Preview

How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1326 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881 – 1905?
Internal and external divisions amongst opposing political groups of the Tsar were important and somewhat responsible to the survival of Tsarist Russia. However, other factors such as religion and repression were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power.
On the one hand, one of the main reasons why divisions among its opponents were responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule was due to external divisions involving all opposing political parties. This was because the parties did not work together as they were all divided in their aims and methods in order to achieve different targets. None realised that by working together they would have a greater impact on the current political standing of Russia. The main external divisions involved the Constitutional Democrat (Kadets) and the Social Revolutionary (Socialist) parties. Both of these parties had their own separate beliefs on what Russia needed and how in which it should change, yet due to the differing opinions they refused to work together to solve this. The Social Revolutionaries believed that the future of Russia was down to the peasants and the working class so they wanted to give the peasants their own land as well as improve living conditions for the working class. The assassination of Tsar Alexander II and acts of terrorism were among their tactics however, the Constitutional Democrats were against these acts of violence. They were the most moderate party and believed in votes and discussions as a way to express their views and opinions. They wanted to abolish autocracy and have the power shared amongst a democratic government. The parties also had different support groups as the Social Revolutionaries were aimed at and were very popular with the peasants whereas the Constitutional Democrats were more focused at the middle class and mainly those with professions such as a

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905?…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Firstly, the opposition groups of the Tsar were known as the Populists, the Liberals and the Marxists. Each group had its own ideas on what was needed for Russia and each group wanted change, however, there were many problems within the groups and none of them were willing to work with each other. The Populists who were mainly concentrated on establishing a democratic government used violent tactics such as terrorism and assassinations, the most famous being the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. However, the Liberals, who also wanted to establish some sort of democracy did not agree on using violent tactics, they preferred to discuss things in meetings and banqueting campaigns. The Liberals were the most moderate of the opposition groups and wanted to keep the Tsar, but remove autocracy and have his current power shared between a democratic government. The Marxists, like the other two groups, also wanted to establish some sort of democracy; however, once again, they did not agree on using violence, they preferred to use propaganda campaigns, as did the Populists and Liberals, but not violence. These divisions meant that each opposition group’s strength alone was not enough to achieve their own specific goals and even though the groups did have some tactics such as propaganda in common, it was not enough. If each group had considered changing their tactics or been slightly more lenient, they may have succeeded.…

    • 800 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The autocratic rule that dominated the 300 year old dynasty was also a key factor in its destruction; the social unrest, clamour for political reform, backwardness of the Russian economy and the lack of reforms were all created by the Tsarist regime. The Romanov family ruled with an iron fist and used brutal violence to control its subjects. The repressive policies such as Russification and lack of effective reforms prevented the modernisation of the social and political aspects of the nation. Autocratic rulers promoted the feudalistic style class system which created extreme poverty in the lower classes and gave the people no political power. The introduction of ideas of liberty and an elected government into Russian society, contributed to the creation of revolutionary groups that aimed to overthrow the autocratic rulers and establish more liberal governments. This was first seen with the attempted political coup of the Decembrists that ultimately failed, however they were significant as the introduced a revolutionary trend and liberal views to the people. With the introduction of liberal views and equality, the people began to show their anger and frustration, caused by the Romanovs, through protests and revolutions, of which ultimately ended the Romanov Dynasty. The style of autocratic rulership is a key factor that impacted the fall of the Romanovs primarily because of the social issues it created.…

    • 1611 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…

    • 794 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    When Alexander III became the tsar, Russia was in a crisis following the assassination of Alexander II. The problems that Tsar was facing were that many different groups wanted to change the political system, as not everyone agreed with the autocracy system of government in Russia. To solve this he had to get rid of all political parties and political opposition. Also he had to get rid of anyone who had or wanted political control. Alexander II’s liberals ministers, M,T. Loris-Melikov and N.P. Lgnatiev left the office, and were replaced with Alexandra III own mistiers, Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russia Orthodox Church. Also he had to make sure that all power was given only to the Tsar, so he had to restrict the Zemstvas power, because the Zemstva meant that all power of the tsar was spread out to cities and towns. Furthermore, the organisation, the ‘Peoples Will’ needed to be destroyed as it was a threat to Tsar’s power, so immediately he destroyed the ‘Peoples Will’. He then introduced the Statute of State Security. This allowed the government to arrest and trial any political opponent without a jury. This gave the Tsar complete power. In addition, Russia was a huge multi-racial empire with 55% Russian and the rest Ukrainians, Polish, Jews and more. Because of these races Alexander III wanted to make sure that Russia remained Russian. He did this by a policy of ‘Russification’. This policy made Russian the official language. This meant all documents were in Russia. However this policy affected many people including the Jews. Finally, Russia’s main problem was financially. Russia was physically the largest in size and population, but was almost the most economically underdeveloped. Alexandra III had to increase its economic wealth in order to maintain its armed forces and to maintain its position as a Great Power. He did this by his finance…

