Preview

How Far Were Divisions Amongst Opponents Responsible for the Survival of Tsarist Rule, 1881 - 1905?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
800 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How Far Were Divisions Amongst Opponents Responsible for the Survival of Tsarist Rule, 1881 - 1905?
How far were divisions amongst opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule, 1881 - 1905?
Divisions of opposing groups of the Tsar were important to the survival of Tsarist Russia. However, other factors such as the church, the belief of the divine right, the army and the Okhrana were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power.
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.
Secondly, Russian peasants worked six days per week; they received Sunday off so that they could attend church. The Russian church forced the belief that the Tsar had been put in his position by God upon the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Firstly, the repressive policies of the Tsar was partly responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule as the Tsar made it very difficult for there to be any sort of opposition. This was because the Tsar implemented the Okraha (secret police) to exile anyone who opposed him. This created fear in opposition groups so they started operated from outside Russia. In addition to this, the Statute of State Security meant that the government opponents were tried so could not operate. This, with the help of Okhrana barred any opposition.…

    • 824 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Assess the view that the Tsars preferred repression to reform in the period 1855 to 1906…

    • 2567 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Powerful 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
  • Satisfactory Essays

    How far were divisions amongst opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule, 1881 - 1905? Divisions of opposing groups of the Tsar were important to the survival of Tsarist Russia. However, other factors such as the church, the belief of the divine right, the army and the Okhrana were also effective in keeping the Tsar in a state of power. 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…

    • 555 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory 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

    How far do you agree that the struggle for power following Lenin’s was caused by the ideological differences of the contenders of power?…

    • 1418 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better 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 Tsarist system of government was not modified to any significant extent during this time period as the rule of the Tsars was consistently underpinned by the support of the Church, the army and the bureaucracy. The Church especially, as they derived much of their power from the Tsar, was extremely loyal as any threat to the Tsar meant a threat to their power also. This is why Alexander the Third’s rule of repression was supported by those who owed allegiance to the Tsar, as anyone in a position of power would owe a debt to the Tsar, so would be reluctant to question his authority. Furthermore, the Church was given power over the primary schools, to make sure all children heard were pro-Tsarist messages. The fact that the Tsar was supported by the most powerful in society demonstrates the fact that the system of government was not modified to any major extent, as it was never threatened by anyone powerful enough to make a real difference.…

    • 732 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The church acted as a unifying factor for the Russian nation. Church holidays and fasts enriched and brought meaning to the cycle of seasons and sowing in the subsistence society. Russians possessed a deep religious faith and from it they derived a sense of purpose in the universe and the promise of salvation. The church nourished and preserved the culture of Russia during centuries of internal strife and foreign intervention. Orthodox people feel a strong sense of community and brotherhood towards one another through a shared bond of faith. As a result of this emphasis on community, the rights of the group tend to take precedence over the rights of the individual in Russian culture. The Orthodox and Catholic faiths had an adversarial relationship for years. As this rift deepened and grew increasingly antagonistic, the rift between the East and the West also grew. The difference in religion between Russia and Europe can largely explain the vast differences that developed in their cultures.…

    • 997 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    One reason why opposition to the state between 1855 and 1964 was mostly unsuccessful is the divided nature of oppositional forces. One example of this is the Civil War of 1918 where Richard Pipes argued it was a ‘foregone conclusion’ that the Reds would win. The Whites were made up of many different oppositional groups such as the SRs, Liberals looking for a tsarist revival and foreign forces concerned with stopping the spread of communism, which meant they lacked a common purpose or motive to defeat the Bolsheviks and was one of the fundamental reasons why they were unsuccessful in winning the Civil War. As well as this, they had a geographical disadvantage as the Red’s held the centre cities of Petrograd and Moscow, meaning they could never unite in one place to plan a strategic attack. This also allowed the Reds to have unlimited supplies of clothing, food and weaponry, as well as the use of the railway to attack the Whites. Similarly, in 1905 the attempted uprising of opposition to Tsar Nicholas II was unsuccessful due to the separate groups of opposition. The revolutionary forces were made up of different social classes of Russia, such as the industrial workers, the peasantry and political groups such as the Social Democrats and the Kadets, each with separate reasons for revolting – for example the Kadets’ wish of developing a constitutional monarchy. The October Manifesto, a concession by Nicholas II weakened the by settling the problems of the Liberals in the creation of the Duma, meaning they no longer supported the revolution. This is also seen in the November Manifesto after the peasants were appeased by abolishing the redemption taxes that had troubled them for so many years. The divided opposition is key to Nicholas II staying in power as after this attempted revolution he remained unchallenged for the next 12 years. The…

    • 501 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    History

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe that one of the main reasons for the Tsar’s abdication and the collapse of the Romanov rule was the poor state which Russia was in. Russia’s economy was at the worst it had ever been. The economy was far worse than other countries in the War. There were millions of peasants in Russia who had very limited amount of money. With such a limited amount of money, many peasants were unable to buy food, and drink to help them to survive. Peasants believed that they weren’t getting rewarded fairly for the work which they were doing. The upper classes’ benefit greatly due to work done by the Peasants. This created a negative atmosphere around Russia and helped fuel the need for a change. Peasants wanted change; they wanted to be rewarded more for their efforts at work. Russia was in an economic crisis. They had borrowed a huge amount of money from capital countries in order to fuel Russia’s war effort. This was a problem for Russia because they simply didn’t have the money to repay these countries. During the war the country had suffered inflation. Prices had risen dramatically for everyday items such as bread. The country was suffering and the Russian people’s families were dyeing in a war which wasn’t being funded. The Russian people were bound to be discontent and they only had one person to blame and that was the Tsar.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Since the days of Peter the Great, the Russian Orthodox Church was directed by a religious governing body known as the Holy Synod. Representatives of the Holy Synod were appointed by the tsar; however, Tsar Nicholas II ruled terribly that the Orthodox leaders encouraged the revolution. For years, the Russian Orthodox Church had a continuous relationship with the tsars and opposition to the liberals. The Bolsheviks were persistent in their antagonism toward religion, with their atheist ideals, they considered religion to be an opium. The revolution of 1917 proposed religious freedom, hence the church saw this as an opportunity to liberate itself from state control. A significant moment in the history of Russian, and the Russian Orthodox Church,…

    • 549 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays