Questions And Answers Flashcards
To what extent did Alexander II’s reforms strengthen or weaken the autocracy?
Introduction:
Context: Post-Crimean War, need for modernization
Argument: Mixed results—while reforms aimed to preserve autocracy, they often undermined it.
P1: Emancipation of the Serfs (Edict 1861)
Aimed at preserving social order after growing unrest but destabilized rural Russia.
Peasant dissatisfaction, land hunger, redemption payments.
Negative impact on some nobles as well (who won’t have welcomed the edict and therefore questioned what the tsar was doing)
P2: Judicial and Educational Reforms
Independent courts, trial by jury, lawyer representation for defendants,more liberal education policies (unis appoint own staff).
Created a more informed, critical public—growth of intelligentsia
articulate lawyers used courts as stage to criticise government.
Universities became a source of revolutionaries - examples?
P3: Local Government Reforms (Zemstva)
Some decentralization—limited power but increased calls for representation. Zemstva used as mouthpiece to lobby for National Assembly (which would weaken autocracy)
P4: Repression vs. Reform
Use of secret police (Third Section), censorship continued.
Reform within limits—autocracy ultimately still supreme
p5 Military reforms
Aimed at bringing up to speed with Western capabilities
Still lost war - showing military and leadership incompetence
Conclusion:
Reforms weakened autocracy in the long run
Sparked political opposition and gave routes for this to be expressed - even though intentions were to preserve autocracy
Assess the view that Nicholas II’s commitment to autocracy led to the downfall of the Tsarist regime.
Introduction:
Overview of Nicholas II’s reign and adherence to absolutism (nobody should challenge authority).
Argument: Strongly agree—failure to adapt fatally undermined regime.
P1: Refusal to Share Power Post-1905
October Manifesto concessions followed by undermining the Duma (Fundamental Laws 1906).
Upset liberals and moderates
P2: Poor Handling of Opposition
Repression of revolutionaries and reformers alike.
Weak political alliances and overreliance on Okhrana.
P3: Russo-Japanese War and 1905 Revolution
Military defeat exposed regime incompetence.
Revolution demanded reforms—poorly addressed.
P4: WWI and Abdication
Nicholas took personal control—blamed for military failures.
Economic collapse (caused by war?) and military losses.
Conclusion:
Nicholas’s inability to modernize the monarchy directly contributed to the February 1917 collapse.
How effective was opposition to the Tsarist regime between 1861 and 1894?
Introduction:
Define “effective” (bring about change, influence decisions , challenge to authority).
Argument: Opposition grew but achieved limited success due to repression.
P1: Populists and Narodniks
Aim: Reach and educate peasants around need to develop peasant commune —mostly failed- peasant superstition and loyalty to tsar - reported to authorities
Harsh state response (arrests, exile).
P2: People’s Will (Land and Liberty split) and Terrorism
Assassinated Alexander II (1881)—short-term impact but led to repression under Alexander III.
P3: Development of Marxist Thought- theory that working class would overthrow capitalist class- leading to a socialist state and ultimately leading to a class-less communist state
Plekhanov lays groundwork for future Bolshevik movement, founding ‘Liberation of Labour’ movement and giving anti autocracy speech in St Petersburg 1876- introduced marxist theories .
Little impact by 1894, but ideas spreading and ultimately contributed to ideology that led to Bolshevik success
P4: Government Repression
Okhrana, censorship, exile to Siberia (after AII’s assassination)
Limited scope for coordinated opposition.
Conclusion:
Limited short-term impact, but sowed seeds for future revolutionary movements.
Assess the validity of the view that opposition movements achieved little in the years 1894–1914.
Introduction:
Context: Industrialisation, poor conditions in cities, growing unrest about living conditions and speed of reforms
Argument: Partially true—opposition grew but struggled to effect major change before 1914.
P1: Development of Political Parties
Birth of SD (Marxist) 1898 and SR (socialist) 1899
SDs split into Bolsheviks(centralised disciplined/ revolution not be compromised by political alliances) and Mensheviks (Broad party with mass membership/cooperation with liberal parties) ;
SRs active in terrorism.
Limited mass appeal, poor coordination.
P2: 1905 Revolution
Massive unrest, but government recovered; limited gains (e.g. Duma, later undermined Fundamental Laws).
P3: Role of Trade Unions and Workers
Strikes and protest increase post-1905 (Unions legalised after 1905 revolution). Hundreds of TUs closed or denied registration after 1906
Stolypin’s reforms contain unrest but don’t eliminate discontent.
P4: Government Control
Continued repression, exile of opposition leaders, press censorship.
Conclusion:
Opposition movements gained traction but lacked unity and faced overwhelming repression—“little” achieved relative to aims.
To what extent did industrialisation improve the lives of the Russian people between 1894 and 1914?
Introduction:
• Industrialisation under Witte—railways, foreign investment.
• Argument: Improvements in economy, but little for workers/peasants.
P1: Urban Working Conditions
Factory work: long hours, low pay, poor conditions.
