IB MOCKS - RUSSIA Flashcards
(38 cards)
Economic Argument for emancipation?
Needed for Russian Empire’s industrial development
Tied serfs could not move to cities to work in factories, where - free labour would be more efficient than forced labour
Serfdom kept standards of living low, reducing internal demand for goods
Serf-owning agricultural practices failed to produce a grain surplus for export
Tax debt - 54 Million Roubles - 1855
Military arguments for emancipation?
Rieber
Reforming the Russian army
Crimean War –> Russia desperate need of reorganisation
25 year conscripts –> inefficient
Empire could no longer afford a large peacetime army
It was customary to free serfs after their military service, assuming they survived it
Serfdom would end
Moral and intellectual arguments in favour of emancipation?
Intellectuals argued the need for change on morality
Bondage morally wrong
Westerners claimed that serfdom weakened the moral character of the upper classes, making them lazy and unable or unwilling to contribute to the well- being of the state
Turgenev - Sportsman sketches (serfs are normal human beings)
Results of Emancipation: good?
Terence Emmons - ‘single greatest piece of state-directed engineering in modern European History before the 20th Century’
Hard-working or lucky ones were able to supplement their allocations by purchasing additional land and even buying out other ex-serfs - Kulaks
1880 - serfs owned 30% of the agricultural land
Emancipating led to increased literacy rates –> Up by 50%
Emancipation led to urbanization –> 1914 1/3 of serfs lived in rural cities
How was the emancipation good for some landowners?
Those who used the compensation payments to write off their debts and invest in business increased their wealth
How did the Edict fulfil Alexander’s wider aims?
Russian industry expanded in the wake of emancipation, and cities, communications
Ukraine - Increase in Grain production
Grain exports - 31%-47%
from 1861 - 1865
How might emancipation be considered as a bad thing?
Peasants - received poor priced land allocations –> High redemption payments
Peasants generally lost around 20% of their former land
Land could be taken away and reallocated by the mir
1878 - 50% of peasants could produce a surplus to sell
Remainder forced to sell –> effectively migrant labourers
How did landowners face problems due to the emancipation edict?
4 months - 647 incidents of rioting
500 killed
50% landowners already mortgaged at least some of their land to banks before the Edict
By 1905, nobles had sold about 30% of the land held in 1861 and 50% of the remaining land was mortgaged.
Left nobility worse off
Criticisms of the Emancipation edict?
Emancipation manifesto proclaimed the emancipation of the serfs on private estates and by this edict more than 23 million people received their liberty.
1866 - 80% state serfs (but they freed private)
Serfs granted freedom would have to become ‘obliged peasants for 2 years from the publication of the edict.
Therefore, for
2 years, no changes were made and the economy was not immediately benefited.
Why can the Tsar Alexander the II be considered as a Tsar liberator?
Emancipation of the Serfs and the benefits of such Emancipation
That a ruler with absolute power was inclined towards reforms of a system that had thus far helped him subjugate many of his subjects was revolutionary and unheard of, which is what Tsar Alexander II hoped the peasants would see and be grateful for.
Criticisms against the idea that Alexander II was the Tsar liberator? DUE TO THE EMANCIPATION
Emancipation –>
134% of the free market price of land - peasants paid
Loss of security with the removal of landlord security, famine due to subpar plots of land, and therefore continued discontent.
What were the aims of Alexander II?
Preserve Autocracy
Placate the Peasantry
Modernise the Country
Stop Civil Unrest
Was Alexander II successful in the short term?
Reforms –> Decline in Peasant unrest that had been growing
Successful in getting the nobility to accept change and by insisting that they drew up measures for emancipation ensured that they had to take responsibility for the outcome
Political reforms under AII?
1864 - Zemstvos led by Milyutin
Made up of representatives of all classes responsible for local schools, public health, roads, prisons, food supply, and other concerns.
It gave people a taste of democracy and the right to vote.
Why were Zemstvas useful?
1864
There were over 500 of them
The zemstva contained people with local knowledge “enabling them to do a good job where a St. Petersburg official would have failed.” (Westwood).
Zemstvo doctors played a significant role in combating cholera and other epidemics that ravaged the Russian countryside.
Zemstvos also played a key role in the development of transportation infrastructure, including the construction of roads, bridges, and railways.
Why were Zemstvas not useful?
On the other hand, the zemstva were effectively figureheads who hardly did much for local communities – with nearly all problems stemming from the fact that they were dominated by the nobility.
Provincial governors had the ability to reverse any decisions of the zemstva if considered to be ‘contrary to the law or the welfare of the state’, leading to apathy within the zemstva’s and hardly any incentive for change.
What do we think about Zemstvas overall?
Zemstvas –> feeling of independence and autonomy within the peasant classes,
HOWEVER in the LR,
Redundant as they were still very much controlled by state ideology.
What made them beneficial to the peasants – their proximity and therefore familiarity with local issues – became the very thing that led to zemstva being used as instruments of censorship and repression later on, in the Tsar’s reactionary phase.
What were educational reforms like under Alexander II?
More accessible for serfs, and censorship law repealed
Increased the number of primary and secondary schools throughout the country, declaring them accessible to all classes, and even women.
1863 - Universities given independence
3600 students - 10000 students
What is the February Revolution of 1917 generally described as?
General feeling of outburst of feeling from the people of Russia
Why were educational reforms not as good as people make them out to be - hence why is AII not the tsar Liberator?
Government could ban student organisations
Increase in discontent –> Increase in rebellions –> Increase in censorship
.
Overall why do we believe that the Tsar is not a liberator?
Overall, Tsar Alexander does not deserve the title of ‘Tsar Liberator’, because, despite his actions which were seen as progressive’ and ‘reformative’, Tsar Alexander’s interests in liberating the serfs were purely self-interested, and therefore ineffective, and even harmful, in the long run. He only agitated for change before the 1860s because he recognised that peasants were getting increasingly disillusioned with the current system of serfdom such that it posed a threat to his absolute power – there were 712 peasant uprisings in the span of just 26 years.
What did Alexander III do regarding Education?
- Not all social classes could attend High School
- Universities not allowed to hire own professor
- History not allowed to be taught unless given permission by Education Minister
- 1884 - Unis deprives of independence
- 1887 - Uni fees raised
Did peasants increase their education under AIII?
Policies tried hard not to allow them
But from 1897–>1904
Population that could read and write went from 21 –> 27%
AIII Russification?
Extended this idea of Russification
Russian only language taught in schools
1891 (Jews forbidden to live in Moscow)
Ukrainian and Belorussian churches persecuted
1883 - Publication of Ukrainian abolished