...Topic – Russia : Assignment Question – Evaluate Petr Stolypin’s Reforms P.A. Stolypin was a pivotal political figure in the 1906-11 period. He became Minister of Internal Affairs in Russia from the spring of 1906, after the revolution of 1905. He combined this position with Russian Premier (Prime Minister) from 23rd July 1906 until his assassination in September 1911. Peter Waldron claims that after the "near downfall of the tsarist regime in 1905" Stolypin's reforms could "have changed the face of politics and society, yet they left the unreformed autocracy to face the onslaught of the First World War and it's attendant social and economic strains". Despite the latter, it seems erroneous to attribute total failure to Stolypin's reforms. After the devastating actions of Bloody Sunday in 1905, the Tsar Nicholas II had been given two choices, which was to repress or reform. To stay in control, he had chose to reform, as he thought that he could control the situation by creating useful reforms. The pressure of the revolution on the autocracy made the Tsar take drastic political action to appease the revolting classes. He had started of with the October Manifesto, a legislation which consisted of a number of points of reform drawn up under Weete, promising the people Civil liberties, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of assembly, and the promise that no laws were to be introduced without the agreement of the Duma. However, it was not necessary that the Duma should introduce legislation...
Words: 2231 - Pages: 9
...which took different approaches to the way they ran. The first Duma lasted only 72 days due to the hostility it portrayed against the Tsar and conflict amongst its members. The second Duma was even worse, it was known as ‘the Duma of national anger’ and throughout its power it held boycotts and attacks resulting in only a 3 month ruling. Stolypin changed the way elections for the Duma ran during for the third Duma and it began to run better with the government. The fourth Duma was interrupted by the First World War but lasted the duration. Although Russia was changing politically and the people were gaining national representation Nicolas II was still against this unautocratic way of running the country hence his introduction of the Fundamental law which meant any final decisions were down to the Tsar. This political changes from 1906-1917 were the start of power to the people although whilst the Tsar was still in power it meant a real parliamentary aid in governing was still a while off. Economic agriculture paragraph Stolypin thought the key to reforming Russia was through agriculture and using their resources to transform Russia’s economy. Stolypin went about changing the way agriculture was run in Russia by releasing peasants from their ‘Mir’ and building...
Words: 503 - Pages: 3
...Asses the significance of the Russian Revolution of 1905 on Government and Culture The significance of the Russian Revolution of 1905 had a dramatic affect on Government and culture.The Russian Revolution of 1905 forced Tsar Nicholas 2 to make radical changes to the way the Government was concerned, and is arguably the end of the autocracy. The Tsar had made concessions on allowing people the freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of press. He also aloud a creation of a state Duma (Parliament) and that no law could be made without going through the Duma, and also the further development of universal franchise. This was all decided in the October Manifesto. These controls were mainly aimed for the Government side of things. The significance of the revolution had on culture was also a vast improvement than before. Education was now viewed as an important state action, and the fact that the Tsar no longer had absolute control of his subjects lives. Adding to this, the way the Russian Jews were treated and their behavior did also change due to the affects of the Revolution of 1905. Although the Tsar had made many concessions on his power control, he still had vast amounts of power in controlling the Russian Empire. He still had the power to dissolve Duma’s and the secret police was still a vastly strong force within the Empire. However the effects of the Russian Revolution of 1905 had a great impact on Government and on culture of the empire when compared to the way...
Words: 2270 - Pages: 10
...Arguably peasants working conditions did change however to a limited extent from 1855 to 1964. This was due to government reforms during tsarist Russia that had significant effects on peasants such as Stolypin and Alexander’s reforms as this was first steps taken to improve peasantry. However their freedom, transportation and the right to own land was very limited, redemption payments were almost impossible and they were still bound to the Mir. Similar to the communist era under Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev from 1917 peasant working conditions did change as Lenin introduced the new economic policy that improved peasant working conditions financially, but war communism did not benefit the peasants at all, agriculture was very low and caused a huge feminine what effected work life. When Stalin came to power 1924 there was huge transformation in peasant working conditions due to the industrialisation of Russia where machinery and agriculture increased however peasants were practically treated as slave labour during the five-year plans. Khrushchev also changed peasant-working lives as peasants became freer after Stalin’s death, for example they were paid more for grain and the removal of the MTS in 1958 allowed farmers to buy their own machinery. Overall change was very limited in peasant working conditions until 1950’s as the majority of the population were no longer peasants, machinery and new methods of faming became advanced and those who were peasants, they started to get paid...
Words: 2058 - Pages: 9
...Jessica Genockey DATE \@ "dddd, d MMMM y" Wednesday, 29 October 2014 How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall? Tsar Nicholas was to a great extent responsible for his own downfall, the main factor being his decision to take over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during World War One. Russia was economically and socially ill-prepared for war and the effects and the outcome of the war had a devastating impact upon the Russian people. There had been a continual build-up of discontent towards the Tsar as a result of Russia’s failure in the Russo-Japanese War, the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre and the failure of the Duma. However, it was World War One that was the ultimate factor in which the people acted upon their discontent toward the Tsar. Nicholas Romanov was appointed the Tsar of Russia in 1894 after the premature death of his father, Alexander III. Nicholas was thrust into being the Tsar of Russia at an extremely fast pace and was faced with the task of modernising the biggest country in the world to keep pace with the other super powers in the world such as Germany, Britain and the United States. Nicholas did not have the best of relationships with the people of Russia. Russia’s defeats in the Russo-Japanese war damaged the Tsar’s relationship with the people of Russia. ‘Bloody Sunday’ and the 1905 Revolution which followed, the failure of the Dumas, and the relationship that Rasputin had with the Tsar and Tsarina all led to a deteriorating relationship...
Words: 2790 - Pages: 12
...of this, the electoral system was weighed in favour of the wealthy and those who supported the tsar. The tsar made a conscious decision to make sure that the third and fourth dumas were less openly obstructive and supportive of the tsar as they were keen to project an image of Russia as a democratic nation. This show’s why the 1905 revolution failed because the October Manifesto was not effective enough to cause an effective revolution Another main reason why the 1905 revolution failed was because of the Tsarist Government. They were highly effective in dispersing the revolution, whilst still upholding the tsar’s absolute right to rule. Ministers, Witte and Stolypin shared similar economic policies and had the same objective of preserving the Tsarist regime. There is a strong case for suggesting that Stolypin and Witte were the last hope for Tsar; however in the end they both made tactical errors. They were blamed for creating the economic problems in Russia and this is...
Words: 746 - Pages: 3
...Why was the Romanov Dynasty overthrown in February 1917? The Romanovs were a family that had ruled over Russia in complete autocratic fashion for over 300 years, however in February 1917, Nicholas II, the current Tsar, abdicated, and his brother refused the thrown. I think that it was a multitude of different factors that truly brought the Romanov Dynasty to an end, however, in my opinion the factor that truly encompassed all other factors into one fatal blow for the dynasty of his family, was the poor decision-making, stubbornness and ultimately the failures of Nicholas II as Tsar. The other factors and causes of the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty were the alienation that the Tsar created towards almost every sector of society, including the Duma, and the growing opposition that this resulted in, the First World War and its influences on society, and the also the large levels of instability that arose in the government around this time. Firstly, an important factor that must be discussed was the instable government in Russia at this point. Over the period from 1915 to 1916, Russia had seen 6 Ministers of Defence and 6 Interior Ministers. This highlights a number of different major issues in Russia at this point. Firstly it showed a fundamental lack of trust between the Tsar and his ministers. This could be taken further to show that therefore the Russian people may see the Tsar as incapable of change and fundamentally untrusting of politicians, as can be seen by his name-calling...
Words: 2692 - Pages: 11
...most of Europe and America had experienced a mass cultural movement of emerging liberal ideas and reasoning, known as the 'Age of Reason' or 'The Enlightenment'. However this was not the case as the Russian regime under the Tsar had collapsed towards the end of the first World War when he was forced to abdicate from the throne; some would argue that it was inevitable due to the unpopular attitudes towards the social and economic conditions which left the majority of the population in severe poverty. Others may disagree with this inevitability due to such events that could not directly blame the Tsar such as 'Bloody Sunday' in 1905, the state that Russia had been left in by, Alexander III and most notably the role of Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin. The focus of analysis will be to explore key leaders/figures and events, and to create a judgement to which degree the Russian regime was strong or stable (or both) on the eve of World War One. The strength and stability of a regime simply refers to whether an existing system is powerful,effective and difficult to remove and is truly secure/consolidated within that society with little/no disruption of that regime. It is essential to take in to account and consider the events prior to the First World...
Words: 1724 - Pages: 7
...stability, or it could mean there was a lack of activities to be done, and the increased population meant there were more mouths to feed. There are many factors that contribute to how stable Russia was at this time. Economically, Russia seemed more unstable: eighty percent of the population were peasant farmers and the gap between the rich and poor was only increasing, making Russia even more unstable than it already was. Autocracy continued to repress the poor and the rich continued to hold most of the country’s finances. The poor struggled to become economically active, the rich fought to keep things the way they were during this time period. Stolypin tried to help the peasants by introducing land reforms – these meant that peasant’s owned the land and had more of an incentive to maintain and produce from it. However Stolypin was not supported in this and a lot of the peasants believed in the commune, they didn’t want privatisation for social and economic reasons. There was a massive pressure on the land and due to the fact that there was no unrest at this time indicates that the stability had increased, nonetheless there was huge land hunger due to the increased population – it had increased by twenty one percent between 1900 and 1910, adding approximately thirty million people to the population, this created a surplus of food, and perhaps this surplus of food was what provoked the exceptional harvests between 1909 and 1913 and agriculture was more efficient . Alone the...
Words: 1136 - Pages: 5
...From the beginning, Nicholas wasn’t fond of his prime minister; Stolypin accepted the end of autocracy and was willing to work with the Duma, but he couldn’t do either. Instead, Nicholas II avoided contact with the Duma politicians as much as possible and ruled by decree, using a loophole in the Fundamental Laws to “issue laws when the Duma was not in session.” After Stolypin’s death in 1911, Nicholas II reverted back to using the military and bureaucratic form to govern Russia, largely ignoring the reforms he made following the Russian Revolution of 1905, as he was “not at heart a reformer.” Although before his death Nicholas II was able to self-select the members of the Duma, Nicholas II bypassed the government body altogether...
Words: 1467 - Pages: 6
...How far do you agree that the March Revolution of 1917 was due to the failures of Nicholas 2? The March Revolution of 1917 brought autocracy in Russia to an end, when ministers of the last Duma forced the Tsar Nicholas 2 to abdicate. The Revolution happened due to the Nicholas's 2 failures due his reign, however there was a number of problems which appeared before Nicholas 2 or happened without the will of Nicholas 2. When Nicholas 2 came to power in 1894, his main objective was to keep all power in his hand, in another words, Nicholas wanted to remain as an autocrat and be the only ruler of Russia. On the other hand, Nicholas 2 wasn't as reactionary as his father, because Nicholas was not prepared to be extreme in dealing with the social and political unrest in the same manner as his father. His weak leadership led to the policies which after worked against the Tsar. The first social reform was done by Nicholas 2 in 1897. It was reform which limited the working to 11,5 hours from Monday to Friday and to 10 hours on Saturday. However, these policy didn't change the attitude of workers against the Tsarist regime, because people still wanted more liberal social system and a new government which Nicholas was not intend to change. This unhappiness caused by the lack of changes or reforms led to the strike in Saint Petersburg by factory workers who were led by Father Gapon in 1905. The strike finished really dramatically, because a lot demonstrators were killed by...