Housing crises in cities.
P2: Social Mobility and Education
Growing literacy, new urban classes.
Limited but significant cultural changes.
P3: Political Impact
Growth of worker unrest and strikes—economic growth didn’t equal social harmony.
Conclusion:
Industrialisation improved infrastructure and economy, but quality of life for ordinary people changed little.
Assess the view that the Emancipation of the Serfs caused more problems than it solved.
Introduction:
1861 Emancipation as landmark reform- response to unrest
Argument: Yes—although legally free, peasants faced economic hardship and social unrest.
P1: Land Allocation and Redemption Payments
Peasants got insufficient, poor-quality land.
Burdened with lifelong debt.
P2: Social and Political Consequences
Created resentment among peasants.
Nobility also struggled with new economic realities.
P3: Economic Stagnation
Strips system and mir restrictions on how land could be used limited productivity.
Inefficient agriculture continued.
P4: Reforms’ Intent vs. Impact
Intended to modernise; instead fuelled instability and demands for further reform.
Conclusion:
Emancipation a flawed compromise—solved serfdom in name but generated long-term problems.
Assess the view that the 1905 Revolution was a “dress rehearsal” for the revolutions of 1917.
Introduction:
Lenin’s famous quote on 1905- saying without it 1917 would not have been possible
Argument: Strong similarities, but key differences too.
P1: Causes
Similar issues: discontent, war (Russo-Japanese/WWI), economic hardship (Strikes/ military spending issues in both / cost of living rose 300% starvation 1917)
P2: Role of Workers and Soviets
Soviets (workers’s council) formed in 1905 (directed general strike) and again in 1917 (strike activity in Moscow).
Workers more organized by 1917.
P3: Government Response
1905: concessions then repression (leaders of Soviet exiled to Siberia); 1917 regime collapses
P4: Leadership and Organisation
1905 lacked leadership; 1917 had Lenin/Bolsheviks.
Conclusion:
1905 revealed regime vulnerabilities—paved the way for future revolution but lacked decisive revolutionary force. 1917 had that in Lenin and the Bolsheviks
To what extent was World War I responsible for the collapse of the Tsarist regime in February 1917?
Introduction:
Context: war began in 1914; February Revolution in 1917.
Argument: WWI was the catalyst but built on long-standing issues.
P1: Military Failures and Losses
Poor leadership, heavy defeats, morale collapse.
P2: Economic Crisis
Inflation, food shortages (particularly in Moscow and Petrograd- far from supplies/ hampered by:, transport breakdown.
P3: Political Mismanagement
Nicholas took personal command—loss of credibility.
Alexandra and Rasputin’s unpopularity.
P4: Pre-existing Problems
Autocratic rigidity, discontent, prior unrest (1905, strikes in 1912).
Conclusion:
War accelerated regime’s collapse, but long-standing structural weaknesses were the real root cause.
How important was Lenin’s leadership in the success of the Bolshevik Revolution?
Introduction:
Context: October 1917, Bolsheviks seize power.
Argument: Lenin was crucial, but other factors mattered too.
P1: April Theses and Clear Messaging
“Peace, Land, Bread”—statement by Lenin resonated with key groups - people who wanted end to war (peace), peasants who wanted redistribution of (land) and those starving (urban)
Focus Bolshevik efforts on opposing the provisional government, promote a socialist revolution and lay the groundwork for a proletariat-led government
Contrast with Provisional Government- who wanted war to continue(?)
P2: Strategic Decisions
Seizure of power timed well.
Use of Soviets (workers’ council) and Red Guards.
P3: Weakness of Provisional Government
Failed to deliver land, end war, lack of economic stability.
Lack of legitimacy.
P4: Trotsky and Military Planning
Trotsky’s role in planning October insurrection.
Petrograd Soviet itself critical to success.
Conclusion:
Lenin was vital in direction and ideology, but structural conditions and Bolshevik organization also key.
Assess the impact of Marxist ideology on the development of opposition to the Tsarist regime.
Introduction:
Define Marxism and its spread into Russia=marxist belief that economy would go through capitalist stage, turn to socialism and communism through an uprising by the workers against the owners of the factors of production
Argument: Significant intellectual foundation, though practical influence limited until 20th century.
P1: Plekhanov and Early Marxists
Translated Marx into Russian context.
Educated early revolutionaries and inspired opposition to autocracy
P2: Growth of Social Democrats (SDs)
Bolshevik-Menshevik split—differing tactics, same goal.
Marxism influenced structure and aims of Bolsheviks - leading opposition to autocracy
P3: Influence on Workers and Soviets
Class struggle resonated during industrialisation.
Soviets based on Marxist principles and core to oppositon
P4: Limitations
Majority of population (peasants) didn’t engage with ideology.
Marxism adapted (e.g. Leninism) to fit Russian conditions.
Conclusion:
Marxism provided an ideological backbone, especially for the Bolsheviks, but Russia was in a unique position and so needed to be adapted to suit unique context.
