Russian Geography• 8 million sq miles: 2 x size Europe and 1/6th world surface • Mainly rural – 11:1 village to town ratio• Natural resources: timber, coal, oil, gold, precious minerals/metals• Most of Russia inhospitable• North and East had many barren lands • Beyond the Ural Mountains, Russia was a wild place with frontier settlements.• Transport and communication across the empire poor and difficult• ¾ population lived within European Russia (west of Urals) – this is on less than ¼ of the total land mass!

Nationalities• 130 million population - Less than ½ population of the empire were Russian• Nationalities: Romanian, Polish, Finns, Jews, Georgians etc.• Religions: Slav/Orthodox (state religion), Muslim, Catholic, Jewish• Each had own customs, culture, language and sometimes religion• Many resented Russian control (Tsar’s often introduced policies which discriminated against nationalities)

Towns and cities• St Petersburg capital• The Tsar and his Ministers ruled the country from there. (pop. 500,000 = size of Liverpool’s, London was 3.5 million!)• Towns were mainly small market centres or admin centres • Middle class and intelligentsia almost non-existent

Agriculture• Only 25% of Russia was really good farmland. • Most of this was in the South and West of the country, especially in the Ukraine, the “Bread basket” of Russia.• The rest of Russia was either desert, arctic tundra, or taiga (woods).• 85% or 4 out of 5 Russians were peasants. They had a hard life and there was often starvation and disease.

Peasants Peasants lived on mirs (communes) and used a strip method of farming on their allotted strip using wooden tools, and lived primitive

lifestyles. They were generally illiterate, deeply religious, superstitious and hostile to change Peasants were often in debt to their landlords, the nobles. Nobles made up 10% of the population but owned almost 75% of the land. If peasants protested (for example during times of famine), the Tsar would use his feared Cossack soldiers against them.

Middle Class And Intelligentsia• Based in towns and cities• Almost non-existent class• Generally more educated • Doctors, lawyers, teachers

Nobility• 10% population yet owned 75%• Held positions in government, army, provincial governors or administration• Not obliged to obey Tsar but generally did• Landowners so controlled the mir’s

AUTOCRACY IN ACTION (TOP-DOWN SYSTEM)

Emperor and autocrat.He alone had the power to rule.God on earth.Russia was his private land, the people

Criticisms and reactions• Enlightenment and western = some challenged autocracy ideas favouring western systems.• Slavophiles believed Russia should follow its unique, superior path based on peasantry and church• Intellectuals wanted end to serfdom and called for rule of law• Decembrists encouraged Tsar Nicholas I (1825-55) to reject ideas for a representative assembly. Wanted repression and rejection of west

ideas using Third Section to crack down

Nicholas I• Rejected Alexander I’s (1801-25) earlier thoughts of a representative assembly• Uprising by the Decembrists 1825 led to repressive nature of his reign and attempt to distance Russia from Europe• ‘Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationalism’• Reign culminated in military defeat in the Crimea

Crimean WarWhy get involved?• Russian confidence• Expand and develop their empire• Russian plans for expansion in the Turkish (Ottoman) controlled Balkan area• 1849 – 1850, Tsar Nicholas I had helped to restore Austrian power/status quo in Europe. Assumption Austria would help Russia gain

influence over Ottoman Empire.• 1853 Napoleon French made moves on Holy Land area and so Russians demanded the right to protect Christians there,• Turks rejected this and war broke out.• Britain and France helped defend Ottoman empire (concerned about Russian ambitions) by attacking the Crimean peninsula, close to the

Russian naval base at Sebastopol

Impact of war: International humiliation and distancing from Europe: Showed Russia that it was backward and unable to hold its own against a modern, well equipped country leading to intelligentsia

questioning the state of Russian society Peasant uprisings in Russia: Disrupted trade in the Black Sea area: Reduction of Russia’s influence in the Black Sea area Highlighted Russia’s military inadequacies: some captured Russian weapons were almost 100 years old and incredibly inferior to GB’s Led to questioning of the use of serf conscripts in the army: Highlighted Russia’s administrative inadequacies: Russian intelligentsia and enlightened officials began to question state of society: Highlighted Russia’s poor infrastructure (communications and transport): Growth of political groups/parties and salons:

Emperor and autocrat.He alone had the power to rule.God on earth.Russia was his private land, the people

Orthodox Church.Russia deeply religiousPatriach of Moscow worked with the Tsar and Over-Procurator was appointed by the Tsar to oversee church affairs.Bishops subject to Tsarist control over appointments, religious education and finances

AdvisorsChosen by Tsar and could not act without Tsar’s approval.Made up of nobles.

NobilityTsar needed them for support.Many did support as Provincial Governors. Used to control peasants on the mir. Tsar sometimes appointed committees but rarely listened to them

BureaucracyPaid nobles. Corrupt and incompetent. Orders passed from centre to governors of the 50 provinces. One way system - no ideas flowed up to the Tsar

Army1.5 million conscripted serfs – 25 years forced service.45% gov expenditure.Higher posts given to nobles who bought positions. Used for wars and internal uprisings.

Police StateNo freedom of speech, travel abroad or press. Censorship in place.‘Third Section’ kept surveillance.Meetings and strikes forbidden.Anti-Tsarist behaviour = arrest or exile

February 1855, Nicholas dies of pneumonia. His son, Alexander II, had to learn lessons from the manner of the defeat, so he begins to reform Russia.

Alexander II (1855-81)

• Inherited defeat in Crimea• Inherited need to modernise Russia• Difficult balancing act – modernise economy and reform Russia and avoid these developments from threatening the bedrock of Russian

politics: autocracy.• Believed necessary to conserve autocracy (political stability) but also reform aspects of economy to bring about modernisation Inheritance• International (verge of defeat in Crimea, Isolated in Europe, Weak, militarily and economically inferior)• Politics (Intact autocracy, no national assembly, repression of all Western influence political thinking)• Social and economic policy (Nicholas I’s reign limited social and economic progress, Serfdom route of Russia’s increasing relative

backwardness)Aims and objectives• Not ‘liberal’ but oversaw period of liberal reforms. Committed to: Maintaining autocracy and ‘God given’ duties Enhance and restore power and prestige of Russia Russia needed to change via limited freedoms and reform Stimulate more dynamic economy without altering political framework

Why did Alexander II embark on a series of reforms when he came to power in 1855?

Impact and problems of the Crimean War. War had humiliated Russia internationally and it was necessary to modernise Russia (economy and army) in order to be able to embark on a successful foreign policy campaign.

Growth of peasant uprisings (as seen as a result of the effects of the Crimean War as seen with 300 uprisings, murders of bailiffs and landowners, 1858 Estonia uprising). Necessary to examine and re-think Russia’s social condition in order to prevent further discontent.

Growing political thought amongst some Russian intelligentsia and enlightened officials who began to raise questions about the state of Russian society (e.g. Serf conscripts) and the impact that this outdated social structure had upon Russia’ success/progress both at home and abroad. Growth of salons and the ‘Party of Progress’ as examples = could lead to breeding undercurrents of disloyalty.

Desire to develop Russia’s economic potential. Russia had a vast amount of natural resources and population which could be utilised more effectively if the infrastructure and social system was reformed.

Alexander II’s own more enlightened views which were shaped by his experiences previous to becoming Tsar. More liberal than Nicholas I. Despite wanting to maintain the autocracy, he realised the necessity of the need to grant limited freedoms and reforms in order for Russia to enhance their power and restore their dignity. He realised serfdom was an obstacle to economic modernisation and progress.

Inability to maintain such repressive methods in the long term. Whilst the police state and use of the Third Section had helped to maintain controls during Nicholas I’s reign, Alexander II realised that for all the spies and repression, the new wave of social and political thought could not be capped and neither could the level of repression be maintained. Best to instigate change top-down than be forced later to change bottom-up which would make you look weak.

Economic considerations – Serfdom was a handicap to Russia’s industrialisation and economic modernisation as there was no incentive for peasants to innovate or become more productive. This system was ineffective for landowners and the nobility who were experiencing falling incomes and needed to take out mortgages. If the nobles suffered, then they may turn on the Tsar, and the tsar needed them for support. Furthermore, the shortcomings of serfdom meant that the growing population’s needs were not met and many starved with recurrent famines.

Pressure from moral thinkers and intellectuals such as the Nihilists and the intelligentsia (Tolstoy, Turgenev, Dostoevsky) argued the need to change Russian society. These groups were able to publish literature such as Fathers and Sons and in the 1860’s there was some limited popularity of these groups.

Emancipation of Serfs“Serfdom is a powder keg under the state” Benckendorff (Head of the Third Section, Russia’s internal espionage service)

Earlier attempts:

Alexander I Obstacle 1: Selling land to peasants did not work

1803 Legal for landowners to sell land to their peasants

Only 100,000 bought freedom before 1855 1816-19: Estonia, Livonia and Kurland

abolished serfdom but did not grant land to peasants

Nicholas IObstacle 2: Economic situation of peasants meant they couldn’t afford to purchase freedom or land

‘evil palpable to all’ (Nicholas I) Convened 10 committees - little change 1842: Law of Obligated Peasants allowed landlords

to negotiate fixed agreements on land-holding and obligations in contract, but also freed landlords from any obligations to support such peasants in hard times = Only 27,000 had become obligated by 1858

1847 decree allowed serfs to purchase freedom and land if an estate was sold at public auction but only 964 were able to take advantage of this.

Obstacle 3: The Crimean War Wanted broader scale of serf reforms but delay after Crimean war led to tensions

When Alexander II comes to power he therefore: 1858-60 begins tour of pro-emancipation speeches countrywide and talked of a process of ‘national renewal’ and was

encouraged by warm welcome from peasants

**MASSIVE BREAK FROM TRADITIONAL RULING METHODS**Obstacle 4: Reaction from the Landowners• Accepted need for change, but it would have to advantageous to them (retain economic and judicial control of serfs)Obstacle 5: Reactions of the Conservatives• Peasant uprisings provided an argument that serfs must be restrained for fear that increasing serf freedom would lead to a tidal wave of

reform which would destroy Tsarist autocracyObstacle 6: Provincial committee disagreement• They could not agree. Some sent ‘minority’ and ‘majority’ reports Obstacle 7: Reaction from the nobles• A need to ensure their support meant that negotiations dragged on and some vested interests stood out against change

1856: asked group of nobles for ideas but they failed to respond. 1857 secret committee of leading officials convened. Slow progress despite Grand Duke Constantine acting as president at

points• Meant process was not democratic as shown by tightening of censorship lawsObstacle 8: delays and length of process• Commission of 38 (Milyutin) give job of drawing up measures but there was dissension within the group.• October 1860 measure drawn up but took until Feb 1861 to be proclaimed as law and did not come into force until Lent

What was the emancipation ukase?• Serfs released from ties to landowners and became free men – free to marry, own property, set up businesses • Each serf family were entitled to keep its cottage and an allotment (land) depending on size • Landlords to receive compensation for the lass of land from the government (government bonds)• peasants were required to pay ‘redemption payments’ (form of direct compensation) to the government for the land they had acquired. 49

annual payments and 6% interest charge. • Freed serfs were to remain within their peasant commune (mir) until all redemption payments had been made. Mir distributed allotments,

controlled farming patterns • Peasants to continue to pay Obrok/labour service for 2 years before becoming freemen• Landowners retain ownership of areas which had been farmed for himself and would be worked by hired labour (usually ex-serfs)• Volosts – local admin areas of up to 3000 people – were established in villages to supervise mirs.

Beneficiaries of emancipation:• KULAKS - Peasants who did well out of land allocations (those astute enough to buy up extra land from their less fortunate neighbours).

They increased the size of their estates and produced surplus grain to sell for export.• LANDOWNERS – some found the compensation offered, let them get out of debt and invest in industrial enterprises.

• INDUSTRY - Decline of labour service in serfs contributed to the growth of a money based economy and encouraged enterprise. Stimulated to a limited degree the growth of: railways, banking, industry, cities. Large numbers of passports, allowing peasants to leave the mirs, were issued after 1861, which helped the industrial labour supply.

Losers of emancipation: PEASANTS - Many peasants resented redemption fees for land that had been in their families for generations. Some granted less land

than before or were asked to pay higher dues. Nobility ensured they got the best land and peasants paid inflated prices for the worst land. Peasants fell into debt and were forced to sell out to the Kulaks (resentment resulted) Landless serfs became labourers in search of wages, as did personal serfs (who similarly had no land) – this meant little change occurred in practice.

LANDOWNERS - Spate of bankruptcies as profits expected from the act failed to materialise. INDUSTRY - High redemption payments reduced the purchasing power of peasants and so they couldn’t buy new consumer goods which

industry needed them to do. Freedom to travel/move was still dictated by the mir and was restricted often. This negatively affected the development of industry, which requires a mobile workforce!

Alexander II’s other reforms

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: Emancipation was not an unqualified success. Both peasants and landowners felt their interests had not been fully mer, although at least one intention of the act – a greater drive towards economic modernisation – had been met. As so often happens there were winners and losers

AIMS OF REFORM REFORMS TAKEN STRENGTHS(consider impact on society)

WEAKNESSES(consider impact on society)

EMANCIPATION

• Break serfdom whilst minimising social, economic and political disruption that would ensue

• Ensure emancipation was financially and politically affordable.

• Modernise Russia and make it more efficient

• Russia was an anomaly in Europe • transformation of Russian serfs into

individual peasant landowners• ‘The Bell’ by Herzen

• Editing commission draw n up in 1859 by Rostovstev à Count Panin

• Emancipation statutes 1861 – serfs to be given personal freedom in principle but had to remain serfs for two years while charters were drawn up

• Serfs to remain ‘temporarily obligated’• Redemption dues over 49 years at 6%

• Opened the door to modernisation of Russia – first stage of reforms

• Monumental reform appreciated by all classes of Russians

• Emancipating the serfs, the tsarist regime was embracing social and economic modernisation

• Retrogressive as well as progressive• Strengthening of the village commune

(mir) – perpetuation of traditional farming techniques and further barrier to transformation of Russian serfs into individual peasant landowners

• Disorder at Bezdna • Gentry tried to push for greater political

influence (representative assembly) – rejected

• Wave of student protest n response• Needed cooperation of landowning

classes• Had to be self financing due to state

finances

JUDICIARY

• Nicholas I had founded a legal system.• codified the laws of Russia to make

them uniform.• Alexander now focused on reforming

the Judiciary.

• Based partly on the British and French model – accusatorial system.

• Independence of Judges • Open trials printed word for word in the

Russian Courier.• Oral questioning in front of jury of peers with

barristers. • Equality of all classes in the eyes of the law.

• Most forward looking of all his reforms• Essentially intact until 1917• Russians had, for the first time, the

possibility of a fair trial• Crucial step in the evolution of a civil society• Autocracy was prepared to concede a basic

civil liberty – e.g. Zasulich 1878• Independence and competence of system

• The peasants were excluded from this fair trial system.

• They had to make do with local courts with government appointed justices of the peace.

• But the law of 1864 revolutionised Russia’s legal system.

LOCAL

GOV

• As emancipation had now taken place, a vacuum now existed.

• Emancipation - the maintenance of roads and bridges, providing limited education and medical care, was the responsibility of the Serf owners = new structure had to be devised.

• The new assemblies known as zemstva were a concession to the gentry(gave them local political power)

• The zemstva operated a two tier system. District zemstva (uezd) and the higher provincial zemstva, (guberniya).

• The vote was heavily weighted towards the gentry (42% of the seats in the lower tier and 74% of the upper)

• The peasants had 38% and 10.5%.• 1870 : zemstva structure extended to the

towns were the elected bodies were called dumy, (duma singular).

• The eight largest cities were given dumy equal to provincial zemstva.

• Smaller cities were given dumy equal to district zemstva.

• It implied that in all affairs, Russia could now move away from autocracy

• Proper basis of government for the first time• Cheap• Opened up evolutionary development – taken

in context of Russia this was a big step forward

• Local Zemstvo officials had to engage in Russia’s real social problems

• By 1917, a cradle of new generation of more public spirited officials

• Another stage in the evolution of a ‘civil society’

• These were in no way democratic.• The vote was heavily weighted towards

the gentry. • They had 42% of the seats in the lower

tier and 74% of the upper.• The peasants had 38% and 10.5%.• Not on par with other Western countries• Should have taken it further – national

assembly

ARMY

• Emancipation = army recruitment needed changing

• Compete with other Western countries and keep up with their modernisation

• Avoid repeats of events like the Crimean War

• Improve organisation, recruitment and education

• 1862 and 1874, Militutin reformed the army along the Prussian model.

• Professional military service reduced to 15 years.

• higher educated people reduced further• These rules applied to all classes of society.• Restructured the army – empire divided into

15 districts to make mobilisation easier.

• Due to these reforms the army became more civilised. eg Recruits no longer had to have their hair shaved off when called up.

• It was an exercise in social as well as military reform.

• Recruits could now see light at the end of the tunnel, and a return to their village and families.

• People could still be represented by substitutes and officers remained heavily aristocratic.

• The army was still based on peasant conscripts so that high levels of illiteracy amongst the recruits reduced the effectiveness of training. Evident in the wars fought by Russia in the later

ALEXANDER II’S REFORMS - A SUMMARY

• Modernised training • Education for officers was changed to focus

on general education

• He would also give a lot back to his local community.

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries e.g. humiliating defeat by Japan 1904-5 and Germany 1914-17.

• Problems of supply and provisioning as well as leadership remained.

EDUCATION

• Military education needed to work in tandem with civilian educational reform

• modernise state to survive and prosper in a competitive European environment

• Role of Russia’s universities – scrapping of entry quotas and new financial support meant increases in non-gentry backgrounds àradicalism = government on Conservative footing

• Numbers and courses restricted but then a change of course was needed

• More literate and numerate peasantry à better able to operate as private farmers

• Universities freed from former restrictions (1863)

• Educational statutes (1864)1. First to regulate and expand elementary

schools2. Increase the number of secondary

schools and introduce intermediate school

• More universal to all social classes

• Paved the way for evolutionary change• Education began to become more universal

• Statute put too much emphasis on the dangers of exposing the lower classes to subversive influences through schooling (closing of Sunday Schools)

• Upper sections of Russia’s educational establishment were vulnerable to seductive subversive western ideas

CHURCH

• Bellisustin (1858) wrote an exposé of the poverty of the clergy in rural areas.

• This led to the minister for Internal Affairs, Valuev to set up 1862 Ecclesiastical Committee was charged with the overhaul of the Church.

• The climate of uncertainty after Emancipation made it crucial that the church did manage to engender loyalty in the peasants.

• 1862 Ecclesiastical Committee was charged with the overhaul of the Church.

• However, the slow style of Russian bureaucracy meant that no concrete reforms were settled on until 1867- 69.

• By this time the political winds had shifted, and Dimitrii Tolstoy, a highly conservative man, had political influence.

• The reforms made it easier for energetic and talented priests to rise up within the church.

• However, the lower clergy still were not helped.

• General conditions of church buildings and infrastructure was not improved either.

• Once again it seems that Alexander’s advisors have changed his mind in the knick of time.

Was 1866 a turning point?

April 4th 1866: attempted assassination of Tsar by Karakozov Arguments Tsar became more reactionary as a result Withdrawal of Alexander II - Assassination attempt – radicals had unwittingly turned one of the more

liberal Tsars towards repression amidst arguments that change had unsettled Russia, impact of eldest son’s death and new marriage in 1880 mentally and physically distanced him from the reforming elements within his family e.g. Duke Constantine

Alex grew more aloof and became less inclined to resist those who urged for a more repressive, harsher line: shown by listening to Conservative ministers, Churchmen, and Alexander III (son and heir to throne)

Reaction 1: Repression of education

Conservatives and Church argued:• If Western liberal ideas were to be eradicated • If criticism against the autocracy was to be stemmed• If autocracy was to be maintained

Then educational reforms would have to be redressed under Tolstoy’s conservative, Orthodox Christian authority – the educated populace were seen as a rebellious group that needed to be contained.

• Zemstva’s powers over education reduced• Church restored to position of prominence in rural schools• Higher schools to follow classical education • University progression limited – traditional gymnazii students only whilst those at technical modern were protected from ‘corrupting’ influence of

universities by going to higher technical institutions• Government control was extended over universities as well – curriculum, clamping down on student organisations, vetoing appointments to university

positions

Reaction 2: Law and order• Strengthening of police and Third Section to root out subversion (Shuvalov)• Judicial system made examples of those accused of political agitation (Pahlen)• Could be tracked down and recalled in other countries e.g. Switzerland, Germany • Strengthening of police and Third Section to root out subversion (Shuvalov)• Open ‘show’ trials which the public could witness (intention to deter them from crime)• Those who were involved in revolutionary populist activity, however this backfired:

Trial of 50 Trial of 193 – 153 were acquitted and others received light sentences from sympathetic jury. Press reported outcomes This gave revolutionaries publicity Government therefore looked incompetent

= trials moved to military courts where cases were heard and sentences passed in secret.

Reaction 3: repression of ethnic minorities• Polish Rebellion 1863 – crushed in 1864 after fierce fighting. • Authorities became increasingly convinced that non-Russians were a danger to the empire• Harsh policies such as Russification found its roots in the times of Alexander II (although not official policy) which meant by the reign of Alexander III a

more hostile attitude to Poles, Finns, Jews and other ethnic minorities became increasingly repression• This led to a growth of discontented intellectuals within Russia including opposition with a large student input

Condition of Russia by 1881

Late 1870’s proved a time of political crisis in Russia:• Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 – delayed victory• poor harvest resulting in famine• industrial recession• Searches and arrests were stepped up• Governor-generals established with emergency powers to prosecute opponents in military courts and exile offenders• 1879-1880 there were further assassination attempts

= Alexander set up a commission under General Melikov to investigate how best to reduce revolutionary activityMelikov’s immediate ministerial changes and concessions included:

• Relaxation of censorship• Release of political prisoners

Bromley argues that:

‘ 1866 represented only one of many changes in direction in the reign of Alexander II. It acquired extra significance because it was the first time in the reform era that ideological radicalism made a direct impact on the tsar in person, and it occurred at a time when the principal reforms were in place and further reform was hard to justify’

• Removal of salt-tax• Lifting of restrictions on the actions of the zemstva • Third Section abolished – powers were transfered to the police and a special section known as the Okhrana was established (soon became feared

and repressiveLoris-Melikov’s “Constitution”

• Became known as ‘Loris-Melikov’s Constitution’ although it was not really a constitution for the running of the state at all• Melikov’s Report 1880 designed to meet the demands of the zemstva for an extension of representative government at national level.• Inclusion of elected representatives of the nobility, zemstva and some town governments in the discussions of the drafts of some state decrees• Alexander II signed the report on March 13th 1881 and called for a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss the document.

The same day the Tsar was killed by a bomb

Why had opposition grown by 1881?

• Reforms in Education - the 1860’s had led to heated debate within universities.• Spread of ideas from the West - fuelled radical ideas

from the west: socialism and communism.• The combination of the two gave rise to the Radical Intelligentsia,

man and women dedicated to the idea of creating a fairer, more equal society in Russia.

• Disappointment with the outcomes of the reforms – e.g. Emancipation of the Serfs

• Desire to push for further change – e.g. Emancipation of the Serfs• Growth of willingness to use radical methods – e.g. Assassination

attempts upon Alexander II, Polish Riots 1863• Modernisation strategy saw the Tsarist regime strengthened which angered the radical intelligentsia• Reactionary measures post 1866 and inconsistencies angered opposition e.g. Censorship and the press

IntelligentsiaKey Beliefs:

• Determined to change outmoded and inhibiting Russian ways • Better society can only be built after the existing society has been changed (change existing system without complete overhaul) (work with the Tsar)

Attitudes towards the Tsar:• Did not necessarily want revolution, just change• Perhaps constitutional monarchy (favoured by zemstva)• Wanted Tsar to change and would be supportive of him if he was willing to instigate and oversee these reforms• Representative assembly

Key Influences:• followers of Western ideas (travelled abroad)

Support Base:• Literate and educated members of society• Small group due to relatively minor educated sector of society• Size and influence grew during 1870’s due to law reforms (growth of lawyers, persuasive and skilled), education (students and leacturers becoming

more aware about the condition of the state) and development of zemstva’s (forums for debate)Methods:

• Created forums of debate• Books and pamphlets• Wrote in the press

NihilismKey Beliefs:

• That a better society can only be built after the existing society had been utterly destroyed.• Society is currently split in two: Common people oppressed by landowners, merchants, gov officials, with the Tsar at the heart of it.• New society needed to be born – the only way to achieve this is revolution, “bloody and merciless revolution”• Reason and science - Nihilism saw no value in anything that could not be scientifically or mechanically explained.

Attitudes to Tsar:• Hostile to both the Tsar and the Orthodox Church

Support Base:• Younger generation of 1860’s

Did achieve aims by 1881:• Tiny but powerful• Smuggling of books into Russia inspired new revolutionaries e.g. Chernyshevsky’s what is to be done inspired Lenin

• Destruction of 2000 shops 1862 by young Russia group gained attention as did repressive measures taken as a result – heightened student idealism and determination

• Argued that although it did not achieve it’s primary aims it inspired later revolutionaries who brought changeDidn’t achieve aims:

• Did not achieve their aims of a peasant revolution nor bloody and merciless revolution • Hostility towards church was unlikely to win them any favour in gaining support of peasantry who were devoutly religious – meant they failed to attain

significant peasant support• Different ideas on what system should replace Tsarist – for example: Bakunin’s collective ownership versus Herzen’s socialism based upon mir

system• Fires did lead to some change via an investigation but this was only closing of Sunday schools

Key Influences:• followers of Western ideas (travelled abroad)• Socialist intellectual thinkers:

Bakunin: state crushes individual freedom and should be removed (anarchy) and that the peasant was superior and so collective ownership should replace the system

Herzen (The Bell): similarly the peasant should be at centre of a new social structure but new society should be based upon mir with a central governmental regime

Chernyshevsky (The Contemporary, What is to be done?): peasants at centre as revolutionary class Nachaev (Catechism of a Revolutionary): more extreme. Opponents of autocracy was must be merciless in their pursuit of revolution at the

sacrifice of love, friends and family Methods:

• Manifestos: ‘ Young Russia’ 1862– revolution is the only way forward • Books: The Bell, The Contemporary, Catechism of a Revolutionary• Fires: 1862 St Petersburg 2000 shops• Organisations: 1863 ‘The Organisation’ by Moscow university students

Marxism• Marxism is a doctrine that hinges on economic change.• It really wanted to see the development of industry• Contained a utopian vision. • It appealed to the Intelligentsia and young extreme revolutionaries• Main thinkers and key influences: Marx and Engels• Based upon Communist Manifesto (appeared in Russia in 1869) and Das Kapital (arrived 1872)• Saw society as a series of stages which needed to occur before communism could be achieved.• Aim was for a proletariat revolution which would see the industrial workers as the key to changing society• Once this stage had occurred, communism would then be the natural conclusion to the stages

Did achieve aims by 1881:• Attractive intellectually – recruitment of intelligentsia• Inspired later revolutionaries who brought communist revolution in the long term, just not by 1881 à revolutionary thinking began to take a more

definite form in Russia Didn’t achieve aims by 1881

• 1870 – message seemed largely irrelevant to a predominantly rural state with hardly any proletariat and even less bourgeoisie • Marxism limited to number of underground reading circles and societies, intelligentsia and uni students• In the short term, aims were not achieved by 1881 – Russia not ready for it!

PopulismKey Beliefs:

• Sense of sympathy with the plight of the common people – disenchantment with outcomes of emancipation and reforms• Bring about greater social equality by some form of revolution• Regarded future of Russia as being in the hands of the peasants who made up the overwhelming mass of the population. Looked to peasants to

transform Russia• Wanted land redistribution and development of peasant commune

Attitudes to Tsar:• Hostile - wanted to overthrow the Tsarist system

Support Base:• Drawn from upper and middle classes (nobility and intelligentsia)

Key Influences:• Herzen – ‘Go to the people’ to educate them• Nechyev – radical peasant who tried to stir up revolution• Lavrov • Marx and Engel’s work

Methods:• Tchaikovsky circle 1872 – produced pamphlets, smuggled in books • Involved ‘go to the people’ (Herzen’s idea) to educate them on how to live their lives and socialist ideals.

1874 Lavrov tried to do this – 3-4000 students tried this. Played on resentment of lack of land and tax burden. Failed: 1,600 arrested 1876 failed. Realised now that low-key fashion of winning over peasants wasn’t working and show trials and arrests led to new strategies

• Land and Liberty group – infiltrate peasant communes as workers and incite resistance and revolution against Tsar.• Terrorism - desperation produced terrorism: ‘propaganda of the deed’• Assassinations: General Mezemtsev (Third Section), Prince Kropotkin• Talks with zemstva about idea of constitutional monarchy

Did achieve aims by 1881:• Neychev’s ‘going to the people’ inspired younger revolutionaries (Chaikovsky circle) – produced many pamphlets and smuggled in banned books

1869-1872• Carried out some assassinations – Mezemtsev, Kropotkin – assassins won public sympathy. Seemed to escape with popular support àsome talks

between zemstva and the Land and Liberty organisation to try to place more pressure on the autocracy for constitutional reform• Took radical opposition away from the debating chambers and into the heart of the countryside – made many aware of the potential for change• Methods used by the police strengthened idea Tsarist regime had lost direction and authority as well as the show trials gaining attention and

heightening tension Didn’t achieve aims by 1881:

• Romantic notion not shared by all• Peasants ignorance, superstition, prejudice and loyalty to Tsar led to peasant hostility àarrest of 1.600 by 1874, Romas’ attempt in Volga• Wanted to win people over in low key fashion but show trials 1877-78 prevented this• Attempts to take jobs in peasant communes was met with repression and peasant apathy – made it clear this approach was never going to achieve its

aims of a revolutionary uprising

Populism splits: Land and Liberty splits into two

Black Partition:

• Plekhanov as organiser• Wanted to share or partition black soil provinces of Russia amongst peasants• Spread socialist propaganda, radical materials, and worked alongside peasants. Wants to avoid violence• Develops ties with students and workers

Did achieve aims by 1881:• Developed ties with students and workers as well as publishing radical material (success but still not their target audience!)

Didn’t achieve aims by 1881:• Weakened by arrests of 1880-81• Ceased to exist as a separate organisation with members such as Plekhanov resorting to marxism and proletariat revolution due to lack of support

from peasants à Russian Marxist Party 1883 • Did not achieve partition of black soils nor support of peasants

People’s Will:• Mikhailov as leader• Spies in use e.g. Infiltrates Third Section• Violent methods: assassinated officials• 1879 declared Tsar would have to be removed. If he agreed to a constitution they would rethink ideas. Tried a few times to assassinate Tsar

(bombs, mines)• Succeeded in assassination of Tsar in 1881

Did achieve aims by 1881:• Neychev’s ‘going to the people’ inspired younger revolutionaries (Chaikovsky circle) – produced many pamphlets and smuggled in banned books

1869-1872• Carried out some assassinations – Mezemtsev, Kropotkin – assassins won public sympathy and they seemed to escape with popular support àsome

talks between zemstva and the Land and Liberty organisation to try to place more pressure on the autocracy for constitutional reform• Took radical opposition away from the debating chambers and into the heart of the countryside – made many aware of the potential for change• Methods used by the police strengthened idea Tsarist regime had lost direction and authority as well as the show trials gaining attention and

heightening tension Did achieve aims:

• Finally achieved aim of assassinating Tsar in 1881• 1881 a sign of determination to show resolve in the face of the increased tendency of repression demanded by the right and opened the path• Successor Alexander III was even more repressive à led to more wanting revolutionary change

Didn’t achieve aims:

• Attempted several attempts to assassinate Alexander II including a bomb under a train and a mine in the Winter Palace• Undermined change by shooting a Tsar who reformed• Successor Alexander III was even more repressive – crack down

Assassination of Alexander II 1881• March 1st 1881 Alexander was travelling to the Winter Palace• The People’s Will threw concealed bombs at the Tsar’s carriage along the canal route• Both missed• The Tsar went to check on the men who were injured but as he did another assassin threw a further bomb• The Tsar was killed instantly

Why industrialise?• Crimean War had illustrated the country’s industrial backwardness, humiliation • Inheritance from Alexander II and Reutern: they had made some progress with modernisation but these were small steps that needed further reform

and development such as railway building programmes and growth of factories• Western European Competition: Britain and Germany were speeding ahead and other European rivals were experiencing industrial revolutions. • Need to encourage an industrial revolution: Russia’s productivity was still incredibly low• Protection: To prevent Russian security and it’s military power being threatened• Effectively exploit natural resources – huge gulf still existed between Russia’s potential (vast natural resources) and country’s level of achievement• Curb social unrest and revolutionary activity – to help avoid famines, social inequalities, and discontent which could be aimed at the tsarist regime, it

was necessary to modernise and try to ameliorate the conditions of those who could bring the system down and instead try to engender support.

Progress under Alexander II and Reutern• Emancipated the serfs• Maintained social stability• Pioneered railway expansion• Some new factories• Set up modern banking system

Impact?(+) Major cities had shown massive growth e.g. Kiev, Moscow(-) Russo-Turkish War showed how perilous financial stability was(-) Reutern resigned when the rouble declined in 1878(-) social disruption soon broke out e.g. Urban strikes

Impact of Vyshnegradsky 1887-1892 (Minister of Finance)

• Aim was to improve Russia’s finances and build up gold reserves• Increased indirect taxes• Aim to swell grain exports• Reduced imports by increasing tariffs - 33% as part of the Tariff Act of 1891. This was to protect Russian iron, industrial machinery and raw cotton

from outside competition• Loans to kickstart growth – France 1888

Impact• This had a SUPERFICIAL effect and with the aid of French loans the Russian economy made a surplus in 1892.• 1881-1891 grain exports rose by 18%• However this put pressure on the peasantry as they bore brunt of indirect taxation which limited their purchasing power• Price of goods rose because of import tax• Peasant grain was requisitioned to sell abroad by government – peasants often didn’t have reserve stores and went hungry e.g. Famine of 1891-2.

Affected 17/39 Russian provinces and 350,000 died (starvation, disease) including many able bodied workers leaving no breadwinner in many families.

• This came in tandem with government failure to organise effective relief and volunteer groups to help stricken peasants• Due to this poor response, the call came for even more liberal reform of government.• From now until the end of the civil war in 1921, Russia was political pluralist (political culture in which rival political ideas and organisations can co-

exist)

Witte• Previously worked for Odessa railways, expert on rail. • Worked as Minister of Communications then Minister of Finance until 1903.• Fame rests on his far sightedness.

Save Russia by rapid and forceful

industrialisation.’

We must go hungry, but export!

• Understood the danger Russia was in:(a) Insufficient capital(b) Lack of technical expertise(c) Insufficient manpower in the right places

• Totally committed to economic modernisation as it was the only way to preserve Russia’s ‘great power’ status• Despite its problems, had faith in Vyshnegradsky’s ideas and that economic development was the only way to raise living standards• Revolutionary activity and unrest would be curbed as Russia prospered• Russia needed to be directed ‘from above’ as there was no entrepreneurial class• Use ‘state capitalism’ like Vyshnegradsky

Protective tariffs Heavy taxation Forced exports to generate capital

• Raise domestic loans from national revenue to finance enterprises such as rail• Loans from abroad – shortage of capital in Russia meant this was necessary. • Introduced rouble - to encourage these loans and foreign confidence Witte needed to stabilise the currency and raise interest rates and so introduced

the rouble as currency backed by value of gold (investors knew rouble could be redeemed by bullion at any point and so stopped value of rouble fluctuating wildly)

• Used foreign experts and workers e.g. Engineers and workers from France and Britain to oversee industrial developmentsResult!

• Foreign capitalists saw a chance to make money in Russia Mining Metal trades Oil Banking

• Foreign investment therefore increased rapidly (1880: 98 million rouble à 1900: 911 million rouble)• France invested heavily (1/3 capital foreign investment), Britain 23%, Germany 20%, and US 5%• But! Dependence upon foreign loans which would have to be paid back with interest • Under foreign experts and workers Russia began to experience an industrial revolution• Growth in rail but was a huge drain on finances • There was strong concentration on ‘heavy industry’ – although this came at the neglect of light and domestic industry as well as the neglect of

agricultural modernisation• Establishment of expanding industrial cities e.g. Around Moscow, Riga and St Petersburg

Growth of rail:Rail in 1880

• State begins to buy up private railway companies and constructs new long distance state railways. • Mid 1890s = 60% of railway system is state owned.• 1881-85: 632km à 1891-95: 1292km• Trans-Siberian railway line began to be constructed 1891-1902: this was to eventually cross Russia from east to west (7000 km)

Rail in 1905• 66% of railway system is state owned. • Russia has almost 60,000 kilometres of railways (small in comparison to the size of the country, but still a major engineering feat for Russia!)• Trans-Siberian railway line had parts still incomplete by 1914

Impact:• Railways opened up Russia and let more extensive exploitation of Russia’s raw materials occur.

Examples: Railway link between Donbass Coalfields and iron ore deposits in the Ukraine = transforms the area. Batum-Baku railway of 1883 linking the Caspian and Black seas greatly increases oil production from rich oilfields at Baku

• Linked industrial areas together – rail links connected important industrial and agricultural areas with ports and markets e.g. Kurk to Odessa• Development of new areas e.g. Western Siberia where peasants undertook new challenge to emigrate to a less populated area of Russia. This led to

growth of farming in this area which generated revenue at home and abroad• Helped to reinforce the export drive• Encouraged development of industries – coal and iron factories sprung up along the length of rail links• Psychological boost – Russian’s felt they were becoming more modern and maintaining power status and other foreign countries recognised potential

of Russia as a power• Strategic use - New transport links for military and troops especially to vulnerable parts of empire• Transport costs fell. This brought down the price of goods whilst the government gained revenue from passenger fares and freight charges

Save Russia by rapid and forceful

industrialisation.’

Heavy Industry Growth1880

• Lighter industries (e.g. Textiles) led the way: arrival of Witte was time of textiles trade industrial output producing 1 ½ times more than heavy industry put together (coal, oil, metal, mineral)

• Witte saw need to concentrate on heavy goods production. Production in key areas by developing large factory units of over 1000 workers would be the way to achieve this.