Words: 1372 - Pages: 6
...Introduction In the past hundred years Russian history has been littered with Revolutions, from the 1905 Revolution to the fall of Communism in 1991. Throughout this time Tsars, Communists and Democrats have exercised different systems of government in order to stay in power or gain power by offering huge economic reforms in order to appease the masses or to keep most important sectors of society prosperous and content. Although historians would argue that in many of these cases change occurred for political reasons, it is equally as easy to argue, if not more so, that at the heart of every issue that caused or had the potential to cause revolution were underlying economic motives, either for the common man or the ruling elite. This on-going theme of economic concessions can be seen at various points throughout the past hundred years and proved a key factor to the longevity of the regimes in charge. The first such example of this post-1900 occurred after the 1905 Revolution. Despite The October Manifesto in 1905 which granted political freedoms, little of which benefitted the peasantry, It was Stolypin’s reforms as Prime Minister for Nicholas II that achieved most after the 1905 revolution, quelling the peasant threat that had emerged prior to the revolution and afterwards, much more so than the introduction of the Dumas - representative assemblies granted in the October Manifesto. Similarly Lenin’s New Economic Plan dealt with the ever increasing militant peasantry...
Words: 3234 - Pages: 13
...AS Level History Russia 1855 – 1917 Alternative F Revision Guide Contents 1. Alexander II 2. Alexander III 3. Nicholas II 4. Stability of the Tsarist Regime 1905 - 14 5. Political Opposition 6. February / March Revolution 1917 7. October Revolution 1917 Tsar Alexander II To what extent does Tsar Alexander II deserve to be viewed as the Tsar Liberator? Think BALANCE!! Alexander II 1855-81 ▪ Came to the throne during the Crimean War (1855) ▪ Initiated a wide range of reforms (social, economic, administrative and legal) ▪ Earned the title ‘Liberator’ for giving freedom to the peasants BUT did not wish to share political power ▪ Assassinated by the People’s Will in 1881 Answering the key question |Introduction |Use this chart to answer any question on Alex II | | |All questions (whether relating to ‘Liberator’ or not) will require BALANCE | | |Precision of knowledge – “Detail is King!” | | |Yes |No | |Emancipation |Emancipation Committees set up |Redemption Payments...
Words: 7115 - Pages: 29
...History Notes Topics * Alexander II (1855-81): emancipation of the serfs; military, legal, educational, local government reforms; later reaction * policies of Alexander III (1881-94) and Nicholas II (1895-1917): backwardness and attempts at modernization nature of tsardom growth of opposition movements * significance of the Russo Japanese water: 1906 revolutions; Stolypin and the duma; the impact of the first world war (1914-18) on Russia * 1917 Revolutions: February/ March revolutions; provisional government and Dual power (soviets): October/November Bolshevik Revolution; Lenin and Trotsky * Lenin’s Russia (1917-24): consolidation of new soviet state; civil war; War communism; NEP; terror and coercion; Foreign relations * * Gorbachev and His aims/Policies (glasnost And perestroika) and (1931-1991) consequences of the soviet state * consequences of Gorbachev’s policies for Eastern European; reform movements: Poland- the role of solidarity; Czechoslovakia- the velvet revolution; fall of the Berlin wall * china: Mao (1935-1976) Conditions that produced authoritarian and single party states * emergence of leaders: aims, ideology, support * methods of force and legal used to establish authoritarian * form of government ideology establishment * ...
Words: 780 - Pages: 4
...History Essay: How far was there political and economic reform during the period 1881-1914? (30 Marks) The years in Russia between 1881 and 1914 were a time of great instability and unrest. Political assassinations were common place and military defeat was normal. Furthermore, Russia was an economically backward country – its industry was based solely around agriculture which itself was outdated and not modern. Russia wanted to become a great power like Britain, to do this it would have to be able to deal with these problems and would be essential for the survival of the Tsarist system. In 1881 Russia was a very diverse country, there were many different cultures and languages spoken and 80% of the population were peasants. Alexander III unexpectedly came to the throne in 1881 on the assassination of Alexander II. Alexander III was under no illusion that he could suffer the same fate as his father. He introduced repression of opponents as the corner stone of his reign. Alexander had three main beliefs: Repression of opponents, undoing the reforms of his father and to restore Russia’s position internationally and also her national identity, which he believed had been diluted throughout the 19th century. These were labelled ‘Russification’ and they came into being immediately he was crowned tsar in 1881. The primary aspect of Russification was to rid Russia of western ideas that Alexander III believed had weakened the nation and reduced its national identity. So, there was some...
Words: 997 - Pages: 4
