Russia

With the abolition of serfdom removing the legal basis of gentry’s control of the peasantry, Alexander saw the need for changes in the governmental system. In 1864 local government assemblies calledzemstvawere set up, followed by urban assemblies calleddumasin 1870.
These zemstva were potentially a radical liberal measure towards a system with a degree of local self-government - a radical measure in a centralist autocracy. However, Alexander intended them to support the traditional system of government rather than to move away from this. In effect, Alexander was appeasing local nobility by giving them some local political power in response to their perceived loss of status with the serfs' emancipation.
+ The zemstvas and dumas had local power over public health, prisons, roads, agriculture, and education, which provided new opportunities for local political participation in ways they had not previously been possible. These local officials therefore had the chance to engage in Russia's real social problems.
- On the other hand, and revealing the clear limitations of this new form of 'local power', the police remained under central control, the provisional governor could overrule all zemstva decisions, the zemstva were permanently short of money, which limited their practical options, and the voting system was heavily weighted towards local landowners (they were far from democratic institutions!), which made it easy for the conservative nobility to and their interests to dominate assemblies.

The Social and Democratic Party splits between Bolsheviks (under Lenin) and Mensheviks (under Martov)

A document promising political reforms, issued by Tsar Nicholas II at the height of the 1905 Revolution.

The elected legislative body that, along with the State Council, constituted the imperial Russian legislature from 1906 until its dissolution at the time of the March 1917 Revolution.

Russia, Britain and France

Communist Party name adopted

Humiliating defeat highlighted that Russia was miles behind modern European powers
Russia had not changed much since 1812
Difficulty in ending the war and clear threat of future attack
Real changes was needed
Russian communications were woeful
Munitions industries inadequate
Administration was corrupt and ineffective
Discontent had spread in all classes

Eastern Crisis brings war with Turkey

Brings Russo-Japanese war to the an end

June offensive:
In June PG launched an all out offensive on Germany to put the country in a better position in the war (WW1). The offensive (called June offensive) ended in disaster and PG was deeply discredited. As a result, the Bolsheviks and other political parties got increased support.

A group of students published ‘Young Russia’ which argued that reform was essential and that revolution was the medium necessary to effect change.

Polish rebellion against Russian rule in Poland; the Uprising was unsuccessful and resulted in the imposition of tighter Russian control over Poland.

Land and Liberty was a Russian clandestine revolutionary organization of Narodniki (middle- or upper-class revolutionaries attempting to spread socialism in rural areas) in the 1870s. Land and Liberty received its name in the late 1878 with the creation of the printing shop with the same name.

She is not convicted, government steps up its exile of people accepted of supporting terrorism.

Assassinated by the people's will

Father Gapon's marchers fired on by troops.About 200 people died and 800 were wounded.

Petrograd

Petrograd

Troops fire on crowds , mass mutiny begins in local army regiments.

In July a spontaneous uprising occured, which consisted of 500 000 soldiers, workers and sailors rebelled in Kronstadt. They later marched to petrograd to demand overthrow of PG. However, the rebellion was dismantled as PG still retained control of some loyal Russian troops. Even though this affair hurt the reputation of the PG, it also damaged the Bolshevik reputation as the PG blamed them for the whole incident.
Fitzpatrick argues that "the whole affair damged Bolshevik morale and Lenin's credibility as a revolutionary leader"

In August 1917, general Kornilov took his army and marched to Petrograd to overthrow PG. He was discontent with the way PG handled politics and WW1. Alexander Kerensky, leader of PG, panicked and since he was unable to put up an adequate defence by using loyal forces, he armed the Bolsheviks so they could help him. However, Kornilov's army did not reach Petrograd as some of his soldiers mutinied and railway workers sabotaged the railways. Now the PG reputation was shattered and the government started to disintergrate. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks got more support because they were percieved as the defenders of Petrograd, and they were also armed now compared to other political parties.

Soviet counter-attack reaches Warsaw

-Well prepared to be tsar, was committed to retaining tsarist rule, influenced by the defeat in the Crimea, significant peasant unrest and social instability when came to the throne.
Aims:
-strengthen and consolidate tsarist rule, Make Russia a great power, industrial growth, Modernise the army and the economy

Put forward the emancipation edict, Introduced the western style legal system, introduced the Zemstva and Mir. Made many army, education and economical reforms.
The reforms increased political opposition, could not carry out reforms without undermining autocracy. Growth of radical extremism as there was more knowledge about the western systems. Failure to deal with the opposition led to his assassination in 1881.
Reforms made early in reign but opted against further reform later in reign and in the 1870s he enacted more conservative reforms such as making universities less independent and giving less freedom to the press.

Prepared for the role of Tsar by his father
Well planned education
Widly travelled man
Strict millitary upbringing
Had a depth of knowledge about Russia's problems as he served on committees
Humane and sensitive person - more than his father
Strong belief in autocracy
Patriotic, religious and conservative
Desired real change in Russia
Known as the 'Tsar Liberator' - due to the amount of reforms he introduced

Background - i.e. personality, upbringing, circumstances in which he came to rule

Alexander III was the second son of Alexander II and thus had not been prepared or educated to take over the throne. When his older brother however died in 1865, he became the heir to Tsardom.
His father had oppointed the conservative Konstantin Pobodonestev as his tutor and shaped the conservative thoughts of Alexander III from early age.
He had a forceful character, conservative and strongly opposed western ideas.
Alexander blamed his father's death on the reforms he had made earlier in his life and strengthened the autocratic element of AIII's reign.
Greatly influenced by his tutor who believed that all opposition should be ruthlessly crushed and freedom of press and constitutions represented a threat to the state.
Russia was still significantly backwards and economically weak when AIII came to the throne and needed to some drastic changes!

Key aims as Tsar:
His "Manifesto of Unshakable Autocracy" issued in April 1881, showed rejection of democracy and further reform and the intent to have "full faith in the justice and strength of the autocracy".
Wanted to strengthen the autocracy and eliminate the opposition that had arisen from his father's reform.
However, also saw the urgent need to modernize and improve economically to become a Great Power.

Methods and policies to achieve these:

-The terrorists responsible for his father's assassination were executed and a further 10,000 suspects were arrested.
-Censorship was re-introduced and his fathers plans for a constituent assembly were immediatly crushed.
-Local Government: Land Captains were introduced in 1889 to strengthen autocracy and position of the nobility on the countryside- taken only from the nobility, had local authority over administration and could overrule all zemstva's decisions! New laws introduced in 1890 1992 to reduce popular vote in rural and urban areas- in St.Petersburg the electorate was reduced by 2/3 following these reforms.
-Peasantry and social policy: Some feared, due to the repressive nature of AIII's reforms, that he was going to re-institute serfdom but instead gave more power to the mir- 1893, banned peasants from leaving the mir and strengthened the power the mir had over the individual.
-Power of the state and repression: The Statute of State Security was issued in 1881 and gave govt. more powers to persue revolutionaries. Gave right to ban public gatherings, close schools and universities and charge individuals for political crimes. Allowed them to imprison suspected opponents of the state without trial and conditions in prisons made more severe.
-Censorship: education came under tighter control of the government and granted most of the --------
-independence gained under AII's rule. The tutition fees were raised to exlude lower-class children from primary and secondary education; believed this was a waste of time!
-Russification and anti-semitism: The policy of suppressing national minorities was harshly put into action and the worst off were the jews who were constantly faced with progroms and oppression. The state encouraged violence against the Jewish population as a way to divert popular discontent.
-Economic: Created the Peasants' Land Bank in 1882 to help the peasants purchase land and was so successful that by 1904 the peasants had bought 1/3 of the nobility's land. Also abolished the Poll Tax which was payed only by the peasants in 1886.
-Offered limited concessions to the workers by introducing laws in 1883 and 85 to improve working conditions for women and children and in 1886-labour legislation payment and dismissal to protect the workers.

Sergei Witte, a Russian nobleman of Dutch origin, served as Minister of Finance from 1892 and 1903 and oversaw some impressive changes to the Russian economy.
Witte’s belief was that the key to Russia’s continued ‘Great Power’ status rested on successful and rapid forced industrialization. Developing industry would be a way to avoid dependency on more developed economies and also create a strong modern state in Russia.
Witte’s plan to deliver an industrialized Russia was based on a four-fold plan to fund the programme of capital investment: i) protective tariffs on foreign goods to protect against competition from Europe, ii) attraction of foreign capital in the shape of loans, esp from the French, iii) placing currency on the Gold Standard to encourage further foreign investment, and iv) squeezing resources out of the peasantry and workers - through low wages, high taxes and exporting ‘surplus’ grain.
On the one hand, his policies strengthened Russia leading up to WW1. Huge capital investment led to considerable industrial and railway developments, bringing clear economic and military benefits to Russia. In this sense, successful economic modernization achieved from a very low base - though it should also be noted there were clear limitations to this economic modernization, it should not be over-exaggerated.
On the other hand, the fact there were no political reforms to match this economic modernization created a tension which undermined Russia before 1914. For instance, the growth of a disgruntled industrial working class in the cities created fertile conditions for the growth of radical opposition in the face of poor conditions. Furthermore, his industrial drive failed to address the fundamental agricultural backwardness of Russia.

In 1903, Nicholas II transferred Witte to the Chairman of the Committees - this was arguably largely a symbolic position, and NII was removing Witte from position of influence in the face of conservatives and landed gentry who disliked his modernising policies. Witte, and his somewhat liberal tendencies, would also be of importance to NII in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese war after 1905.
Historian Hugh Seton-Watson is not alone in claiming Witte as "one of the outstanding statesmen of the 19th century."

Background - i.e. personality, upbringing, circumstances in which he came to rule

"Nicholas had no knowledge of the world or of men, of politics or government to help him make the difficult and weighty decisions that the Tsar alone must make. The only guided stars he recognised were the inherited belief in the moral rightness of autocracy, and a religious faith that he was in God's hands, and his actions were divinely inspired." (Historian, Hans Rogger).
Shy, quiet man, later dominated by his wife, the Tsarina.
Educated, like his father, by arch-conservative Pobedonostsev. Excellent education, but as his father, AIII, expected to reign for another 20-30 years, Nicholas was given little practical experience in how to rule before his father's sudden death in 1894.
Faced with expectations that he might relax his father's oppression, Nicholas II dismissed claims of the zemstva for more political responsibility as "senseless dreams". He would face far greater problems than those encountered by his father, and his failure to deal with them led to the collapse of the Romanov dynasty and the imperial tradition of tsarist rule in 1917.

Key aims as Tsar:

Main aim was to “maintain the principle of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father”, in addition to modernize without revolution!

In terms of foreign policies, Tsar Nicholas the Second aimed to
To gain a warm water port.
To get the Straits of the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean) reopened to its warships. This had been closed to Russian ships after the Crimean War.
To extend her influence in the Balkans, taking advantage of the decline of Turkish power.
To promote a conservative, religious alliance among Slavs in Eastern Europe (Pan-Slavism) as a cover for expanding Russian control.
To expand eastwards into Asia especially in Iran, Tibet and India

Methods and policies to achieve these:
The Fundamental Law of the Empire of 1906 - “the Emperor of All of Russia has supreme autocratic power”
(Methods and policies further explained in failures and success)
Successes (from whose perspective?)

The Czar turned to advice to Count Witte who urged him to agree to fundamental reform. On 30 October the Czar issued the October Manifesto that promised a constitution and a parliament or Duma elected by the people. The Russians were also promised full civil liberties.
The duma provided an arena in which the various political groups (liberals, SD, SR) could argue and become more divided. This, together with Stolypin’s ruthless suppression of opposition, helped to marginalize the opponents of the regime’s position after 1905.
His main device for resisting revolution was the introduction of land reform. He felt that this could make the better-off peasants loyal supporters of the regime. He introduced reforms in 1906 that allowed peasants to leave the local commune (Mir) where land was held in common and receive their share of land in private property. This would allow them to become permanent owners of their own farms. These reforms had some success and by 1915 about half of the peasants in European Russia owned their farms. He also encouraged smaller farmers to enlarge their holdings with aid from a Peasant Bank that he established. Peasants were encouraged to settle in Siberia in order to alleviate land shortage.

The policies of Nicholas the Second’s Minster of Finance (1892-1903) Witte strengthened Russia leading up to WW1. Huge capital investment led to considerable industrial and railway developments, bringing clear economic and military benefits to Russia. In this sense, successful economic modernization achieved from a very low base - though it should also be noted there were clear limitations to this economic modernization, it should not be over-exaggerated.

Failures (from whose perspective?) and reasons for his downfall and the collapse of the 300 year old Romanov dynasty in February 1917:

"The 1905 revolution did more than anything else during Nicholas II's reign to undermine support for the regime." Historian Richard Charques.
His stubborn personality limited him in his success. Nicholas the Second failed to deal with Russia’s serious political problems. In addition to his failure to consider reform led to the growth of opposition.
The depth of opposition to the Czar was shown by the events of 1905 that was brought on by defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The conduct of the war exposed the inefficiency and corruption of the Czarist system of government and contributed directly to the revolution of 1905.
The Czar refused to listen to demands for political change. This led to political discontent caused by the absence of political reform, economic discontent caused by poor wages and increasing taxation, in addition to the defeat and poor management of the war against Japan.

As prime minister under Nicholas II, Stoylpin attempted to quell the growing tide of unrest in Russia through a combination of land reforms and crackdowns on radical terrorist groups. The radicals won, assassinating Stolypin in 1911. Petr Stolypin was appointed chief minister in 1907, and like Witte is seen as one of the few who could have saved the regime, if Nicholas had been prepared to listen to him more carefully. Stolypin played an important role in restoring order and crushing opposition after 1905, and also in introducing some reform measures that contributed to relative stability in the years leading up to WW1.
Stolypin said that 20 years of peace were needed if Russia was to be stabilized, but his reforms only had 7 years of peace before WW1 broke out. Difficult to say if his reforms could have proved the basis for a prosperous class of independent farmers as a way of solving Russia’s agricultural problems, as the impact of the First World War and the 1917 revolutions meant they were not given the chance to continue!
Some historians - the ‘optimists’, generally Western and non-Marxist - have argued that the Stolypin era was one of hope and possibility: agriculture and industry were making progress, there was some limited political reform, perhaps progress towards a more modern, liberal Russia would have been possible if not for the First World War? Such a view sees Stolypin as a positive reformer who could have saved the Tsarist autocracy.
However, against this view is that of the ‘pessimists’ who argue that little real progress was made either politically or economically. Stolypin’s agricultural reforms still left poverty-stricken peasants and a greater number of industrial workers in the cities, both factors likely to contribute to instability. This position is often taken by Soviet and Marxist historians, who argue that any attempt to rescue Tsarism was doomed to failure, as revolution was the only possible outcome to the social and economic forces at work in early twentieth-century Russia.

Led by Lenin