    • 2108 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    To a certain extent the divisions among the opponents of the Tsar, such as the Bolshevik and Menshevik split in the Marx party after the 1903 conference, or even the divisions among different revolutionary parties entirely, e.g. Marx and the Social Revolutionaries, was responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in this period as this led to disorganisation and lack of effectiveness among opposition. However other factors, such as the loyalty of the army, despite mutinies during the 1905, allowed the Tsar to remain in control. Furthermore actions by the Tsar himself, although not that effective, for example the reforms in the October Manifesto and the continuing support of the ruling elite was accredited to securing the Tsarists power.…

    • 2563 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    The big issues with the struggle for power was that after Lenin’s death the following leader was not selected by Lenin in his testament, this was because of the different personalities of each of the leaders and the places within the party. The most outstanding reason why there was a struggle for power. This was between all the political positions, left winged, right wing and central, this is due to the varied beliefs of each candidate. The main candidates that was most likely to take power included; Trotsky, who was renowned for his large input in the civil war being a big leader of the red army. Stalin who was high up in the party and was a very conniving, as well as devious person. This was because of his tactical manoeuvring that had taken place during the struggle for power. Lastly there was Bukharin who was also a big contender as he was close friends with Lenin and helped seize Moscow in the civil war. Two more contenders Zinoviev and Kamenev where also large contenders, I haven’t considered them as the biggest contenders for the power of Russia due to their political positioning within the parties as they went from Right to Left winged and therefore were seen as unreliable by the public.…

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia, 1964, p.108) What caused or defined the decline and eventual fall of the Romanov dynasty cannot concluded by one influencing factor but an amalgamation of Tsar’s leadership, certain events that impacted on Russia and Revolutionary groups that aided this process. From these it is evident though that Tsar Nicholas’ role, to a major extent, was the key factor in the end of the 300-year reigning Romanov rule and subsequent execution. In exploring Russia in the early 20th Century, the revolutionary groups, mainly including the Bolsheviks, can be seen as having a minor role in that actual reason for the decline of the Romanov dynasty but rather a larger role in the events after the fall, in regards to the execution itself and shaping Russia’s future afterwards.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    How successful was opposition to the tsarist regime between 1861 and 1881 in achieving its aims?…

    • 751 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tsar had a lot of opponents within Russia and he did not deal with them to the best of his abilities. This meant he was not firmly in control of Russia at all. The 4 main opposing groups were: The Liberals (Cadets), The Social Revolutionaries (SRs) and The Social Democratic Party (Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks) Although the different groups were all angry at different things, the one thing they had in common was that they were all unhappy about Russia’s Social and Economic Situation. In my opinion the Bolsheviks were the most dangerous group towards Tsar and the…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Under many aspects it is arguable that the 1905 Revolution and the March 1917 Revolution in Russia were very similar. Both years found the country still struggling from a war (one bringing humiliation and the other incomprehension and outrage); both found hostility from the streets directed against perceived governmental incompetence. Yet something had changed from 1905 to 1917 for Tsarism not to be able to survive the second revolution like it did the first. The reasons are to be researched in the impact that World War 1 had on the country, the October Manifesto issued by Nicholas II on 1905, and the loyalty that the population and the Armed Forces were not willing to give the Tsar anymore.…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    russia revision guide

    • 7465 Words
    • 24 Pages

    How successful was the tsarist regime in overcoming opposition in the years 1863 to 1894? (24 marks)…

    • 7465 Words
    • 24 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    By 1917, Russia was chaotic, the government had been thoroughly corrupted, strikes were rampant and all happening at once. The World War I had begun and Russia was having many casualties due to being ill - equipped against industrialized Germany, and amidst the countries it was the one to receive most damage. Due to the german attacks the Russian economy had been falling apart, and such a situation was only useful to the radicals, as they used it as an opportunity to join with the moderates among other forces, in order to overthrow the Czar and achieve their revolutionary goals. As time passed Russia’s situation only deteriorated, demonstrators and protestants took over the streets, the king’s armies killed many of them, but they still continued to attack full force. Then when an army took the protestants side, the tables flipped, Nicholas II, the Czar at the time was forced to abdicate his throne and so freed Russia of over four centuries of Czarist…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays