chancellery". It was a higher police authority designed to prevent any resurgence of Decembrist activities. It operated partly through a force of military gendarmerie, divided into districts so as to cover the whole of Russia and commanded by upper-class officers. The secret societies, accordingly, were swept away, but not the need for them nor the ideals they had stood for. In addition, a large network of secret agent, including women and even school children, furnished reports on political and religious dissidents, foreigners living in Russia, and other categories of suspects. To prevent the spread of liberal ideas a strict censorship was imposed upon the press, and firm control was established over the bureaucracy and the army. Not only so, but Uvarov as minister of education made it his business to build "intellectual dams to hold up the flow of new ideas into Russia" and introduced a stricter regime in the universities themselves, placing the appointment of professors, the control of students behaviour and the scope of the curriculum like under ministerial supervision. Only - limited number of students were permitted to attend the universities because the government needed only a limited number of educated servants. Education for others was a "pernicious luxury" in the eyes of Nicholas. He particularly opposed the education of the poor because, as he put it, they "became accustomed to a way of life, the way of thinking, and to idea which are not compatible with their position." In March 1848, the Czar withdrew permission for teachers to travel abroad, and a subsequent remodeling of the universities gave an opportunity for banning the study of the constitutionally of European states.

The close and detailed inquiry made into the motives of the Decembrists, which produced a large-scale document of popular grievances for the Czar and his ministers, showed clearly how much was miss in Russian society. From then onward the government, however, slow it might be to implement them, remained were of the need for reforms. Secret committee set up to inquire about possible reforms. The investigations were thus conducted so as to avoid raising undue expectation the public mind, and ended usually in abroad generalities that bolstered up the status quo. A committee appointed to consider the condition of the serfs, who numbered 44 percent of the Russian population led to no result.

Because he set his face resolutely against the irresistible streams of humanity, he disregarded the horrible factory conditions in Russia which was more appalling then that in Britain before the Great Factory Legislation in 1833. He did pass the first Russian factory set but he did not enforce it. Therefore, the condition in factory remained as worse as even and discontent accumulated in the minds of Russian. This discontent had great influence upon the early rule of Alexander II.

The Decembrist Revolt had not only made Nicholas reactionary at home but in his outer dominions as well. Poland was under the rule of the Czar who ruled it with a separate constitution. However, the Poles were dissatisfied and rose in view of punishing the Poles, the old privileges were abolished. All the elections and the Polish Diet was abolished and the Czar ruled Poland as her land.

The revolution of 1848 produced a wave of repression in which Uvarov himself lost office because his treatment of the universities was deemed too soft. Thus relentlessly suppressing all revolutionary ideas and by mercilessly crushing all revolutionary movement Nicholas was able to prevent any widespread domestic uprisings. The maintenance of Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality was the underlining philosophy of the reign of Nicholas I.

Nicholas died in 1855 and was succeeded by Alexander II. The rule of Alexander II was again effected by the Decembrist Revolt. The reactionary rule of his father had made him realise that Russia did need some reforms and reconciliation between the Czar and the people. Besides, he also noted that the aims of the Revolt were in itself deserving attention if he was going to serve Russia. Therefore, he first pardoned those who were still under going punishment for the Decembrist revolt and Polish Revolt. Next he issued in 1861 the edict of emancipation of serfdom. Hence serfs were freed and became peasant. In 1864, he granted local self-government to different provinces. Other reforms introduced in the years included trial by jury, the extension of education especially to woman, the abolition of military colonies and the replacement of the long term of military service by conscription. Thus the aims of the Decembrist revolt were fulfilled.

From about 1866 onward, Alexander II suddenly headed towards a policy of thorough repression. The reasons were many. Among them were the Polish Revolt of 1830 which was crushed by Nicholas under the influence of the memory of the Decembrist Revolt, had restricted too much and he had wanted too for.

However, it is clear that the Decembrist Revolt had a profound influence upon to character of Czarist rule - directly on Nicholas land indirectly on Alexander II. Nicholas I pursued a policy of repression while Alexander II with an aim to serve the Czarist regime attempted to reconcile the people of granting the same demand of rebels. The later part of the career of Alexander II was gain affected by the Revolt indirectly. Nicholas had planted great hatred in the minds of the failed to reconcile them. This non-welcoming attitude of the Russian diverted Alexander II to policy of oppression. And this policy of repression, was followed and gradually created enough hatred in the Russians to rise up in revolt in 1917. All there were the effects of the Decembrists Revolts in 1917.

2. Discuss the effects of the Decembrist Revolt of 1825 in Russia up to 1917.

The Decembrists, most of them nobles and young officers, imbued with the French liberal ideas of the revolutionary tradition of 1789, attempted in December 1825 to secure a constitutional government under the Duke of Constantine. Its failure resulted in an ever deepening process of social disintegration. Although the insurgents were but lightly punished. Nicholas I applied a series of repressive measures to prevent the spread of liberalism. A strict censorship was imposed upon the press in 1826. The darkest aspect of Nicholas reaction was cultural. Nicholas I was particularly opposed to education of the poor because, as he put it, they became accustomed to a way of thinking and ideas which were not compatible with their position. Uvarev, his minister of education, proposed in 1832 the triple formula of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. It meant all the subjects in Russia were to believe in one religion, to be faithful to the Czar and to be Russianized in their way of life.

The memory of the Decembrist incident weighed heavily on Nicholas' reign like a nightmare. The reactionary nature of his regime was made more pronounce in that he took the lead in an international policy of counter-revolution and this policy was followed by the three eastern powers in 1825-55.

Nicholas I, a severe and conscientious ruler, had learnt lessons from the Decembrist revolt. In the grip of fear for peasant uprisings, he carried reforms from the above. From 1833 onwards, the state peasants received better retreatment in tenure, taxation and local government and their free status was affirmed. Between 1840-48 edicts were issued to encourage emancipation of serfs with land, to foster emancipation of domestic serfs and to endow the peasants the right to buy lands when their master sold their estates. However, these concessions did not create a class of free peasants. Moreover, coupled with other changes in law and administration, Nicholas I's rule not only strengthened the conservative tradition of reforms from above, but tended to equip autocratic repression with modern efficiency.

The Decembrist Revolt of 1825 discredit the nobility in the eyes of the Czar. The army continued to be the chief field of advance of individual nobles, but more recruitments of officers were made from other ranks. Large numbers of nobles were now relieved of their former obligations of services and retired to St. Petersburg and provincial capitals letting out their holdings. Absenteeism ruled among the landlords. As a result, they lacked that sense of home and particularism which had helped to bind class to class.

The Decembrist Revolt was a flashing outbreak of French liberalism in Russia. When this took place, the revolutionary spirit passed on from nobility and officers to a new generation of intellectuals. Two schools of though emerged, the Westernizers and the Slavophiles. The Westernizers included Herzen, the brilliant publicist, Belinsky, the founder of Russian literary criticism, Turgenev, the novelist, Granovsky, the historian and Bakunin, the future anarchist. Whatever their other differences, there was a fundamental belief in the urgent necessity for closer contact with the West with rationalism, individual liberty for the regeneration of Russia. The Slavophiles saw in unprevented Russian history a youthful force with its own innate strength and virtue, rooted in the people and the Orthodox Church, destined to supersede the West and to become the universal civilization of the future. The opposition between the Westerniser and Slavophiles, however, must not be over-estimated. Both shared detestation of the existing regime, and both believed in the Russian future, whether as part of the West or as an independent force. Thus, we can say that the Revolt marked the beginning of the revolutionary movement against the autocracy with which much of the Russian history of the nineteenth century will be concerned. It was to serve as an inspiration and a model for the future intelligentsia educated class. It survived as a myth to inspire all future rebels against the regime - the intelligentsia of the 40's and the Nihilist of the 60's, the Populists and Anarchists of the 70's and the Marxists of the 80's. The punishment meted out to the Decembrists and the following reactionary regime deprived Russia of practically a whole generation of its most intelligent and cultured citizens, the intellectual movement thus entered into a desperate and more revolutionary phase.

On the whole, the period of Russia following the Decembrist revolt could be regarded as a deviation from the course of liberal development. The Russian society was split into two: centralised government at one extreme and village collectivism at the other, with no educated middle class to hold together the two extremes. The intellectual fermentation was resulted from the schools of extremism and western concept of liberals. Such were the effects of the Decembrist Revolt which later germinated the Menshevik Revolution of 1917 and Bolshevik Revolution.

3. Analyze the effects of Alexander II's reforms of the early 1860's on the lot of the Russian peasantry.

Czar Alexander II did carry out a series of reforms in Russia. These reforms affected the lives of Russian peasants a lot. Generally speaking all these reforms furnished a negative effect for the peasants which laid down the foundation for the late Russian Revolution.

Measured by the number of persons affected, the emancipation of the serf in Russia was the outstanding social reform of the nineteenth century. It was a revolution from the throne.

The Act of Emancipation of March 1861 show many compromises. Its First Article is clear in stating that "the right of bondage over the peasants settled upon the landlords' estates and over the courtyard people in forever abolished". This denotes that the peasantry were transferred from chattel properties to human beings. From then on, landlords could no longer sell or otherwise dispose of the persons of their peasants. But the landlords still kept their rights of punishment and of maintaining order until special courts were set up. The peasants had still to pay certain obligations to landlords, both obrok and barschina during the transitional period. The Act was to ensure that the liberated serfs should at least meet their obligations to the State, and also to make them pay for their liberty as early as possible to the landlords.

