Russia Flashcards
(8 cards)
Describe TWO features of EITHER Stolypin’s policy of repression OR the closure of the Constituent Assembly
• Use of violence to suppress opposition: Stolypin used brutal measures, including military courts and public executions, to deal with political unrest. Thousands of suspected revolutionaries were hanged, earning the nickname “Stolypin’s necktie” for the noose. This aimed to crush opposition to the Tsarist regime.
• Targeting revolutionary groups and peasants: Stolypin focused particularly on radical groups like the Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks. He used his policy of repression to break up peasant uprisings and confiscate their lands when necessary, ensuring loyalty to the Tsar.
- Describe TWO features of EITHER the Petrograd Soviet OR the Kronstadt Naval Mutiny.
• Dual power with the Provisional Government: The Petrograd Soviet, formed in 1917, held significant influence because it controlled workers, soldiers, and much of the infrastructure, such as railways. This created a “dual power” situation with the Provisional Government, undermining its authority.
• Order No. 1: The Petrograd Soviet issued Order No. 1, which directed soldiers to obey the Soviet rather than the Provisional Government, effectively giving the Soviet control over the military in Petrograd.
Were the political reforms made by Nicholas II successful?
The political reforms of Nicholas II, such as the October Manifesto and the Duma, were largely unsuccessful. While they temporarily eased opposition, the Tsar retained autocratic power through the Fundamental Laws and manipulated the Duma, alienating liberals, workers, and peasants. These failures contributed to growing unrest and ultimately his downfall in 1917.
Were Nicholas II’s abdication was his own fault through his own mistakes?
Nicholas II’s abdication was primarily his fault because of his poor leadership and refusal to adapt. He resisted meaningful political reforms, which alienated liberals and revolutionaries, and his reliance on repression angered workers and peasants. His decision to take personal command of the army during World War I tied him to military failures, while domestic issues spiraled out of control in his absence. Additionally, his association with Rasputin damaged the monarchy’s reputation among the nobility and the public. These mistakes weakened his support, leading to his abdication in 1917.
What were the conditions like in the Petrograd in 1916?
In 1916, conditions in Petrograd were dire. Food and fuel shortages caused widespread hunger and cold during the harsh winter. Inflation made basic goods unaffordable and strikes and protests increased as workers faced poor wages and harsh conditions. The war effort further strained resources, leading to growing unrest and dissatisfaction with the Tsarist regime.
Why did Tsar Nicholas call the Duma?
Tsar Nicholas II called the Duma in 1905 to appease widespread unrest following the 1905 Revolution. Strikes, protests, and the Bloody Sunday massacre had pressured the Tsar to introduce reforms, including the October Manifesto, which promised a Duma to give the people a voice in government. However, Nicholas retained significant control, undermining the Duma’s power.
What was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution?
The main cause of the 1905 Revolution was widespread discontent with Tsarist rule, fueled by poor living and working conditions, the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05), and the Bloody Sunday massacre, where peaceful protesters demanding reforms were shot by the Tsar’s troops. This exposed the regime’s incompetence and brutality, sparking nationwide unrest.
Describe the influence of Rasputin
Rasputin’s influence stemmed from his role as a trusted confidant of Tsarina Alexandra, who believed he had miraculous healing powers to manage Alexei’s hemophilia. Over time, Rasputin began interfering in political matters, recommending ministers and dismissing officials, which undermined the government’s stability. His corrupt behavior and scandals, including allegations of bribery and immoral conduct, tarnished the royal family’s reputation. The nobility, clergy, and public saw him as a symbol of the regime’s decay, further fueling opposition to Tsarist rule and contributing to the monarchy’s downfall in 1917.