For the ex-serfs, the provisions of the emancipation settlements were most unsatisfactory. They were to conclude agreements with their masters whereby they received allotments of land varying in size from area to area. These were generally smaller than the plots which they had cultivated for their own use under bondage. The average size was less than three dessaythins (2.7 acres), and still lower in the overcrowded central blacksoil provinces. These allotments had to be redeemed at grossly inflated prices, based upon the rent previously paid, which bore no relation either to the market value of the land or its potential yield. Redemption payments were made in installments through the mir, which was to hold the land corporately until the debt had been paid. Many hesitated to conclude agreements on such burdensome terms, and as late as 1881, 15% of the former privately owned peasants were still serfs in all but name.

The mir was retained partly as a convenient fiscal and administrative organization and partly in the belief that it would prevent the formation of a depressed landless proletariat; but its advocates failed to appreciate sufficiently that, whatever its possible social merits, it was economically retrogressive. It perpetuated ancient three-field system of farming, whereby each household possessed scattered strips in several fields, which were periodically redistributed for one reason or another. The more enterprising members thus had no incentive to improve land which they might lose diverted into unhealthy speculative channels. The mirs punished severely those who defaulted on their taxes or dues or otherwise infringed the low. The mirs also issued passports.

Without which beyond the village was forbidden. A myriad obstacles prevented peasants selling their allotments and withdrawing from their communities. Above the mirs stood the cantonal authorities which were conceived as organs of peasant self-government but which in practice degenerated into obedient instruments of the large army of officials. Though no longer serfs, they had not become citizens.

The onerous terms on which the peasantry were freed in ensified the crisis which was developing from the rapid increase of the rural population without any corresponding increase either in agricultural productivity or in opportunities for alternative employment of industry by restricting the domestic market; lack of industry prevent the absorption of surplus agricultural population. The most serious aspect of the financial situation was the constant uncertainly about revenue. The taxation system remained basically unreformed, the heaviest burdens continuing to fall upon those least able to bear them. The archaic poll tax, to which peasants alone were liable, was still the principle source of direct taxation. In the famine of 1867 and 1870-73 the government failed to give relief. The peasants felt instinctively that they could best improve their lot by seizing the landowners' estates and paralleling them out among the needy. Most of them at that time still thought of their Czar as their common benefactor, they only thought that the emancipation edicts had been tampered with by the nobility. There were hundreds of peasants rebellions in all parts of the empire, especially during the first year which followed the act.

Nevertheless, the Emancipation of 1861 had already produced an effect of accelerating the change-over from a barter or natural economy to a money economy with a consequent growth of capitalistic forces. Since the average land allotments were equivalent to only a half of the earning capacity of the ex-serfs, they tended to rent more lands to cultivate for subsistence purpose. These serfs emancipated without land gravitated towards factories in the towns. And the building areas of Southern Russia and ports at the Baltic and Black Sea, stimulated the rapid increasing grain exports. In the 1870s there were the signs of the emergency of a rich middle-class of peasant proprietors on the one hand and a village proletariat on the other.

The local government statute of 1863 provided in each province and district of Russia of a rural council, the zemstvos. This consisted of a permanent executive board appointed by an annual assembly of deputies; the deputies were elected by the landowners, towns people and peasants, meeting separately. The significance of the zemstvo was two-fold. Firstly, they provided a bridge across the great gulf dividing Russian society by giving former serfs and former serf-owners an opportunity to collaborate. Secondly, they initiated the scheme which were within the reach of local resources and man-owner. They improved irrigation, introduce new methods of cultivation, built roads and canals, erected hospitals, and attended to the relief of the poor. They concentrated upon the task of combating the almost total illiteracy that prevailed in the countryside. By 1881, they had brought into being some ten thousand elementary schools. Undoubtedly, the work done by the zemstvo brought about some betterment in the life of the peasants.

There were the judicial reforms in the early 1860's, but the peasants were classified as an inferior order and thus corporal punishment was retained for then despite the law of 1863 which abolished it otherwise. The peasant was still a separate class subject to discriminating legislation.

The last major at in the early sixties was the introduction of universal military service of 1864. Thus the peasants service which hitherto had been selective, was made compulsory. This added to the peasants' obligation to the autocratic Czardom.

The emancipation of the serfs had weakened considerably the hold of the nobility over the peasantry. This was, however, only to tighten the state's grip over them. The reform of landholding and of administration were essentially collective in nature and application. So was the freedom granted. The reforms from the throne continued and were strengthened by the old institutions of the household and the mir, which were both collective social units. These signified the victory of the Slavophiles rather than the Westernizers.

Yet, the routine of the peasant's lives changed by slowly and slightly and in many ways not at all. The peasantry got legal freedom from serfdom at once, but they lost economic security and remained the underdog. Had it not been for the beneficial scheme carried out by the zemstvo, the lot of the Russian peasantry could have been unbearable, and it would not have endured the long years of misery before rising in 1917 along with the industrial masses.

4. Discuss the causes, outcome and significance of the 1905 revolution in Russia.

The 1905 Revolution broke out in Russia from a combination of causes. The discontents of peasants and workers, and also those of liberals and intellectuals under repressive rules of successive Tsars Alexander II, Alexander III and Nicholas II were amplified by the defeat of Russia by Japan in 1904 and Bloody Sunday of 1905. Revolution broke out and as a result, Nicholas II was forced to issue October Manifesto and summon Dumas. Though the Revolution ended, what had been achieved was far from expectation of the revolutionaries. So it is not surprising that Trotsky prophetically summed it up: "The revolution is dead. Long live the revolution!"

Discontent of peasants was laid down as early as during the reign of Alexander II who promulgated the end of serfdom in 1861. Despite the Emancipation, the position of the peasantry was not greatly improved. Peasants were not given land and freedom. Many of them were soon in debt as result of the need for heavy payments for purchasing land. Many actually had less land than before the Edict was passed as land was distributed according to the size of the family. They had to pay high taxation and were severely frustrated by frequent famines. Thus the incompleteness of the reform provided the leaven in the bread of political agitation against the autocracy of the Tsars.

To this unrest were added economic factors. Russia had remained a poor country for many years and she began her industrialization rather late when compared with European countries. But industrialization created a proletariat labour force, which, poorly paid, badly housed and fed, swelled the ranks of the discontented.

Another reform of Alexander II, the reorganization of local government also led to increased agitation of liberals. In 1864, new district and provincial assemblies (zemstvos) were created. People had the first taste of local representation though zemstvos had only limited power. This led to the demand of liberals for a national elected assembly. The fact that the Tsars were determined to maintain autocratic rule meant that the liberals and the government were bound to clash into conflicts.

Facing the growing discontent of peasants, workers and liberals, both Alexander III and Nicholas II strictly enforced repression policies. Rigorous censorship was imposed on the press and publications. Education was interfered with and there was a purge of the student body, removing the undesirable elements. The Russian people as a whole suffered from heavy political restrictions, but the Jews suffered most, economically as well as in religions matters. The government tolerated and even promoted anti-Jewish riots. Jewish students were discriminated as that many of them could not get higher education. There was religious persecution, not only of non-Christians but also of Christian sects in conflict with the Orthodox Church.

The Tsars hoped that repression could quiet down discontent of people but what turned out was that it did not prevent dissent from becoming more pronounced, more radical and more sophisticated. The more the repression, the greater was the radicalism since it virtually forced liberals to take up revolutionary positions. As a result, three parties were created: the Social Democratic Party, mainly concerned with workers, the Social Revolutionary Party concerned with peasants and the Constitutional Democratic Party concerned with the educated and members the Zemstvos. These parties were to provide leadership in the coming revolutions.

Add to this confused chronicle of development in Russia at that time was defeat of Russia by Japan in 1904-1905. The defeat showed the inefficiency of the Tsarist regime. The war shattered the economy and the burden was especially heavy on the country people. When Port Arthur surrendered in 1904 to the Japanese, it caused public indignation and perhaps contributed to a strike of workers in St. Petersburg in January 1905. On Sunday 22 January a huge procession of workers led by Father Gapon, marched with a petition to the Tsar towards the Palace Square, carrying icons and singing hymns. The hymns, however, were drowned by rifle fire. Hundreds died and thousands were injured. After this 'Bloody Sunday', discontent spread and widespread strikes brought life almost to a standstill. Even the crew of the battleship Potemkin and mutinied and terrorized tsarist officials. Peasants set fire to large estates and sometimes killed their landlords. Even the tsar saw that he must make concessions.

The outcome of the 1905 Revolution was that on 30th October 1905 the Tsar signed a manifesto declaring Russia to be a constitutional Monarchy and appointed as Prime Minister Sergei Witte, who promised to introduce fundamental civil liberties, and to make the State Duma a more powerful and representative organ.

By the time, in 1905, the demands of the Russians could easily be satisfied. The workers and the general mass cared nothing for long-term aim. What they wanted was short-term and basis such as higher wages, civil rights and a constituent Assembly. Moreover, labour was weary of strikes and political activity. Witte sent this and he had the president of the St. Petersburg Soviet arrested. The Soviet elected a presiding committee of three, but the committee's call for non-cooperation and non-payments of taxes proved to be futile. An uprising in Moscow was crushed. Mutinies in the army were also repressed. Witte, wanting liberal support had promised an almost universal franchise. The peasants were promised that the hatred redemption payments would end. The short-lived revolution of 1905 was over.

The period between 1905-1917, however, was on of weak constitutionalism alternating with autocratic severity. It was almost impossible for an authoritarian system of government to transform itself into a full-fledged democracy. The October declaration, moreover, provided flimsy ground for a democratic system to function on. The Dumas were no Dumas. The Dumas could exercise only limited control over the state finances, since the Tsar retained the right to raise loans and so independent of the Dumas. There was no responsibility to the Duma on the part of the Council of Minister who was only responsible to the Tsar. No law could become effective without receiving any approval of the Tsar. Furthermore, the Tsar was left in control of the armies forces, and upon their loyalty, power was ultimately based. So the Tsar retained the right to dissolve the Duma, the Duma were short-lived. For example, the first duma last for only two months and the second Duma four months. It can be clearly seen that the Duma lacked nearly all the characteristics of a parliament such as that existed in the West. And it is equally clear that it was not what the revolutionaries intended to achieve in the 1905 Revolution.

The unsatisfactory achievement of the 1905 Revolution had great significance. It was but a prologue to the real revolution to come in 1917.

One main reason that Tsardom was able to survive even with the breakout of 1905 Revolution was that the common mass still had strong faith in the Tsar in spite of the suffering brought to them by the Tsarist regime. The demonstration led by Father Gapon was a good proof of it. The marchers appeared before the Winter Palace, unarmed, singing hymns and carrying pictures of the Tsar instead of overtly challenging the authority of the Tsardom.

However, as thing turned out, the poor implementation of the October Manifesto and limited power of Dumas induced the people to lose faith in Nicholas. It was clear to the people that the October Manifesto was not a document signed in a time of crisis by a ruler who was determined to given away as little as possible. People began to realise that tsardom had to be abolished if there was to be any real advance in parliamentary movement.

When the people become dissatisfied with the Tsar, they became more critical in their attitude towards weaknesses of the Tsar. Nicholas was weak-willed and was much influenced by the Tsar Alexandra whose only aim was to preserve Russia for her delicate young son. She in turn was under influence of Rasputin who was evil and dirty. The people suffered under incapable rule of the Tsar and began to think of abolishing tsardom. So. increasing discontent of the people towards Nicholas II made the abolition of tsardom in 1917 an easier thing than in 1905.

Failure of the 1905 Revolution was also due to the poor experience and ill-preparations of the revolutionaries. Though the revolution failed, they could learn from their failure to pave for the way of their future success. Moreover, the revolutionaries, especially Lenin, at all time from 1905 onwards were preparing for the coming of the revolution. When one did come in 1917, they were able to grasp the opportunity and make use of it to achieve what they failed to achieve in 1905.

The unsatisfactory result of the 1905 Revolution meant that the discontent of the people remained. Only a slight spark would be enough to start a revolution. This was provided by the outbreak of the First World War during which about two million Russians killed and seven million wounded and taken prisoner. This time, the people were determined not to be deceived by appeasement policy and delaying tactics which Nicholas had employed in 1905. This explains the success in the abolition of Tsardom in 1917.

Though the 1905 Revolution failed, it did have great significance which was felt in 1917. The unsatisfactory result of the 1905 Revolution led to 1917. Revolution, and the revolutionaries, by learning from their failure in 1905, were able to overthrow Tsardom in 1917.

5. To what extent were different generations of Russian revolutionaries obsessed with the "question of the peasantry" throughout the nineteenth century?

Revolutionary movement in the early nineteenth century in Russia was a product of the despotism of its regime. The feeling of dissatisfaction was deepened by the contrast between Russia's deplorable governmental system and her role at the Congress of Vienna as one of the great powers of Europe and the general national upsurge of 1812, which led to the not on of the duty owed by the higher orders to the serfs in particular. Serfdom remained the major peasantry problem and was appealing among public opinion. Russia had an agrarian-based economy and most peasants lived under deplorable conditions. Despite this, the Tsar (Alexander I 1801-25) only interested in maintaining his status quo, using autocratic and repressive measures. Thus general dissatisfaction grew into a revolutionary force that was responsible for overthrow of tyranny and Tsardom. The worsening peasantry problem hastened its collapse.

The first fruits of the revolutionary spirit was the Decembrist revolt (1825). The antecedents of this revolt reach back a decade in 1816-17. Several highly-placed officers of aristocratic birth - the Prince Trubetzkoy and Colonel Peste and Muravyov formed a Union of Salvation in St. Petersburg. Its objects were to abolish serfdom and to install a constitutional regime. The Union reformed to form the Northern Society under Muravyov aiming at a federal constitutional monarchy. Another was the more radical Southern Society under Pestel aiming at establishing a democratic republic, freeing of the serfs and land reform. These two bodies were more concerned with political changes than with peasant problems as shown by the Decembrist conspiracy (1825), revolts held by northerners with about 3000 troops mutinied and called for "Constantine and a constitution". The revolt failed for its half-hearted, ill-planned and premature nature, was easily suppressed by Nicholas I (1825-55). Though it failed, it sow the seeds for future revolts that would produce important consequences. The Decemberists might influence the succession to the throne: they could not possibly have changed Russian society. The fact that they were aristocrats who made a revolution to lose themselves showed their desire to free the serfs was incomprehensible.

Nicholas I was infamous for his reactionary rule and principles of government - "orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism". Repressive measures - rigid censorship, strict discipline, angered the intelligentsia who formed the second generation of revolutionaries, also under foreign impact and the same class of aristocracy as the Decembrist revolutionaries. Numerous conspirational societies started - the two opposing cultural schools of thought the Westerners and the Slavophiles. The former argued that Russia should follow as much as possible the heritage of the West in political, social and intellectual matters, prominent figures like Chernyshevsky whose famous novel, "What is to done?" (1863) together with the Slavophiles that emphasized superiority of Russian culture and Herzen's "The Hell" contributed to Russian socialism and growing reform movement in Russia. The new revolutionary generation was to be inspired by these two writers. Despite this, in the thirties and forties, the two groups indulged in their tense debates on Russian and Western cultural superiority rather than devoting themselves to peasant problems. The fact that this Russian form of socialism, especially the Salvophil socialist believed that socialism could grow in Russia in the soil of traditional institutions, notably the rural commune and Russian peasant as the future progenitor of the revolution; this belief only showed force in Alexander II's reign (1855-81) especially its considerable influence towards the Populists from 1860's onwards that really marked the revolutionary intensity towards the peasantry question.

Simultaneously, Petrashevsky formed another circle, its members were intellectual elites. This group believed in a peasant revolution and desired support of the masses - peasants. However, all these came to be empty talk.

Large revolutionary movement did not come before the Emancipation of the serfs in 1861 by Alexander II (1855-81) "the Tsar Liberator". Before that only public opinion and growing sentiment based on moral grounds urged for the

6. Would it be true to say that the Czars themselves were the grave-diggers to the Tsarist regime?

With a close observation to the reigns of the Tsars of Russia, we may see that the Tsars themselves were the chief grave-diggers of their own regime though some of them might have contributions to the country. The autocratic rule of the Tsars during the 19th century was not entirely consistent. From time to time, either from humanitarian motives or because they recognised that their own security was involved, they introduced reforms. But periods of reform were followed by periods of severe repression.

As for Alexander I (1801-25) in the early years of his reign he appeared to be very liberal in outlook. Torture was abolished. In 1803, he decreed that owners were free to liberate their serfs, but few owners did so wish. In 1816-19, serfdom was abolished in non-Russian Baltic provinces of Livonia and Estonia. But he could not be liberal for long. In 1816, when his soldiers were returning from the wars, he established military colonies. Whole villages became army barracks. The villagers and their wives and children worked in uniform. The establishment of these colonies meant that a large part of the army was costing very little and mobilization was made speeded. In his last 5 years, he took up a policy of repression. Press censorship was imposed; university teaching was strictly controlled, and the Polish Diet was not allowed to meet.

From his policy, we can observe that Alexander I was unstable and lacked capacity to carry through a consistent policy, which would have led to liberal government in Russia. These largely due to his own character. Alexander I had a paradoxical character and was given to fits of sudden enthusiasm which soon waned. He was self-willed, indecisive, unstable, impressionable and changeable in behaviour. Therefore, Alexander I vacillated between the desire to make the world free and the natural instinct to acquire as much personal power as possible. It was because of these brought an end to his regime.

Nicholas I(1825-55), the Tsar after Alexander I, he was conscientious and devoutly religious. He ruled his country with an iron-hand. The basis of his government was the three principles of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationalism. This meant adherence to the state religion, unquestioned obedience to the Tsar and loyalty to the government. He was the enemy of liberalism at home and abroad. All these proved to be unsuccessful since there were numerous opponents to Czarism. The rigid censorship displeased the intellectuals and nobles who had seen the growth of liberalism and democracy in the West. Numerous conspiratorial societies started which had varied aims. Various outbreaks of violence occurred together with the failure in the Crimean War hastened to the end of his reign. Therefore, we may say that Nicholas I himself was the chief grave-diggers of his own regime.

As concerned with Alexander II(1855-81), he was less changeable than Alexander I and less reactionary than Nicholas I. In spite of this, it could not spared himself from becoming his own grave-digger of his Tsarist regime.

Not long after he was crowned, Russia was defeated in the Crimean War. The defeat of Russia shows the rottenness of the government. Tsar Alexander II seeing Russia's needs, determined to carry out certain reforms. Some important reforms were the Emancipation of the Serfs 1861, the introduction of the Zemstovs 1864, and judicial reforms. All these made him became the "Tsar liberator" of Russia.

In spite of all these, he was autocrat and had imposed the reforms from above. He made no provision for the people to take any share in government in the future. His reforms were not far-reaching enough and therefore did not solve the problems. Many of the reforms created new problems, most of which contributed to the revolutions. Disappointments in the reform by many Russians drove them to revolutionary activities. These in turn, convinced Alexander II of the futility of a reform policy.

Most disastrous was that after 1866, Alexander II changed from a reformer to a reactionary. This caused many opposition movements against his rule, some important ones were Nihilism, Populism and Terrorism. Finally, in 1881, a Terrorist threw a bomb at the Tsar and so put an end to the life of Alexander II.

According to the reign of Alexander III(1881-1894), we can see that he was a conservative who believed in autocratic power of the Tsar. He openly stated his belief in the "power and right of autocratic government". During his reign, Tsarist tyranny reached its high-water mark. The autocratic policy and reforms brought about much discontent in the country. His policy and reforms included the strict supervision of the universities, the suppression of liberal newspapers, religious and racial persecution, and the repression of revolutionaries.

Also, with the industrial revolution in Russia, it caused much adverse effects. The workers suffered appallingly with poor working conditions, therefore it made them very discontented, and were easily converted to socialism. The growth of extremist middle class and the discontented peasants which became more and more inclined to the preaching of the intellectuals for rebellion. With his policy and actions, he had paved his own way to the grave of his own regime.

With regard to Nicholas II (1894-1917), we may say that his character and ideals were the chief reasons for the downfall of his regime. He was narrow-minded and bigoted and fell under the influence of his wife, Alexandra. He was not fortunate in one sense because he had inherited a legacy from his ancestors and this legacy was already saturated with revolutionary potentials. Lacking in ideas of any kind, Nicholas II innocently tried to cling to autocratic rules as firmly and steadfastly as his father had.

Russia, as a result, fell under repression and became a land of terror. The liberals who supported the Tsars, but advocated constitutional government were rejected. The Jews were persecuted. The poles, who demanded self-government were cruelly suppressed. Discontent grew everywhere. Nicholas II did not realise that he had to accept chance as a remedy for the crumbling Tsarist Regime.

The Industrial Revolution came to a climax in Nicholas II's reign, but it caused unrest within the working class, and revolutionary parties emerged. Also, the Tsarist situation was worsened by the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Realizing that a small, victorious war would hold back the tide of revolution, Nicholas II refused to have a compromise with Japan and Manchuria and Korea. This defeat intensified the discontent within Russia. In 1905, the Bloody Sunday took place, which the people demanded improved conditions and political freedom. The Tsar, Nicholas II made no remedy to restore the situation after the event except a few half-hearted measures - the granting of Dumas which had no legislative powers and the franchise that no factory worker could vote. All these proved his insincerity towards his measures. With the failure of the dumas and the entry in the First World War, the people realised that as long as they were under such a government there was no hope for Russia to become strong. The way was thus paved for the outbreak of the revolutions of 1917 which put an end to the Tsarist control in Russia forever.

From the above, we can clearly deduced that the downfall of the Tsarist regime was mainly due to the Tsars themselves, although some reasons may be the rise of western influences and forces of chance. As a conclusion, we may say that a country which had passed through a century of hidden revolution and open suppression should come to stage like this - a fall of the Tsardom.

7. What was the importance of the 1905 Revolution in modern Russian history? Did it prevent the growth of genuine democracy in Russia?

Russia policy under the Czars had always been to maintain a system of autocracy to the utmost, and to give only those minimum concessions which mass upheavals made advisable. Under such conditions Russia had no liberal traditions as in Britain and France, but it was the breeding ground of revolutionary ideas. Russia was not a highly industrialized country: "it had only a weak middle class, but between the nobility and the peasants and workers there existed a sharp class distinction which enabled Marxism to flourish in Russian soil. The feeling that they were being exploited kindles in the minds of the peasants and workers a hatred for the regime and made them tools in the hands of the revolutionary propagandists. There were some notable reforms in the 1860's during the reign of Czar Alexander II such as the Emancipation of Serfs and the beginning of the zemstvos which might have prevented a future revolution if they had been more far-reaching. However, the assassination of Alexander II in 1881 marked the end of all liberal reforms, and repression and reaction between marked particularly the reign of the last Czar Nicholas II.

The Revolution of 1905 was important because it was the Russian autocracy's last warning. The various classes in society were becoming coordinated and workers began to put pressure on government by means of strikes. Like the 1848 Revolutions in Prussia and Austria the Russians demanded a liberal constitution merely the revolt of the Russian people against the existing order of things. It was the signal of the general awakening of all nationalities and races within the Empire. The various nationalities freely expressed the need they felt for autonomy, especially in cultural and economic matters. There was no reference to separation from Russia. Their protest was against the narrow nationalism of the government and the oppressive centralised administration.

In general, the popular demands were for a constitution and a parliament, elective local governments, a wide franchise, an eight-hour working day, better wages and conditions to alleviate the plight of peasants and workers, freedom of press, meeting, association and religion. What was demanded was not a republic, but reforms. At this stage it showed that the Russians were still not prepared for full democracy largely on account of widespread illiteracy and lack of liberal tradition. The Bloody Sunday or massacre of workers led by Father Gapon who laid their grievances before the Czar caused intense popular excitement all over Russia. Peasant risings, industrial strikes and street demonstrations took place everywhere. Following the defeat of the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, disorder spread to the army and navy. Councils of workers' deputies were soon organised by the soviets. The most important was that at St. Petersburg led by Trotsky. When political strikes, street demonstrations, armed conflicts and agrarian discontent became more and more prevalent, the Czar promised to grant a national Duma or representative assembly which was to act as in advisory Council without legislative power. This half-hearted measure resulted in a nationwide strike, the combined efforts of middle class, working class and peasantry. Under irresistible pressure, the Czar finally issued the Freedom Manifesto or October Manifesto which promised the Russian people the fundamental principles of civil liberty: "inviolability of person, with freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association." In addition, the Duma was to share legislative power with the Czar and henceforth no law should be enforced without its consent. A new Prime Minister Count Witte was named to carry the Manifesto into effect. This was first time in Russia that a united cabinet was formed. At last the 1905 revolution succeeded in achieving a constitution, but it was to be short-lived.

The Manifesto of October 17, 1905, the promise of reforms, the summoning of the first Duma, the restoration of the Finnish Constitution, the abrogation of the laws prohibiting the use of Ukrainian, Lithuanian and other languages, the relaxing of the intense nationalistic Russian regime in Poland and elsewhere gave good grounds for hope that the new constitutional changes would help the growth of democracy. But autocracy soon came back to the old ways of centralization and political repression. It crushed all attempts at social reforms, its nationalism narrowed to the utmost.

The October Manifesto marked the climax of the Revolution of 1905. It split the ranks of the opposition movement. The most radical elements among the professional class and the zemstov men were still far from satisfied since the Manifesto gave substantially less than the Constituent Assembly which they demanded. The leaders of the social movement who desired revolution at all costs were opposed to the Manifesto. Lenin, left wing leader of the Social Democrats wanted to establish a new social order by means of a working class revolution. But among the revolutionary leaders themselves there was disintegration and they wasted their strength in factional quarrels. Within the Social Democratic Party, the Bolshevik Communists quarrelled with Menshevik Communists and both with the Social Revolutionaries, who believed in the necessity of peasant rising and continued assassination. The Liberal Party differed from all these, aiming at a Parliamentary system for Russia on western lines. It was to a large extent due to their disintegration which did not provide sufficient strength to carry the revolution to its logical conclusion. The moderates and right wing revolutionary leaders felt that the establishment of a Duma was real progress and their opposition thus greatly weakened. The liberals and middle class were now content to confine their energies in trying to secure the realisation of the promises of the Manifesto through the Duma. Hence concerted opposition to the government began to melt away. Meanwhile, the conclusion of peace with Japan enabled the government to utilize the army for the restoration of order at home. Continued agrarian disorders drove most of the landed proprietors who had supported the struggle for freedom into reactionaries. The nobles, landlords, army officers and clergymen inaugurated "black hundreds" or counter-revolutionary agents and encouraged abuse and violence against the Jews, intellectuals, rebellious peasants and striking workers. The Czarist government adopted a policy of stern and pitiless repression against widespread disorder and therefore, prevented the growth of democracy in Russia.

The Czarist regime lost a great deal of popular support in not fulfilling the reforms laid down in the October Manifesto. The reactionary measures adopted after the 1905 Revolution showed that the Czar had no intention for reforms and the October Manifesto was only used as a manoeuvre to split up opposition. If Nicholas II had been sincere in pursuing the policy he had outlined in the Manifesto, the meeting of the first Duma in April, 1906 might have marked the beginning of a great transformation. Nevertheless, the Czar limited the legislative power of the Duma by establishing a State Council with an overwhelming conservative membership as an upper house co-equal in power to the Duma, and assumed the right to make laws when the Duma was not in session. When the members of the Duma protested and appealed to the nation for support, it was dissolved by imperial decree. As a result, about half of its members sought refuge in Finland from where they called upon the Russian people to rally to their support by refusing to pay taxes or render military service. When the second Duma met in March, 1907 it was more hostile to the government and was accordingly dissolved. Finally, the Czarist government disfranchised most of the liberal classes of the vote, so it gained a Duma comprising of the wealthy landowning gentry and industrialists to act as its rubber stamp. Thus, the third Duma was not truly representative of all the Russian people and it had no real power. "Constitutional monarchy" in western usage meant "the establishment of a constitution as bulwark against the monarchy, for the curtailment of its powers." This Russian constitution, however, was a direct contrast of the western type of democratic constitution for it acted as an instrument of the monarchy as a bulwark against the common people, Russia had become a constitutional monarchy with the least liberal constitution throughout Europe. Freedom of speech, assembly and association were short-lived as the brief constitutional interlude of 1905-6.

The 1905 Revolution did not attain what was expected as the promised Constitution did not materialise, but it had profoundly shaken and greatly alarmed Czarism. Henceforth there was a new climate of political activity in Russia. The Duma, however, weak and conservative and curtailed of its rights and powers after 1907 marked the beginning of a transition to some kind of constitutional regime, and the forces of reaction though they regained ascendancy, failed to sweep it away. The revolution was not without lasting effects on public opinion and on the national economy. The long stagnation of Russian provincial life came to an end. Close contacts were established between the villages and the towns and between all classes of the community. All classes, with the exception of the great landowners and the higher bureaucracy, were how united in one common aim - the securing of civil and political rights.

Unaware of the demand for liberty by the people, Nicholas II continued his autocratic rule. The Duma was nothing to him but an encroachment of his divine right. He did not realise that the workers had learnt the art of organising, tasted freedom and responsibility, and the mass of the people had lost faith in him. While, insisting upon his right to rule autocratically, he was more and more out of touch with his subjects. As a result of the failure of the 1905 Revolution, the gulf between the government and the people was wider. The government could have planned the workers and peasants by reforms, the middle class and liberals by approving of a liberal constitution. Consequently, the revolution had gained little for the middle classes despite what had been promised and little to strengthen the liberal party in politics and it was clear that it was impossible to influence the Czar by constitutional means as all reforms could be put back. Repressive measures drove workers and peasants to turn to the support of the Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries. Circumstance favoured the growth of secret revolutionary organization and the idea of the Marxists interested the Russian measures immensely, and the Bolsheviks under the active leadership of Lenin made full use of their support. The 1905 Revolution, although unsuccessful in itself, was important in modern Russian history in laying the foundation of the Revolution of 1907.

To some extent, the 1905 Revolution did in fact prevent the growth of genuine democracy because much of the efforts of the revolution had been wasted since the error of the Duma was gradually played into the hands of the Czar again. The Duma continued to remain, but in general, the government led and the Duma followed. Some reforms were affected such as contain moderate land reforms, a scheme of workmen's insurance and elementary education was extended under the supervision of the Orthodox Church. The only apparent outcome of the 1905 Revolution, aside from these reforms, and the people were to poor and ignorant to understand the real significance of true democracy which is of no use hungry men. "Democracy" said J. S. Mill, "is a form of government that could be developed in a society of educated and critically minded citizens." The bulk of the Russian population comprised of peasants, normally serfs, were neither educated nor critically minded. There was a small number of middle class intellectuals who clamored for liberty in Russia, but in contrast with other European countries such as Britain and France, the Russian middle-class was comparatively weak. When most of the liberal leaders of the Duma fled to Finland in 1906 to escape governmental reprisal, the country was left with fewer active advocate for the cause of democracy.

In conclusion, it may be argued that democracy is often achieved by compromise between the government and the people. Even if the 1905 Revolution had been successful it might not have achieved genuine parliamentary democracy, for the Russian people had no liberal tradition and had not undergone a preparatory stage for responsible constitutional government. From this point of view, the year 1905 was not ripe for a revolution in the name of liberty: the demand for a Duma elected by universal suffrage was doomed to failure as the percentage of educated people in Russia was extremely low. Besides, it was unlikely that there could be any real compromise between the Czarist government and the revolutionaries after the 1905 Revolution since the carrying out of most of the promised reforms meant a great loss of privileges at the expense of the landed aristocracy and conservative officials, the supporters of the Czarist regime. Furthermore, parliamentary socialism, like other working-class movements and organisation grew and flourished most where the traditions and institutions of liberty democracy had already become most fully established like in Great Britain, and France. In Russia, where parliamentary institution and universal suffrage were unknown, reformist socialism could strike no roots and was replaced by extreme revolutionary communism.

Finally, if the 1905 Revolution had succeeded Russia would have changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy instead of communism. The most important effect of the revolution of 1905 was that it served as a great lesson to all revolutionaries, and while in exile in Finland, the Bolshevik leaders began to plan a next revolution - one which shaped history and altered the form of government, though in essence it is just as totalitarian as the Czarist regime.

8. Why, and in what important respects, was the period 1881-1904 an era of reactionary government in Russia?

The year 1881 was a significance one in Russian nineteenth century history. It witnessed the murder of Czar Alexander II in a bomb outrage in the street of St. Petersburg, and the accession of Czar Alexander II, Alexander III had exemplified in his own person the alternating rhythms of "Russian policy", having introducing reforms early in his reign but later turning to reaction again. During his reign socialist and terrorist movements had emerged as a serious threat to the Czarist regime, yet in spite of these dangers Alexander II was hoping to have some constitutional reforms when he was suddenly killed.

This fact, the assassination of Czar Alexander II, was the prime cause of the reaction in the following years. The personality of his successor and the reactionary methods he advocated made the course of events in no doubt. Alexander III entertained few doubts about the course his state should follow. He was a thorough-going reactionary. The terrorists were ruthlessly hunted and executed wholesale. The advisers of the Czar were totally in sympathy with his methods: his police minister, Plehve, assisted by Pobyedonostsev in the post of Procurator of the Hily Synod, saw to it that Russia did not stray from its destined path. The Procurator was staunch upholder of the three principles of Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism, and was merciless in his application of them. The Czar, for his part, declared his faith to be "in the power and truth of the autocracy which for the benefit of the people, we are called upon to strengthen and guard from any encroachment." The Czar undid even the mildly liberal beginnings of his predecessors arbitrary imprisonment and exile soon flourished again, and the class distinctions which Alexander II had slightly weakened were once again given prominence. In 1885 Alexander III expressed the hope that "the Russian noble (would) preserve a dominant part in military leadership, in affairs of local administration and courts."

Repression and suffocating reaction became the order of the day in many sphere of the national life of Russia, including the press, education, local government and the courts, among others. Censorship and all kinds of measures to prevent the spread of critical opinion and radical anti-government criticism, were the order of the day as far as the press was concerned. Between 1882 and 1889 fourteen newspapers were stopped from publishing while in 1836 only temporary licenses were issued to newspapers. The stern and almost all-pervasive rigorous censorship of foreign newspaper and books did all it could to prevent outside radical influence upon anti-Marxist feeling the universities were under strict supervision, and liberal professors like Vinogradof were expelled. The attempt to set up church schools failed secondary schools were closed to the peasants and sons of one working-classes; the junior schools of the Zemstvo were controlled by government inspectors. In the law courts, after 1889 members of juries were often nominated by the government. Elected justice of the peace were replaced by "land captains" chose from the nobility by the Minister for the interior. They had power to supervise local assemblies, and to appoint and get rid of local of officials, and to control local administration. The continued emphasis on class distinctions and the supremacy of the nobility was evident in the position of the Zemstvo--- in 1890 the Land Captain became official members of the Zemstvo. The franchise level was raised, peasant representation was cut and doctors and schoolmasters---- intellectual influence--- were excluded.

The result, of all these reactionary and most illiberal measures was that the government became increasingly centralised and cut off from real touch with the people, the liberties of the individual person were further reduced, and legal expression of opposition became impossible. In these yeas also Russian industry began to grow and measures were taken to prevent the growth of strength among the workers: the 1886 Factory Act made strikes illegal.

A further aspect of the reaction of the time was the policy of Russification. This policy, which involved separation from western Europe and the attempt to bring a uniform civilization to all the varied provinces of Russia, had begun under Alexander II and was continued by Alexander III. In the Baltic provinces, Poland, and Finland, Russification held away. The goal of Russification, as formulated and made popular by Slavophiles such as Katkov and Aksakov, and pursued in practice by such minister as Dmitri Tolstoy, Plinve and Pebyedonostev, was "one law (the Russian Czar's), one language (the Great Russian) and one religion (the Russian orthodox)." The process began in the aftermath of the suppression of the Polish Revolt of 1863, and reached an advanced stage, in the 1880's under Alexander III. Every semblance of an autonomous Poland was obliterated; and in what had ones been their country. Poles were excluded from public office, forced to use Russian in schools and the law courts and forbidden to sell land to anyone except a Russian. In Estonia, Livonia and Courland the movement for Russification was directed largely against the strong German group and their Lutheran Church. Russian was made the official language in 1885 and after 1889 the lectures at the University of Derpat were to be given in Russian; German was no longer allowed to be used in schools. The Orthodox Church, backed by the power of the state, was promoted. Local law courts were put down, also. In white Russia and Lithuania, the population, chiefly Catholic, was forced into using the services of the Orthodox Church to legitimize marriage and children. In Ukraine, the Little Russian language was treated as a mere "dialect" and banned in singing, reciting or printing.

Even the Finns, who had had their separate state and liberally-based constitution solemnly guaranteed and respected by the Czar of Russia for a long time, were not exempt from the new Russification. In 1889 the Czar Nicholas II virtually annulled the constitution of Finland and made the Grand-Duchy a Russian satellite province. Alexander III also proved himself a bitter enemy of the Jews. From 1882 to 1892 Jews were forced to live in fifteen areas outside of which they could not hold property. They had no share in local government. Many Jewish children had no schooling and this meant that few Jews were able to qualify for official positions. The police often instigated programmes. The result of this terrible harshness and seek better fortune in western countries, and many of those who stayed inside Russia became revolutionaries.

The Czar Nicholas II pursued on the whole much the same policies as his father, whose minister he kept in office. Yet Nicholas was not as strong a character as his father, and his weakness made him a prey to bad advisers, notably his wife. Up to the year 1905 Pebyedonostev remained supreme and had a very potent influence on the Czar. Religious and racial persecution continued, the whole machinery of reaction went on unabated. The scene was not one of illiberalism on every hand, however, for instance, Count Sergei Witte, minister of Finance from 1894 to 1903, sought to promote industrial expansion and economic development in variety of ways, such as railway building. Witte's economic reforms led to promote industrial expansion.

Witte's economic reforms led to new initiative in many directions and the Zemstvo pressed for constitutional reforms in 1895. They wanted officials to be under the law and the monarchy to be strengthened by co-operating with all classes. To this Czar Nicholas II replied with the curt reminder of the imperial standpoint, based on Autocracy: to such notions he replied that schemes for co-operation between the Czar and his people were "senseless dreams".

In 1904 and 1905 the period of reaction come to an end. In July 1904, Plehve was killed by a member of the Socialist revolutionary party at St. Petersburg. Above all, from February, 1904, to September 1905, the disasters in the war against Japan exasperated public opinion and made the pressure for change irresistible.

The period of 1881 to 1904 was one of reactionary government in Russia for several reasons. The opposition with demanded refers in the structure and government of Russian society was unable to express itself legally and constitutionally, and therefore perforce had recourse to violent and terrorist methods, which in their turn led the Czarist administration to increase even further its reaction. The personalities of both Czar Alexander III and Nicholas II, were sympathetic to reaction and extreme conservatism. Their advisers were perhaps even more reactionary, and certainly unwilling to face the challenge of reforming Russia along modern and progressive lines.

9. To what extent did the First World War further the cause of Bolshevik in the Russian Revolution of 1917?

According to Winston Churchill "surely to no nation has fate been more malignant than to Russia." From February to October in 1917, there were two revolutions in Russia. One represented the downfall of Czardom and the other indicated the success of Bolsheviks of seizing power from the provisional government. The two revolutions had something in common although they were two different types of transferring powers. What did help the revolution to come was due to the incident of the First World War. Without the outbreak of the First World War the Czardom might not be turned.

How could we say that the First World War further the cause of the Revolution of 1917. The word "further" is a sensible word to describe the role of the First World War in the outbreak of the Revolution in 1917. According to a historian "if a prolonged and exhausting war... had not introduced in 1914-1917... project bulwark against an agrarian revolution would been created." N. Florinsky says "the war brought to the top of the powers of discontented and social antagonism which had been gathering beneath the ominously quiet and peaceful surface."
We could not deny the fact that there was tremendous upsurge of patriotism and loyalty at the beginning of the First World War in Russia. There was an outcry of defending the Motherland against the Germans. People supported the war. Young women volunteered for nursing i thousand, and all kinds of people offered their services either to fight or to man the supply services. Strikes and industrial workers were quiet and were forgotten their hardship. They began to form their war Industrial Committee to speed the flow of munitions to the frontier, it seemed that World War One was the growth of the sense of nation in Russia.

However, Russia people miscalculated the effect of the First World War. What they got could not compensate for what they had lost. Although Russia got a minor victory in diplomatic relative with Allied Powers, the cost was huge. Economic effects of war produced hunger and privation, especially among city workers. By the end of 1916, no less than 15 million men had been mobilized for the army, equivalent to about a third of the rural labour force and food production suffered, particularly on the big private farms that produced for loan marked.

In addition, industrial products became scare as the German occupied the industrial regimes of Poland as import were not, and as factories went over to war production. And there was a steady inflation which condemned the real value of wages even where there were using. In Petrogard and St. Petersburg, wages doubled between 1914 and the autumn of 1916, but prices rose three times. Patriotisms truce on labour front was no longer be remember and began to take action to win higher wages in order to live. Half a million strikes came out in 1915. And in 1919 more than a millions Russian workers struck at one time or another.

And the most important, the Russian railway system had broken down and the essential supplies of food and fuel for the population and raw materials for the factories became sporadic and uncertain. Rapidly strike crying for the downfall of Czar was inescapable answer of the Russian people.

Even worse, the entering into World War One was unprepared. Russian troops lacking proper training and equipment made Russian soldier suffered a lot in the war. The offensive of 1914 and 1915 produced staggering causalities, two millions in 1915 alone. Dissatisfaction within the army towards Czarist government were definite. During the first year following, the declaration of war, mobilization provoked serious strikes and labour demonstration at St. Petersburg and indirectly helped the rise of Bolsheviks in Russia. As Lenin said "it (World War One) will bring the fruits of socialism and the fruits of revolution."

When the food riots caused by World War One broke out in Petrograd and Moscow in April 1915, Lenin seized the chance for spending his revolution ideas. He said "we are in the presence of an historical impellent of the greatest force which generates disasters, famine, and countless miseries. This impellent is war." Later Petrogard and Moscow especially in February in 1917, they became the chief revolutionary centres in which all the working class gathered against the Czarist government.

On the other hand, the revolutionary struggle of workers found sympathy and support among the soldier-peasants in uniform who had dampened a lot by the France. These soldiers called to suppress a strike at the automobile plant of Louis Renault in Petrogard in October 1916 fired not at the workers but at the polices. Why did the soldiers supported the industrial workers? The reason is simple. They also suffered in World War One. By the end of 1916, Russian army lost its capability to fight mass surrender, self-infliction of finger wounds, and wholesale desertions were so frequent. And the army, due to their dissatisfaction with the Czarist government did play a great role in Russian Revolution in 1917, for due to its demoralization, it could not be used to suppress the Revolution.

Furthermore, without the Czar urging of entering into World War One, the Revolution could not break out. He wanted to use the war as to win his own prestige and it eventually brought to his won downfall. His insistence on the Commander in chief of the Army made Russian again suffered, disastrous defeat. His inexperience incapable to be a commander made out only the loss of hopes and soldiers in the battle front, but also the aspiration of Russian people at home. The First World War was the only, the real indication of how weakness the Czarist government. And, everyone was really to prepare for a new government providing new changes to come.

Therefore, the fall of Czardom was inescapable. And the First World War was the main direct cause of its downfall. The First World War again further the cause of another revolution in Russia in October 1917. It was not a revolution against Czardom by people anymore, but it was a revolution against the provisional government. For the criteria of a revolution, changes must be introduced. In other words, there would be some changes in the policy of the Provisional government. However, the Provisional government neglected such issues--- the changes. It underestimated the importance of withdrawal of Russia from the First World War. Worsely, it continued the same foreign policy as well as the Czardom did before 1917. Could the Russian people be tolerated of such unchanged policy?

Therefore, World War One provided a good chance for Lenin to have direct attack to the provisional government. According to N. N. Golovine "from the beginning of the (Russian) Revolution a desire to end the War, along with the political, economic and social stimuli at work in every revolution, spread rapidly in both the army and the people."

While the provisional government insisted or continuance of World War One and made the Russian became unpopular with it, Lenin, on the contrary, declared the "Peace, Land and Bread". This was why the provisional government became unpopular and Bolsheviks won the game. And, this was mainly due to, Lenin's tactics of making use of World War One as an excuse to attack the provisional government directly.

But without the help of Germany, I think there would not have a chance for Lenin to come back in Russia for directing the revolution. Only with Germany, Lenin returned Russia safely. Why did the Germans help Lenin? The answer is that Germany did not want to fight with Russia. Only the success of Lenin would bring Germany a temporary peace in the Russo-German battle front.

Therefore, the First World War further the cause of Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution of 1917 is undeniable fact. The First World War played an important role in Russian history. It led to a change of government from Czardom to democratic government and from a democratic government to a Bolsheviks Communist government. And the First World War was the main cause reason for the success of Russia Bolsheviks and laid the foundation of Soviet Union. In other words, the First World War had accelerated the Revolution. If First World War had not break out, if Russia did not enter the war, the Czardom might be perceived or the provisional government might be restored. As stated by P. Lyashchenko "the war was, in Lenin's expression, 'a might accelerator' of the process of revolution" because it provoked all the underlying explosive forces into revolution.

10. To what extent as you think that Nicholas II be responsible for the collapse of Czardom?

Deep-rooted though Czardom was in Russia, it had to be buried underground forever under Nicholas II. In fact, the long standing subservience of the Russians to the Czar turned out to be revolutionary in the early twentieth century as it was in rebellion against fate and elements, against history and the harshness of life itself. It was out of the expectation of Karl Marx that the Russians but also would take the lead in the formation of a socialist state in the world. The unexpected collapse of Czardom was actually a turning point both i Russian history and world history.
The collapse of Czardom was attributed to a great variety of factors. However, the role played by Czar Nicholas II was detrimental in bringing about the collapse. Nicholas II was no more successful than his grandfather in wining and retaining the loyalty of the peasants who still formed some 70% of his subjects. Nor did he have this father's physique and strength of will. He was early-influenced by others. However, being a Czar, he had to keep the things, as they were and as they had always been in the hope of delaying the collapse of Czarism. But to the dismay of the Russian peasants, their Czar had remained out of touch with their harsh lives. On top of that Nicholas II had turned a deaf ear to the constant liberals' demands for political freedom and equal civil rights. Nicholas II should have been blamed for his inability to understand the existing social conditions in Russia and to satisfy their needs. As a result, the discontent of the peasants as well as that of the political leaders were too late for Nicholas II to initiate reforms only since 1905 to save the Romanov Empire.

In 1905, the weaknesses and the inefficiency of the Czarist government had been exposed. Plehve, the Prime Minister remarked, "A small victorious war was needed to hold back the tide of revolution." Thus. Russia picked up a quarrel with Japan even Korea and the disputes eventually led to war between the two countries. Though Nicholas II was not guilty of directly urging the war to divert internal unrest to external war, he was guilty of not preventing the outbreak of war and of overestimated the military strength of the Russia forces. Owing to the insufficient equipment and military training, the defeat in Russia's part was inevitable. The revolution then began in an atmosphere of dissatisfaction. To cope with the situation, Nicholas II, with the advice of Sergei Witte, issued the October Manifesto in which national assembly was called upon, and an amnesty to political leader was issued. This granting of concession was only a temporary retreat in time of danger to buy off the peasants. Even up to this moment ambitions and to set up control over them.

Worse still, Soviets of workers were set up in Petrograd and elsewhere. However, the 1905 Revolution fell short of the achievements that the revolutionaries hoped. Thus, they wanted no time in organizing some other revolts. As in the following years, Nicholas II was proved to be insincere towards the Dumas for he dissolved the Dumas was elected on limited franchise. His half-hearted attitude towards the fulfillment of the October Manifesto was fatal because the intelligentsia in Russia began to realize that the Czar had no sympathy to improve their mode of life, thus convincing them of the impossibility of reforming Russia through parliamentary line. Therefore, we can find much evidence that the secret societies were constantly increasing their support and strength.

Nicholas II was impervious to the warning of 1905 Revolution and achieved only little in crushing opponents completely. However, it has to be noted that under Prime Ministry of Stolypin, lots of reforms were carried out. The Czarist government was successful in grasping the support from the peasants. In reality, the revolutionary career during this period was much doomed. The situation changed abruptly following the assassination of Stolypin. Discontent again grew more tremendously. Even worse, the Czarist regime was handicapped by Russia's participation in the First World War. Russia by then was not ready for war: there was no provision for putting the economy on a wartime, Nasis, there was no financial stability and communicating were inadequate, arms and other equipment was in severe shortage. All these would only bring about military defeat together with high casualties as a result of foreign blockade. The discontent became the fertile ground for revolution Nicholas II at first was unable to stop the Admiral from full mobilization and later to stop fight the war. Therefore, Russia's participation in the First World War outlined the course of the 1917 Russian Revolution. As D. M. Stunley remarks, "the outbreak of war checked the development of Stolypin's land reform, if it had been allowed to continue it in doubtful whether the Bolshevik Revolution could have developed along the lines of it did." Also important of all, Nicholas II's reckless decision to take up the title of commander-in-chief in war was too harmful, for it left the conduct of home affairs to the Czarina who was easily influenced by Rasputin. At home, plots and intrigues continued at the court. Rasputin and Czarina were appointing and dismissing ministers and altering polices with bewildering rapidity. Thus, we may conclude that Nicholas II's decision towards the First World War only worsened the situation and discontent mounted to a new height.

In 1917, revolution broke out and Czar Nicholas II was in no position to save his country as well as Czardom. Thus, Nicholas II was to be blamed for his weak character, unconsciousness of the existing political scene, reckless involvement in foreign war, failure to introduce reforms which would otherwise have saved the Romanov Empire. Hence, to a great extent, Nazi Nicholas II was responsible for the collapse of Czardom. Anyway, the collapse of Czardom was not completely his fault. As we understand, the political spectrum of Czarism is too dependent on the role of the Czar. In case of an efficient dictatorship, peace can be maintained. But the case of an incapable emperor, the Czar was unable to cope with discontent and disintegration of the Empire would be the result. That is why autocracy was too out-dated for a efficient government to function. The collapse of Czardom was an inevitability but it happened in the regime of Nicholas II. Moreover, Nicholas II was lacking good advisers. Sergei Witte resigned after 1905 and Stolypin was murdered in 1911. Since then, Nicholas II was surrounded by ill-advice from Rasputin. The lack of sound advice did affect the policy shaping in Czarist Russia.

Conclusively, the collapse of Czardom was a social trend and was really unavoidable but the deeds of Nicholas II had much to do with accelerating the collapse.

11. 'A disappointing liberal, an inefficient autocrat'. Examine this assessment of Alexander II.

Understanding the question

The question is about Alexander II and the myth of the 'Tsar Liberator'. It asks you to examine the traditional view expressed in the title. In doing so one must see if it describes Alexander adequately. In addition, one should examine the assumptions behind the question, especially concerning Liberalism in the Russian context, to assess whether or not the judgement in it is fair or not.

Knowledge required

The economic and social structure of Russia in the mid nineteenth century. Political events from 1850-1881. Alexander's personality and policies, especially details of the Great Reforms.

Suggested essay plan

1. The traditional view of Alexander II as the 'Tsar Liberator', 'Russia's White Hope': his reign seen as starting purposefully, losing impetus, then going forward again, only to be cut short by assassination before progress and Liberalism had really begun. The period presented as a chance missed for Russia to enter the modem world; hence the 'Tsar Liberator' becomes 'an inefficient autocrat' and also a 'disappointing liberal'.

2 Examine Alexander's attitude to his own authority: autocratic power must be used to reform the state when necessary - he adopts liberal policies to preserve the Russian autocracy. The state and nobility must be seen to lead, hence the reforms. He justified the emancipation of the serfs by claiming, among other things, that it benefits the nobility. Liberalism was a means to an end, the shoring-up of the power and the prestige of the autocracy (which is identified in Alexander's view with the interests of Russia itself). When unrest continues, Alexander retreats and the liberals are disappointed. But Alexander is not really a Liberal.

3 The connection of 'autocracy' and 'Liberalism' in Russia; the progressive bureaucracy was western educated; the belief in benevolent absolutism; hence the emancipation and other reforms. But Liberalism in the fullest sense is not just about administrative measures, but also about the form of the administration i.e. the parliamentary representative form of government. This was rejected by Alexander, who refused, for instance, to contemplate a national assembly. In fact in the circumstances a Russian national assembly would not have been 'liberal' in outlook but a collection of reactionary nobles !

4 A brief comment on the social background: Russia was not a capitalist country; the peasants' organization was communal and remained so after the emancipation of the serfs; there was debate about this, but the peasants were not treated as individual farmers; the retention of the commune as an institution meant that modernizing capitalist enterprise was held back.

5 The reaction during the latter part of his reign must be seen in the context of:
(a) the failure of many of the liberal reforms to increase state power or prestige (for example the adverse reaction to the 1861 emancipation proposals, the acquitting of terrorists by the new juries);
(b) the increasing conservatism of the bureaucracy in the 1870s; and
(c) increasing revolutionary activity; note that Russian populism was anti-liberal.

6 At the very end Alexander did try to prevent unrest by structural liberal changes, i.e. the Loris-Melikov proposals, but these were not very liberal and not 'constitutional' in the western sense. Moreover, Loris-Melikov found himself alone against the nobles in the bureaucracy.

7 Conclusion: Alexander II was not a Liberal but an autocrat; he gave the appearance of inefficiency, but he achieved a considerable amount. To some extent he gave Tsarism a new lease of life. In the last resort his reign was disappointing because the liberal policies he adopted only increased opposition and did not achieve the modernization of Russian society. It is questionable, though, in the circumstances whether this was possible; one must balance Alexander's 'failure' against the inappropriateness of Liberalism in the Russian setting.

12 How successful was Tsar Alexander II in solving the problems facing Russia during his reign ?

Understanding the question

You should discuss the problems of Alexander lI's reign; then assess how far they were solved during his reign, and what effect his policies had after 1881.

Knowledge required

Russia's economic and social structure in the nineteenth century. Alexander's personality and policies. A general knowledge of historical developments in Russia before and after Alexander's reign.

Suggested essay plan

1. The reign of Alexander II, the 'Tsar Liberator', is commonly seen as a progressive period in which Russia almost broke out of its medieval backwardness and developed into a modernizing liberal society. He is presented as half-successful; he introduced major reforms in the 1860s, but these were flawed by the reaction of the 1870s. This traditional view needs some qualification. There were the problems as the tsarist regime perceived them and the deep-rooted obstacles to any easy transition from a feudal to an industrial society.

2 The major problems facing the regime were bankruptcy of the nobles who governed the serfs; serfdom was no longer profitable and Russian agriculture was unable to compete with the 'new lands' (e.g. America) in the grain markets; the bankruptcy of the regime; the general backwardness of Russian society revealed in the defeat of the Crimean War, which itself led to more debts. Alexander II saw a threat to the authority of the Tsar if he did not renovate the Russian state through 'reform from above'.

3 Alexander's solution: the Emancipation; liberalization of the law, education and the economy; the building of railways which, apart from providing improved communications, helped to increase trade and hence revenue; the Zemstvo reforms; the reform of the Army by Milyutin, which led to victory in the Russo-Turkish War.

4 In fact, though, these reforms were flawed: at a deeper level there were problems which went unanswered; the autocratic basis of government remained; the nobility dominated the bureaucracy and resisted radical proposals for reform; in important respects the economic structure of society was little changed-for social and administrative reasons the commune remained and so peasants tended to continue to be subsistence farmers.

5 In the short term Alexander's reforms appeared quite successful in meeting the perceived problems, but disappointment during the reign and the crisis of terrorism at the end can be explained by underlying problems which were ignored. Note the poor reaction to the reforms: revolts by the peasantry were more numerous after the Emancipation than before. Liberalism did not really work unless certain crucial Russian institutions were swept aside. This was the lesson of the period and such radical reform was beyond both the power and the intention of the regime.

6 It could be argued that Alexander II managed to preserve the regime a while longer through reform, but did not really solve the underlying problems. In the longer term the new course he had set would conflict disastrously with Russian traditions and lead to the eventual demise in 1917 of the Tsarist order.

13. How far may the period 1881-1914 be regarded as 'wasted years' in the solution of Russia's internal problems ?

Understanding the question

You need to assess the effectiveness of the tsarist regime's policies in trying to bring about the modernization of Russian society and its economy. Further, you should be able to discuss alternative policies and their likelihood of success in the Russian setting and to judge whether there was any alternative which would have been less wasteful.

Knowledge required

Tsarist policies 1881-1914. The economic and social structure of Russia during the same period. A general idea of notions of progress and economic development in Europe 1900.

Suggested essay plan

1. Russia embarked during the second half of the nineteenth century on a conscious policy of economic development led by the state, which has been described as 'state capitalism'. But this was under an oppressive regime, whose inadequacies were to lead to defeat and revolution in 1917. Much has been written about what could have happened if the regime had been more liberal and progressive. However, these years can only be called 'wasted' if there was a viable alternative- given the situation in 1881 .

2 Comment briefly on the policies pursued after 1881, particularly Witte's strategy for industrialization, noting that the political order remained autocratic and bureaucratic.

3. The result was that, when Russia went to war and was beaten by Japan in 1904-5, there was a severe political crisis, rebellions among the minority nationalities, peasant riots, upheavals in the capital; this was a direct result of the tsarist policies: an inefficient bureaucracy and Army, starving peasants, an exploited working class, indignant Poles and a revolutionary intelligentsia.

4 However, it can be argued that the alternatives proposed during this period are either impracticable or harmful:
(a) It was too late to revert to a non-developed society.
(b) Russian Populism had been discredited by the apathy of the peasantry.
(c) A Marxist revolutionary solution looked highly implausible in a society which was 80% peasant; in any case both Marx and Lenin thought in terms of an accompanying Western European revolution.
(d) The only acceptable alternative to tsarist repression seemed to be Liberalism, the guarantee of individual and institutional liberties, the guarantee of property and representative government.

5 Note the failure to follow up Alexander lI's reforms in the succeeding period to 1905; e.g. agriculture was still left under communal control; there was the failure to provide a constitution to regulate government; the Zemstvos were not given adequate authority; there was only 21% literacy in Russia in 1900.

6 Improvements were enacted, though, by the government under Stolypin after the 1905 revolution:
(a) the 1906 Land Reform Act;
(b) educational opportunities were greatly increased; and

(c) there was the Duma, a new representative assembly. However, Russia remained an autocracy and the new liberal policies can be seen in a number of respects to be very superficial. The Duma was largely ignored by the Tsar after the October Manifesto. The franchise was reduced to produce a more manageable assembly. The fact is that Liberalism had no real power base in Russian society. Furthermore, by 1914 only a small percentage of the land had been transferred from communal to individual tenure.

7 Russia had major problems in its economy and society which it could not easily solve. The government policy after 1881 probably made things worse by overstraining the economy. But given their aim of restoring Russia to the status of a great Power, there was arguably no truly viable alternative in the Russian context. In that sense it was unrealistic to class the years 1881-1914 as 'wasted'. It would be more appropriate to observe the tragedy of a country of such potential being unable to shed the shackles of a bygone age before 1881.

14. How true would it be to say that social and economic trends in the period 1905-17 were all working against revolution?

It is rather critical to say that social and economic trends in 1905-17 were working against revolution in Russia. Ostensibly, there were some reforms and changes which had never been carried out in the past Russian history. However, was the situation so good as the people expected? Many historians had argued over this question, but up-to-now, no one can draw up a conclusion. Anyway, in my opinion, to a large extent, the trends were favourable to revolution. Now let us examine the question in two aspects-- socially and economically.
First of all, let us have a close look at Russia's economic situation. The industry of Russia proceeded rather late. Her industries were mainly established by foreign loans and by the heavy taxation collected from the proletariat and peasants. Moreover, these were usually heavy industries, engaging a great number of workers, and these industries scattered over the Russian industrial zone and concentration of industries developed. From the above situation, we discovered some problems. Firstly, the heavy taxation imposed to the peasants and proletariat led to general discontent of the populace.

Secondly, the gigantic plants provided a favourable atmosphere to gather a great deal of workers to participate in the revolutionary activities. Thirdly, the dispersion of the industrial zones led to the problem of the spontaneous strikes all over the Russian territories. Indeed, after the industrialization, many populace were attracted to the town and became unskilled workers, after some time, they formed the working condition were intolerable and then exposed to the revolutionary ideas. And as we can see, these workers were the under-current and mainstream of the revolution.

It's 1905 revolution which sparked off and agitated the climax of the adverse situation. Yet, it was tackled peacefully and skillfully by Siege Witte and Stolypin. Moreover, Stolypin had promised a reform and mitigated the discontent. Undoubtedly, Stolypin was a competent Prime Minister. In his reign, the revolutionary mood was pressed to the lowest tide, almost everything were under his manipulation. Thus, to a large extent, we cannot challenge that Stolypin was really a great giant in maintaining the Czarist regime and repressing the revolutionary trend. Yet, let us examine the Stolypin's reform, he devised a "twenty-year plan" to keep the peace, and it was successful in reducing the proletariat revolts. But as Stolypin claimed it was a long-term plan and would need a stable situation if practicing continuously. Yet, after his death in 1911, the plan ceased and left the outcome unknown. The year after, as many as 550,000 workers participated the Lena gold-fields massacre. In 1914, there were about 1,254,441 strikers in Russia. So we can conclude, from 1912 till the First World War, the spirit of rebelliousness were growing among the workers.

Then, we come to the aspect of agricultural reform. After industrialization most peasant expected some amelioration in farming. In fact, the industrialization were more concentrated on military side rather than the farming technique. Thus, there were no actual improvement in living standard. To some extent, peasants welcomed Stolypin agrarian reform for lapsing the land redemption. Yet, following this, another problem arose, large number of peasants who worked for the tenants now became landless. Moreover, the peasant population had increased tremendously within the near decades, the land problem were so severe that no one managed to solve it. So although Stolypin was able to gain some support from peasantry, he was incapable to deal with the problem thoroughly. As we can see, though peasants were so indifferent to the politics, they had not any intention to reject the revolutionary ideas. Even more, some of them were always anticipating there would be a re-distribution of land after the revolution. Then, they could get a even larger piece of land.

To the society, the revolutionary trend can be separated into two stages, pre-war and post-war. In the pre-war period, many people believed that the Russians had quite satisfied with the stable situation. After the 1905 Revolution, the government had dramatically modified and become more democratic they felt. And the Duma was an evidence to the populace than the government had released freedom. However, from my point of view, the situation was not so stable. The 1905 Revolution was an overtime to the 1917 Revolution. It acted as a turning point to the Russian history, having a great significance in bringing out the autocratic regime. They gained much valuable experience from it, they knew their roles, they practised and recognized the troops strength and clearly discovered the government's weaknesses. To the contrary of the above belief, the situation of the society before 1914 was not so good as people expected, the Czar's release of authority was an pseudo act which was devised as the last resort to maintain his survival. So, the revolutionaries; liberals and socialist looked into the case and posed the counter-force to challenged the submerging dynasty. According to George F. Kennan, "they (the liberals) obviously had no interest in seeing the modernization of the country proceed successfully under tarist (Czarist) tutelage, and they did as little as they could to support it. These revolutionary parties and groupings had, as a rule, no interest in seeing genuine progress made in the creation of liberal institutions. Their aim was generally not to reform the system but to cause it to fall and to replace it." So we can say that the Duma had combined with revolutionary ideas. The new institution was to a partial extent working against the existing autocracy.

After the outbreak of the First World War undoubtedly went from bad to worse. Peasants had to provide large amount of food to the army, so the supply to town had to reduce. Thus, leading to the shortage of food supply in town. Simultaneously, the food shortage led to the inflation. The price soared to a horrible level and populace thrilled and felt the panic. Consequently, they would be attracted to the revolutionary slogan and propaganda, lastly, joined in the demonstration and strikes. At the very beginning of the First World Warm the government and the bourgeoisie had regarded mobilization of the workers as a device to discourage their revolutionary activities. Yet, to the beginning of 1917, the case was not expected by the government and bourgeoisie, for not even the workers, but also the soldiers and housewives who joined in the processions and strikes. It had become a full scale revolution.

Entering into the twentieth century, Russians had much opportunity to keep in touch with the other European countries. They experienced their merit democratic system. Much to their disappointment, Russia was a traditionally autocratic country. So there was only one way they could alter the regime--- revolution. So many revolutionaries spranged up and advocated the democratic institution. And also it's a historical trend that the autocracy was out-dated and old-fashioned. So the devotion to democracy became a social trend and Czardom was to destiny of collapsing.

In February, 1917, the Russian Revolution emerged and all classes--- no matter they are proletariat, middle-class, peasants, housewife, soldiers, revolutionaries supported the movement. It's really a spontaneous mass movement which accord the chronicle discontents of all classes. Thus, we can conclude that the period 1915-17 were working favourite to revolution. And Revolution was inevitable in Russian History, no matter when it would happen, the question was whether it happen earlier or later.

15. Why was there a Russian Revolution in 1917 despite several reforms carried out by the tsars?

The question itself
~this question asks you on the causes of the revolution and yet requires you to draw its relation with the failure of the reforms

~if you just try to explain why and how the reforms were failed without linking those reforms to the causes of the revolution, your answer must fall into a trap--an essay split into 2 parts, i.e. one on the failure of reforms and another on the causes of the revolution. In terms of organization, it will not be a good essay.
The common errors
~some students confuse the Feb. Revo. with the Oct. Revo. It is a fatal mistake which will surely fail your essay.
~incompleteness is another common error. Not many students could discuss all the reforms carried out by the tsars:
Alexander II-Emancipation of the serfs, Zemstvos, education, judicial, military.
Alexander III-Industrialization ( an economic reform)
Nicholas II-Duma (political reform) Stolypin's reform (mainly social reforms)

~many students did not go straight forward to the question and hence sometimes sidetrack the issue. As a result, climax could not be built up. Linkage between paragraphs is still ignored among many students, not to say the writing of topical and conclusive sentences.

~explanation is not enough especially on: what is the generation of father and son
The suggested framework
I would like to suggest you to use this theme: failure of the reforms as an important cause of the revolution.

1/ explain the reforms chronologically and suggest that those reforms seem to improve the condition of the people.

2/ yet, those reforms not only could not fulfil the original purpose but also increased the discontent of the Russian at that time.

3/ revolution did not occur because: a. the separation of the revo. mass and leadership e.g. the failure of the 'go to the people movement' b. the separation of liberals and socialists on the October Manifesto

4/ those hurdles were crossed over because of the failure of reforms a. the final failure of the Stolypin's Reform drove many Russian into revo. cause e.g. the strengthening of the 'Soviets' b. the co-operation between liberals and socialists after the failure of Duma. Therefore, the liberals killed Rasputin during the WWI and became one group of leaders during the revolution in 1917. Later, the liberals formed the Provisional Government after the revolution.

*** paragraph (2) and (3) could be exchanged the position. In this way, (1) and (3) would be the pros argument that the reforms seem to solve the problems since the common people rejected the revo. cause and liberals were satisfied with the concession given in the October Manifesto. Then, (2) argue that the reforms were in fact failed and used the (4) as an illustration/ support.

*** Since this theme would logically imply that the Feb. Revolution was inevitable since the failure of the Stolypin's reform, you don't need to explain the importance of the WWI in detail.