• 1887: factories 31,000 with 1.3 million workers

1910• Textiles still dominated: 40% industrial output• Impressive growth in heavy industry e.g. St Petersburg, Baltic Coast, and Moscow• 1908: 40,000 factories with 2.6 million workers

Impact:

Evidence:• 8% annual growth 1894-1900 – highest of all countries in last decade of C19th • Moved up industrialised nations league table 1887-97• Became worlds 4th largest industrial economy• 1901 Baku produced more than half of the worlds oil, exceeding the USA

Successes: Increase in exports and foreign trade Imports and exports grew in quantity and value Trading with other nations: Germany, UK, China, USA Continued foreign investment – Nobel, Rothschild in Baku

Failures: Bulk of export trade was still grain rather than industrial goods and this increase still fell short of Witte’s predictions Trans-Siberian rail development was huge drain on finances Under Witte, state budget doubles eating into profits of economic growth Dependence on foreign loans which had to be paid back with interest Focus on heavy industry led to a neglect of domestic and light industry Neglect of agricultural modernisation – reinforced by assumption that peasants could just simply be forced into producing more grain

SOCIAL CHANGES CAUSED BY INDUSTRIALISATION

Middle Class:

1897• More crossed threshold into middle management (small workshop owners, traders, merchants)• More ‘non-nobles’ becoming factory owners• Some re-emerged as factory owners• Greater demand for professionals: teachers, lawyers, bankers, doctors• Still small section of society (½ million) in between larger division of peasants and nobility• No voice in central government

** INDUSTRIALISATION: Government contracts to build rail and state loans to develop factories led to opportunity for enterprise**

1904• MC found homes in zemstva where they could influence local decision making• Still no voice by 1904 in central government• Other western countries had moderate liberal minded middle class as backbone of establishment – not the case in Russia!• This led to a growth of revolutionary leaders from a MC background

Urban Working Class

1897

• 2 million factory workers• Common for some workers to move to towns temporarily, retaining land and then returning to villages to help during harvest

LINK BETWEEN RAIL AND HEAVY INDUSTRY

1. Growth of rail led to opening up of Russian interior so new areas of natural resources

2. Linked major industrial areas and agricultural areas together and with ports and markets

3. Stimulated development of coal and iron with new industrial areas along the length of rail track

4. Trans-Siberian rail huge industrial stimulus

HOT SPOTSEngineering:• St Petersburg• Moscow• Poland• RigaMetallurgy:• Urals• Poland• Caspian Sea/Baku 1871• Caucusus

Coal• Baku coalfields• Poland• DonbasSugar Beet Extraction• Kiev• South Eastern UkraineIron Ore• South Eastern Ukraine• Donetsk 1872• St Petersburg – Putilov

Works

• 1864: 1 in 3 urban workers were peasants by birth

** INDUSTRIALISATION: arrival of new factories and growing number of workshops quadrupled urban population 1867-1917 from 7 to 28 million.Lure of promises of good wages and regular employment**

1904• 6 million workers by 1914• Increasing migrants to towns found that the meagre allocation of land left at home produced a poor subsidy and sold up. They moved from town to

town following work.• Some found regular work, settled and their children became urban workers by birth• 1914: 3 out of 4 urban workers were peasants by birth • Peasant life existed despite living in urban surroundings: peasant markets e.g. Red Square, livestock roamed streets, peasant atmosphere

Facilities:• Barrack like buildings owned by factory owners• Factory owners used it as method of maintaining and controlling workers/‘inmates’• Dangerously overcrowded – St Petersburg survey 1904: 16 per apartment• Inadequate sanitation and basic provisions – canteens, communal baths, planks for beds• St Petersburg: 40% houses had no running water/sewage system• Cholera outbreak 1908-9 with 30,000 dead• Demand for work meant rent remained high (1/2 workers wage at times) – Saratov 1900 food and rent was ¾ workers wage with

clothes/laundry/baths accounting for rest• Private accommodation not much better• Some slept rough or alongside their machines

Wages:• Varied dependent on skilled or unskilled category, overtime and fines• Women lowest paid (less than ½ industrial wage)• During times of industrial revival wages did not keep up with inflation

Working Conditions:• 1908-9 worst during industrial depression• Workers protests remained in minor due to law against strikes until 1905. Although: 1886-1894 33 strikes per year, 1895-1904 176 strikes per year• Brutish treatment by owners – swapped one master in the countryside for another in the cities. Many had experienced harsh conditions as

peasants or were desperate for work so put up with conditions. Non-noble factory owners did not share ‘paternalistic’ moral obligation to look after workers

Education:• Growth though less investment than areas such as rail• Reluctant and limited changes especially with legislation – not concerned with changing lot of workers e.g. Pobedonostev • Fear that costs of education would cause labour costs to rise which would drive out foreign investors• Government promotion of technical schools and universities

AGRICULTURE• Most farming was small scale. Done by former serfs and state peasants• Income was usually low, even during good harvests• In bad years they faced starvation e.g. 1891-92 and 1898 and 1901

Economic Progression:• Witte’s Industrial policies differed sharply with the conservatism of the Ministry of the Interior (they were responsible for policy regarding the peasantry

and thus agriculture)• Much attention was given to industrialisation, the same was not true for agriculture which was ignored until 1906• This was despite the rural economy providing a livelihood for 80-90% of Russian population• Thus the Russian economy was being pulled in two directions at once 1880-90’s.

Problems of the Rural Economy• Population growth (doubled 1850-1900 to 132.9 million): undermined some of the good intentions of emancipation in 1861 = led to rural unrest.• Division of estates: population growth led to the subdivision of estates with holdings falling from 35 acres to 28 by 1905• Inefficient farming methods – superstition and suspicion of new methods and so wooden ploughs and medieval rotation was still widely used. British

farms were 4 times greater• Poor grain yields: 1901 and 1902 saw crop failures and production was behind the west

• Nobles (1882) and Peasant (1885) Land banks – set up to facilitate the purchase and development of larger farms but sometimes they merely increased farmers’ debts which coupled with high taxation made farming impossible

• Outbreak of rural lawlessness: the worst since the 1860’s with arson attacks and looting e.g. provinces of Poltava, Kharkov and Saratov.• Mir system – hampered agricultural output and bound workers together• Kulaks – capitalist wealthier class of peasant who took advantage of the poorer peasants by using them for cheap labour, used the peasant banks to

buy out impoverished neighbours or acted as ‘pawn brokers’ to them

Experience of the peasants• Life became harsher• Increasing numbers forced to leave their farms and migrate to cities looking for seasonal farm work or industrial employment• Some took up government schemes to emigrate to new agricultural settlements e.g. migration to Siberia 1896. This only helped ¾ million

Living Standards• Living standards varied in different parts of the country

Prosperous areas: Ukraine and Baltic Backwards farming methods and land owned by nobles: Russian heartland

• Many unfit for military service (despite progress in health care)• Highest mortality rates in Europe – average life expectancy was 27.25 years compared to 45.25 in England

OPPOSITION 1881-1904

Post assassination:• Assassination 1881 effectively ended the populist movement as it had been known• Some supporters continued to meet in secret and terrorist acts continued despite repression• Assassination was a disappointment to the opposition:

Yielded no practical benefits Led to accession of Alexander III (more repressive and reactionary) Repression: led to wave of arrests, greater police surveillance Counter reform: abandonment of Loris-Melikov’s proposed reforms

• Did have symbolic significance: Vulnerability of tsarist autocracy Winning some support overseas Creating martyrs who popularised the revolutionary cause

PopulismDevelopment of ‘self education circles’

• Muscovite Society of Translators and Publishers• Translated and reproduced the writings of foreign socialists• Made contact with radicals in the West

1886 People’s Will reformed:

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: the assassination was to prove a huge disappointment for the opposition. It yielded no practical benefits and, on the contrary, led to a wave of arrests, greater police surveillance, the abandonment of Loris-Melikov’s proposed reforms and

• Reformed amongst students of St Petersburg university• 1887 group making bombs aimed for Tsar arrested – 5 of these were hung as punishment (including Lenin’s brother, Alexander Ulyanov)

Success was limited: 1890’s: Police activity, executions, imprisonment and exile of leaders, lack of enthusiasm amongst peasantry and famine 1891-2 limited

their actions 1900’s: post Great Famine the debates highlighted the need for reform of the rural economy which saw a Populist revival with Populist

thinking resurfacing in the universities and outbreaks of disorder from 1899 including the assassination of Minister of Education Bogolepov in 1901

Emergence of Social RevolutionariesBasic Facts:

• Created in 1901• Loose organisation with variety of views never centrally controlled• Influences: Chernov • Beliefs: basic aspects of Marxism combined with populist ideas to make a specifically ‘Russian’ revolutionary programme.• Concerned with ‘Labouring poor’ – workers and peasants who were identical and should therefore work together to bring down autocracy and bring

about land redistribution• Importance of peasantry as revolutionary force • Talked of ‘land socialisation’• Support base: wide national base with peasants and 50% urban working class

Why did Russian Marxism begin to attract more support post-1881?• Differed more from traditional Marxism – it needed to be a Marxism applicable to Russia for it to be successful and supported. • 1880/1890’s industrialisation/ Witte’s economic policies - began to make Marxist theories more attractive to Russian intellectuals during a climate of

economic modernisation• Economic focus - Ideas still hinged on economic change and they wanted to see the development of industry and capitalism. This appealed to a

growing urban workforce (proletariat) especially during a time of poor conditions • Role of Plekhanov – in exile his Emancipation of Labour group spread knowledge of Marxism throughout Russia using propaganda and agitation.

Translated tracts reached underground socialist groups and members also explained the theories to a Russian audience.• Growing urban workforce - a more mobile and growing proletariat workforce made a sizeable population to act as opposition. This, however, was still

limited in size at this point. They were attracted by some of the ideas about improving conditions both in the factory and living conditions but this force for opposition was still in its infancy

Emergence of the Social DemocratsPlekhanov’s Emancipation of Labour movement began to formulate ideas:

• He argued their beliefs should be: Revolutionaries must accept the inevitability of Marx’s ‘stages of development’ and that Russia was already moving towards the capitalist

phase. Try to improve the conditions experienced by workers and peasants

• Methods: Task One for revolutionaries should therefore be: Cooperate with bourgeoisie to fight autocracy. Accelerate the socialist revolution by working among the workers in Russian cities Focus on the workers and create dynamism to drive the revolution forward – peasants were misguided and it would be a waste of time

trying to rouse them.

The Emancipation of Labour movement made slow headway after 1881.

Limitations: Plekhanov’s exile Censorship and tough policing (Gendarmerie, Okhrana) Limited development of an industrial proletariat Still limited to intellectual and student circles Deich (key smuggler of Marxist materials) arrested in 1884

Successes 1890’s – as industrialisation speeded up a number of worker’s organisations and illegal trade unions were formed Marxist discussion circles sprung up Many other groups became to emerge Repression and the use of the police under Alexander III merely confirmed the need for change

Organisation was needed to try to weld these disparate groups together to form a coherent force.1898 First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party of the Soviet Union

• Launch of new Social Democratic Party (SD’s)• Small – 9 delegates• Elected 3 man Central Committee• Created manifesto (Struve draws this up)

Acknowledged debt to People’s Will Asserted that the SD’s would follow a different path to freedom Working classes had been exploited by their masters Future of Russia would be the product of a class struggle Workers would be the impetus for change

Outcome:• Broken up by the Okhrana who arrested 2 of the Central Committee• Had created foundation for development of the party including the emergence of Lenin

Emergence of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks1903 Second Party Congress (Held in Brussels and England)

• 51 delegates• Aim: to decide how the party should move forward• Problems: nature, timing and organisation of the revolution

Lenin: Bolsheviks (‘majority’) • Strong, ideologically pure, disciplined organisation with membership of only professional revolutionaries• Would lead the proletariat and overthrow bourgeoisie • Total dedication to revolution – no cooperation with other parties.• Centralised party structure • No TU’s – they would dilute chances of a revolution• Thought poor conditions in Russia would encourage revolution and so argued Plekhanov would undermine revolution by helping them

Martov: Mensheviks (‘minority’) • Broad based party with a mass working class membership• Should cooperate with other liberal parties• Stages of Marxism MUST occur – bourgeois must occur then proletariat

Proletariat should provide impetus for revolution and should not be

Liberals and IntelligentsiaBeliefs:

• Promote welfare, education, liberty and the rule of law• Reform autocracy so the Tsar would listen directly to his people• Tsar to rule in conjunction with the people• Did not have a revolutionary attitude – wanted change and reform • Beseda formed in 1900 (more radical thinkers) which met in secret focused on judicial reform and universal education

Key members/influences: • Tolstoy ‘What I believe’ 1883 – opposed Tsarist oppression and injustice of legal system but rejected violence. Pure and simple living would bring

about moral regeneration of Russia• Prince Lvov (liberal noble) – wanted an all-class Zemstvo at district level and a National Assembly• Struve 1903 – Russia needed ‘peaceful evolution’ to adapt to new industrialising status, wanted to see constitutional system where urban workers

could campaign legally to improve conditions• Slavophile thinkers

Organisation:• Beseda 1900 assumed leadership• Struve’s Union of Liberation took control 1904 – declared their intention (along with zemstva representatives) to work for the establishment of a

constitutional government

Support Base: • Professional ‘middle’ classes (grown in number during reform era)• Liberal thinkers• Zemstva members• Radical members worked within the Union created in 1904

Bolsheviks!

Men of the Majority aiming for proletariat overthrow. Dedicated revolutionaries only – no one to dilute our revolutionary circle!

Prince Lvov

Social Democrats

Mensheviks Bolsheviks

Tactics/methods: • Literature e.g. Tolstoy ‘What I believe’ (well respected novelist)• Zemstva – new opportunity for liberal thinkers to air views and conflict with central government directives

Success: • Middle class had grown and was more politicised – Great Famine 1891-2 had shown incompetence of Tsarist bureaucracy resulting in voluntary

organisations and the zemstva having to organise relief. This fuelled belief that educated members of society should have some direct say in the nation’s governance.

• Mid 1890’s – liberals became more vociferous in their demands for a national representative body to advise the government• Attracted influential members – Prince Lvov, Tolstoy• When Beseda took control they attracted a wide range of support of town leaders, legal professionals, teaching professions and industrialists • 1904 – Union held series of banquets which were attended by members of the liberal elite and zemstva representatives• Escaped heavy police focus as they were pre-occupied by SR’s and SD’s• Contributed to momentum for political change

Limitations: Government restrictions: reduction in zemstva powers under Alexander III Nicholas II dismissed ideas of the Tver Zemstvo who petitioned him to set up advisory body in 1895 – ‘senseless dream’ Shipov’s attempt to set up an ‘All Zemstvo Organisation’ 1896 was banned The break away group Beseda 1899 met in secret which disunited the party for a while 1900 – government ordered the dismissal of hundreds of liberals from the elected boards of the zemstva Limited influence before 1905

Alexander II Evaluation

Beliefs• Maintenance of autocracy – reassert the principles of autocracy’• Rejection of constitutional monarchy ideas• Repression and counter-reform to turn back the clock – western ideas and change had caused chaos and urban discontent • Devoutly religious – educated by Procurator of Holy Synod

Determining aspects of rule:• Strong centralised control was reasserted • Nobility crucial role – Land Captains 1889 with laws and powers to overide zemstva decisions and elections as well as overturn judicial decisions and

impose punishments • Judicial system

1885 saw the minister of justice allowed to exercise greater control including reintroducing ‘closed’ court sessions (no juries, no reporting) 1889 power of magistrates removed and duties given to land captains and royally appointed town judges

• Zemstva 1890 changed the election arrangements to reduce the peasants vote 1892 further restrictions on the less wealthy voting qualifications Tried to encourage them to focus on education and health

Further domestic policies• Use of police state and army to ensure control• Decrees on education: exclude lower class children from secondary education state control of universities university appointments based upon ‘religious, moral and patriotic orientation’ women barred from all universities all gatherings banned and protests to be crushed by police

Nationalities:• Believed in ‘nationalism’ (superiority of Russian nation)• Policy of Russification implemented by Pobedonostev: forcing Russian language and culture upon all other ethnic minorities to make them more

Russian e.g. Poland, Finland, Georgia and Ukraine• Endorse widespread anti-Semitism via pogroms – 16 major cities affected from 1881 onwards e.g. Odessa • Drove Jews towards revolutionary groups e.g. Formation of Marxist Social Democratic Movement and rise of Trotsky, Martov and Zinoviev

Nicholas II (1868-1918)

Beliefs• Deeply influenced by his father and committed to preserving his policies

HISTORICAL INTERPRETA

TION

Waller:

• Maintenance of autocracy – although his personality was not suited to such a strong willed role• Rejection of constitutional monarchy ideas• Devoutly religious – educated by Procurator of Holy Synod

Determining aspects of rule:• Failed to develop domestic policy programme and failed to delegate power (too much for one man to deal with by this point)• Although hardworking he had no sense of reality. Easily influenced by reactionary ministers. • Lacked realism and meant there was no effective leadership at the top• Indecisive – changed ministers and policies often e.g. Dismissed Witte in 1903• Avoided calling the Council of Ministers to prevent members uniting against him and was concerned by anyone who showed initiative or expressed

unconventional ideas• Ignored disturbances by growing urban working class in towns and illegal strikes – should have seen they were striking against working conditions

and wages which he could have resolved.• Witte “the hangman” – saw martial law, surveillance and repression increased including recruiting more policemen and using the army to put down

strikes with arrests and death without trial (1893: 19 times by 1902: 522 times)• Zemstva: failed to pick up on increasing disillusionment or introduce constitutional monarchy to appease liberals. Instead tried to maintain autocracy

by dismissing attempts to create an ‘All Zemstvo Organisation’ in 1896 and purged the elected boards of the zemstva of liberals in 1900

Further Domestic Policies• Failed to develop domestic policy programme• Tried to preserve policies of father• Discontent met with repression rather than reform e.g. Urban discontent in the cities• Continued father’s educational policies including crushing student demonstrations with heavy police force which radicalised students who may have

been appeased with reforms• Continued policy of Russification

Impact of these two Tsar’s rule by 1904:• Widespread unrest in towns and countryside• ‘Autocracy without an autocrat’ - By 1904 there was no direction and coordination from the top• Nicholas source of all problems – lack of decisive leadership, innovation, and use of reactionary ministers and dismissal of competent ones who

showed initiative due to suspicion• Vacuum of power at the centre of rule – autocracy out of date and not suited to resolving Russia’s problems

HISTORICAL INTERPRETA

TION

Waller:

Tsar at war with

own people

for most of 1905! Strikes carried out by

soviets, peasant uprisings

, petitions,

riots, demonstrations.

They demande

d a represen

tative government and

civil rights!

Russo-Japanese War 1904-1906

Causes Russian ambitions to strengthen new found great power status: 1900 Russia was beginning to catch up with the west. They wanted to act like all

the other great powers by undertaking imperialist foreign policy to gain more ports and coastlines as well as prestige. However, so did Japan. Role of Plehve: Minister of the Interior. Pronounced that Russia needed a “short, swift victorious war” to stem the rising tide of domestic unrest

caused by population growth so wanted to encourage patriotism against the ‘yellow danger’ of Japan Weaknesses of Chinese Empire: Russia wanted to ‘drive to the East’ and gain ports and coastline in this area. Japan’s swelling population

needed more land and resources. Desired expansion by both would come at the expense of China. Developing infrastructure: The military planners saw the Trans Siberian and Chinese Eastern Railways as counteracting Japan’s logistical

advantage. Russia continued to expand the rail line to areas such as Port Arthur as part of a 25 year lease from China. Japan had previously held this peninsula in 1895 so with the arrival of Russian troops and influence into this area the scene was set for provocation. Japan attacked Port Arthur in January 1904

Role of Nicholas II – easily ecnouraged by ministers Captain Bezobrazov and thought himself to be an expert in this area. Arrogance – thought Japan was inferior racially (makaki – little monkeys) and in military power (based on geographical size)

EventsWar on Sea

Port Arthur: Jan 1904. First torpedo attack on the Russian, made it obvious that her strategy was in disarray. Japan laid siege to Port Arthur and sunk the Russian ships in less than an hour. Russia (superior battle flee) had her forces split between Port Arthur, (where the enemy trapped the ships in port) and Vladivostok, (which was iced over during the winter.) Russian navy could not break out of Port Arthur. The element of surprise had been lost, the Japanese knew what was sailing towards them. Dec 1904 – Port Arthur surrendered

Tsu-shima (May 1905). On paper, Russian fleet was the stronger with more heavily armed ships. In reality the reverse was true. Japan had been expecting their arrival as it had taken 4 months for them to arrive. Russian Baltic fleet was completely annihilated and 12,600 men were lost in the straights of Tsu-shima The Japanese were largely unscathed by the clash

War on Land: Mukden Feb 1905: major engagement. After three weeks of intensive fighting, 85,000 Russians and 41,000 Japanese were dead or wounded. Russians were forced to pull back.

Why did it all go wrong? Underestimated enemy – more socially and technologically advanced Over-estimated own capability and ignored own inadequacies – shortage of ammunition Geography and proximity – war was 6000 miles from the Russia capital city compared to Japanese short lines of supply Transport of troops and supplies – only had Trans-Siberian railway and this was single tracked, some ports were frozen over 6 months of

the year Russian organisation was chaotic – some trains had religious icons to support troops instead of food and munitions!

Consequences:• 100,000’s of losses as well as loss of Baltic Fleet• Series of defeats and long siege turned initial surge of patriotism into hostility and opposition to government• Highlights inadequacy of autocracy – weaknesses of Tsar Nicholas II highlighted as well as the problems of a lack of National Assembly or

meritocratic/democratically elected government. All the reasons for losses can be linked back to the failings of the Tsar and government.• Assassination of Plehve July 1904 - little mourning after and celebrations seen!• Concessions have to be made – Mirskii (Plehve’s replacement) allows a group of zemstvo reps to meet in his private quarters 1904 for “cup of tea”

but Nicholas rejects their edited version of the Assembly requests. Would only allow expansion of rights of the zemstva • Created a genuine opposition movement –stimulates revolution and renews cries for a National Assembly

Bloody Sunday 1905The demands made by Father George Gapon and the Assembly of Factory Workers. • (1) An 8-hour day and freedom to organize trade unions. • (2) Improved working conditions, free medical aid, higher wages for women workers. • (3) Elections to be held for a constituent assembly by universal, equal and secret suffrage.• (4) Freedom of speech, press, association and religion.• (5) An end to the war with Japan.

Why demonstrate?

• War with Japan provoked internal unrest – when Port Arthur finally surrendered to the Japanese forces it disrupted the economy, driving up food prices and forcing factory closures

• Father Gapon led a procession of unemployed and disgruntled St Petersburg anxious for jobs, decent wages, and shorter hours• It was not spontaneous but it’s nature was peaceful – to ask the Tsar for support (petition to their ‘little Father’, Tsar Nicholas II)

• They had absolute faith in the Tsar to improve the workers’ lot.• 150,000 took part• They carried icons, patriotic banners, crosses, and pictures of Tsar Nicholas II as they sung hymns

Why did the nature of the demonstration change?• The marchers were met by Cossacks• The marchers had blocked the street so they were unable to turn back even if they had wanted to• The guards opened fire and the Cossacks charged• As panic ensued towards the Winter Palace they were met by even more Cossacks, cavalry and armed artillery who used sabres and whips on the

crowd

Immediate aftermath:Struggle between:

1. Authorities desperate to keep order and regain control2. Demands of the liberals anxious to keep control of the movement for reform3. Radical revolutionarie s determined to press home their advantages4. Nationalist groups who saw an opportunity to exert independence• Inhumanity of the regime seemed to give the people a common sense of grievance to all unite behind (workers, peasants, middle class liberals)• The massacre gave coherence to a growing wave of uncoordinated protests around Russia.

= made them much more dangerous to the regime as one force.

Leads to: The First General Strike 17/30th Jan 1905 Putilov strike turned into the first of Russia’s general strikes which took place in direct protest to the massacre, spreading throughout the empire

= autumn 1905 2,500,000 workers on strike This failed to have a direct impact on government policy. Government policy was to buy time until Russia’s fortunes in the war turns for the better. WHY? The delaying tactics only helped to organise the government’s response.

Discontent spread Defeat at Battle of Mukden and loss of 90,000 soldiers lives caused tension April: ‘All Russian Union of Railway Workers’ established along with other illegal TU’s, strikes and demonstrations SOVIETS (workers councils) set up trying to take control of factories e.g. Urals and Ivanovo-Voznesensk àsoon 60 (illegal) workers council Tsar replaces Mirskii with ALEXANDER BULYGIN. (minister of internal affairs) Not wishing to repeat the mistake of 9/22 January he began to relax restrictions on universities and proposed a consultative assembly.

Liberals: Wanted constitutional change but were concerned initiative was slipping away from them as anarchy ensued. Tried to push again for a National Assembly as a solution to Russia’s problems Zemstva meeting March 18th urged the Tsar to act swiftly followed by a series of congresses with similar pleas Lecture halls (e.g. St Petersburg University) were used by students, professors and general public for open political meetings = allowed them to

grow as a group of moderate reformist thinkers Groups of moderate liberal professionals (teachers, engineers etc) formed ‘unions’ of their own which more extreme than zemstva liberals calling

for more radical reform= Came together to form the ‘Union of Unions’

In May 1905, after the naval disaster at Tsu-shima the government lost control of the political situation completely.= That month, Pavel Miliukov formed a Union of Unions (assembly of leaders of professional and industrial workers as well as leaders of the zemstva)They demanded:1. A democratically elected Constituent Assembly with legislative powers (universal suffrage and nationwide elections)2. Regulation of hours of work3. A measure of land distribution with compensation4. Civil and political rights

Revolutionaries:

Social Revolutionaries• Assassinations: Grand Duke Sergei (Tsar’s uncle) in July 1905, and Shuvalov (military governor)• Encouraged the activities of the peasants and behind their attempt to form their own council which eventually became All Russian Peasants

Union (similar demands to Gapon’s petition but pushed land reform issue). This union was ineffective however: a) lack of realistic and coherent demands b) couldn’t coordinate peasants effectively• Led rising in support of Potemkin and Avksentiev (a leading SR) was a main leader of the St Petersburg Soviet

• But, their intentions were not always clear! Wanted over throw of Tsar but supported proposals of liberals rather than SD’s = disunity amongst opponents of Tsarism

Social Democrats• Taken by surprise! Lenin and Trotsky abroad, Trotsky returns but Lenin misses out on the action• Split in party (Mensheviks/Bolsheviks) meant it was harder to co-ordinate activities and they lacked direction from the top• Action taken:

active in strike activity active in formation of worker’s councils Trotsky publishes Russian Gazette in October (circulation 500,000) Trotsky chairs St Petersburg Soviet

St Petersburg Soviet To direct the general strike, the St. Petersburg workers set up a soviet in mid-October representing the capital’s workers. Dominated by Mensheviks.

Effective in maintaining the strike as it could influence workers A week later, a bloody five day workers’ uprising took place in Moscow led by the BOLSHEVIKS – printers, bakers, followed by rail workers and then

in sympathy to the rail workers, the workers of post and telegraphs, banks, and industrial workers across the country. November and December - year’s most bloody and widespread peasant uprisings.

= economy ground to a halt and local government offices closed So alarming was the collapse of authority in the two main cities, that it was believed that the tsarist regime might be swept away. But! No central leadership and as it was not the result of the revolutionary parties’ leadership the second general strike failed

Nationalists Seized the opportunity and attracted people of all classes and professions e.g. General strike at Odessa• Demands from: Finns, Poles, Latvians• Tsar responded with force and repression e.g. Lodz, Armenian-Tartar massacres• Nationalist outbreaks against minorities such as the Jews at Bessarabia were welcomed by authorities and the right wing (gave financial and

moral support)= ‘Union of the Russia People’ created spreading the message that non-Russians were deliberately undermining the country.• Organised gangs such as the BLACK HUNDREDS to beat up those who caused disruption e.g. In the Caucasus

October Manifesto 1905 Granting of civil liberties and rights e.g. freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press Admit participation in the Duma of all classes - Universal suffrage Constitution to be created in 1906 to include a bicameral legislative parliament No law can become effective without the approval of the state Duma

It was not promising... Stated that Duma was to be consultative – implying it could offer advice, the tsar did not have to accept it It was not to be elected by direct universal suffrage with a secret ballot (as the Liberals had wanted) and whilst all social groups would be

represented in the suffrage system, this was not equal representative democracy Was not a promise for a ‘constituent assembly’ (demanded by the liberals) with the task of drawing up a new constitution for Russia

Why issue it?1. Placate the Liberals – get them onside and neutralise them as opposition2. Buy off the peasantry3. Appease some of the less radical workers4. Calm student discontent5. Minimise opposition from the press6. Undermine support for revolutionary groups e.g. Bolsheviks

Revolutionary?• In one sense the October Manifesto was a revolution.• Chance that after centuries of autocracy, Russia was heading towards a constitutional monarchy along western lines.• Witte had tried to isolate the liberals which he did by getting them to agree to hold off with any criticism until they had seen the proposals. = took the sting out of the opposition groups.

Liberal reaction to October ManifestoReaction:• Moderate zemstva liberals accepting of promises and sought to work with the Tsar to make the new Dumas a success – led to formation of group

Octobrists

Witte: I have a constitution in my head, but as to my heart, I spit on it.

Lenin: We have been granted a constitution, yet autocracy remains. We have been granted everything,

• Left wing liberals less convinced and became Kadets (Constitutional Democrats). Accepted Tsar’s concessions but only as a first step towards creating at Constituent Assembly and constitution

Why?:• Wanted to see an end to radical revolution that was spreading • Aims of these groups were for a constitutional monarchy and Constituent Assembly, not removal of Tsar or extreme ideology• Discontent with the left wing liberals as the October Manifesto did not go far enough• Concern that Nicholas probably had no intention to become a ‘constitutional monarch’ and that his ministers probably didn’t have any real

commitment to the manifesto promises

Revolutionary RadicalsReaction:• Trotsky and Lenin tried to get the workers to fight on declaring the promises worthless• Denounced the promise of elections• Called for an armed rising to bring Tsarism to an end• Lenin returns to St Petersburg Nov 1905 to try and rouse support• Did manage to encourage some strike activity to continue but this was not sustained• Dec 1905 Bolshevik led uprising in MoscowWhy?:• Did not have faith in promises of Tsar• Saw an opportunity to continue revolutionary spirit and discontent growing in Russia• Marxist and Bolshevik ideology required removal of the Tsar, not a constitutional monarchy

Industrial WorkersReaction:• Initially supportive – optimism and cheering in the streets with many returning to work• Radical revolutionaries began trying to win support amongst the increasingly politicised industrial workforce and so some strike activity continued

e.g. November’s second General Strike in St PetersburgWhy?:• They had become increasingly politicised by the events of 1905• The revolutionary radicals and activists such as Lenin and Trotsky were encouraging the workers with their rhetoric• October Manifesto did not address many of their problems e.g. Social problems and fell short of equal representation or suffrage

PeasantsReaction:• Initially supportive – optimism and faith in promises• Some saw this as an opportunity to seize land which they believed to be rightfully theirs• Second Congress of Peasant’s Unions held 6th-12th Nov 1905 which demanded the nationalisation of land• Increase in peasant risings after the Manifesto – peaking December 1905Why?:• They had become increasingly politicised by the events of 1905• October Manifesto did not address many of their problems e.g. Social problems, land problems and fell short of equal representation or suffrage• Bloody Sunday had damaged the image of the Tsar as their ‘Little Father’

Army and NavyReaction:• Continuing troubles• Post-October increasing number of mutinies e.g. Kronstadt sailors rebellion and Sebastopol• Strike activity along the Trans-Siberian rail line demobilised returning troops and so force had to be used to help restore order. Loyalty from the

army could not always be relied upon and so groups such as the Black Hundreds soon came to be increasingly relied uponWhy?:• Disillusioned by the leadership of the Tsar during the Russo-Japanese war as well as the shortages and outcomes

How was order re-established?Despite the promise of ‘full civil rights’ repression was used to bring about the recovery of Tsarist authority• Trepov ordered: ‘fire no blanks, and spare no bullets’ in forcing workers back into factories• Black Hundreds:

rounded up and flogged peasants attacked revolutionaries, students and nationalist groups such as Poles and Jews

• Headquarters of St Petersburg Soviet surrounded and 300 members (incl. Trotsky) arrested• Trotsky exiled to Siberia = weakened revolutionary movement in the capital

‘We have been granted a constitution, yet autocracy remains. We have been granted everything, and yet we have been granted nothing’

• Moscow Soviet uprising/General Strike in December was misjudged and therefore crushed – autocracy was strong enough to use military power to restore order due to St Petersburg Soviets decline. Presnaya district was heavily attacked. Bolshevik inspired workers were forced to give in

Why did revolution fail to topple the Tsar? Placating of Liberals Crushing of Soviets and Workers Repression by Tsar Concessions made by Tsar Shortcomings of the revolutionaries Crushing of the nationalities Buying off of peasantry

• October Manifesto had provided no precise detail on: Election details Powers of the Duma

• New constitution would have to be drawn up• The Fundamental Laws were issued in March 1906.• Elections then took place and it met in May.• Its composition was not what the Tsar and Stolypin had hoped for

Fundamental Laws April 1906 (5 days after first Duma)The Emperor of All Russia has supreme autocratic power. It is ordained by God himself that his authority should be submitted tonot only out of fear, but out of a genuine sense of duty.Article 4: To the All-Russian Emperor belong supreme autocratic powerArticle 9: No legislative act may come into force without the Emperor’s ratificationArticle 87: The Emperor may rule by decree in emergency circumstances when the Duma is not in sessionArticle 105: The Emperor my dissolve the Duma as he wishes

Possesses supreme administrative power Is supreme leader of all foreign relations Has supreme command over all land and sea forces of the Russian state Has the sole power to appoint and dismiss government ministers Has the sole power to declare war, conclude peace and negotiate treaties with foreign states Right to overturn verdicts and sentences given in a court of law

The Four Dumas

First Duma (May-July 1906) – Duma of National Hope

Issue 1: Political Party Participation• National Election campaign 1905-1906 • Bolsheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Union of Russian People refused to participate• Outcome:

Kadets won largest number of seats 1/3 of deputies peasants/peasant farmers (191) More left wing deputies than right wing Deputies formed a group that was strongly critical of the tsar and his ministers

• Nature: Duma was therefore ‘radical liberal’ in composition

Issue 2: Resignation of Witte and appointment of Goremkyin • Witte (architect of October Manifesto) resigned under pressure from reactionary forces at Court – blow to the liberals as Witte could have helped

form and lead to an evolution of a government which would take note of the Duma’s views and work together with it in the formation of policies• Goremykin replaces Witte. He is Conservative

Issue 3: Finances

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: The Tsar had survived but the power of the Russian workers could no longer be ignored

• Government negotiate a large loan of 2,250 francs from France April 1906• No need to rely on the Duma for approval of the budget

Issue 4: Nicholas’s reaction to the Duma demands• Nicholas found the first Duma too radical• Duma first passed ‘Address to the Throne’ – requested political amnesty, abolition of the State Council, transfer of ministerial responsibility to the

Duma, compulsory seizure of lands of the gentry without compensation, universal and direct male suffrage, abandonment of emergency laws abolition of the death penalty, reform of the civil service.

• Goremykin instructed to tell Duma demands were ‘totally inadmissable’• Duma passed a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the government • Duma resolution was therefore ignored and 10 weeks later they were dissolved• Stolypin, a hardliner, replaces Goremykin

Issue 5: Repression by the Tsar• 200 delegates (120 were Kadets) travelled to Vyborg to encourage unrest• Appealed to citizens to refuse to pay taxes or do military service• Met with no popular response• The government disenfrnachised and issued 3 month prison sentence to any who had signed• Deprived the Kadets of their most active leaders

Second Duma (Feb-June 1907) – Duma of National Anger

• Stolypin’s government tried to influence elections – supported Octoberists • Outcome:

Octoberists doubled their representation Kadets had been largely disenfranchised = moderate liberal centre shrunk Left wing increased enormously due to SD and SR participation

• Nature: More oppositional than first Duma

Issue 1: Stolypin’s Sidestep and use of Emergency Powers• Stolypin struggled to find any support for agrarian reforms• Used emergency powers granted by Article 87 when the Duma was not in session to sidestep the need for the Duma’s approval• Duma refused to ratify this• Stolypin spread a rumour of an SD plot to assassinate the Tsar and tried to arrest members• The Duma refused to waive the SD’s immunity from arrest (right of all Duma delegates)• Stolypin dissolved the Duma • SD delegates were arrested and exiled

Issue 2: Changes to the Franchise• Emergency law issued to alter the franchise• Weight of the peasants, workers, and national minorities were drastically reduced• Representation of the gentry increased

Why did Stolypin alter the franchise before summoning the third Duma? Problems raised by the oppositional Second Duma Stolypin wanted to push through his reforms e.g. agrarian reform To protect and maintain autocracy, traditional ideology of Russia and its institutions – threat from new ideas and groups

Third Duma (Nov-June 1907) – Duma of Lords and Lackeys• Groups which favoured government did best• Outcome:

Octoberists and Rightists won majority of seats Kadets and Socialists reduced in size and divided in principles

• Nature: Far more submissive

Issue 1: Strength of the Duma • Agreed to 2,200 of 2,500 government proposals – agricultural reforms presented by Stolypin • Did have confrontations with government (sign of unpopularity of Tsar) e.g. Naval staff, primary school proposals, and local government reforms• 1911 Octoberists turned to oppose the government• Duma was suspended twice which allowed the government to force through legislation under emergency provisions • First Duma to run its course

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: Although the third Duma ran its course, by 1912, it was clear that the Duma system was not working and had no control over the actions

I am struggling to get my agrarian reforms passed. I will dissolve the Duma and change it it before a third one is called....

• 1912 – clear that the Duma system was not working as it had no control over the actions of the Tsar or his government

Stolypin assassinated 1911 and replaced by Kokovtsov

Fourth Duma (Nov 1912-1917) - Kokovtsov: ‘Thank God we still have no parliament’

• Groupings were largely similar in final Duma • Outcome:

Octoberists did considerably poorer Rift between left and right increases

• Nature: Docile

Issue 1: Docile nature of the Duma • Kokovtsov (1911-1914) ignored the Duma • Duma influence declined• Too divided to fight back= workers seized the initiative with a revival of direct action and strike activity due to outcomes of involvement in WW1

Strengths of Duma system Weaknesses of Duma system A centre for political discussion which enabled the Tsar and

the ministers to gauge popular feeling Helped spread democracy by encouraging public political

debate as their activities were reported in the press Used their powers e.g. approving the budget and questioning

of ministers to good effect Approved important reforms A promising experiment which would have succeeded but

was never given enough time to show its true worth

Political Party Representation and composition of the Dumas Choice of Interior Ministers (Goremykin, Stolypin, Korovtsov) Nicholas’s attitude towards the Dumas Use of repression by the Tsar and government Existence of Fundamental Laws and Emergency powers

including the ability to dissolve the Dumas Limited powers of the Dumas

Agrarian Reforms

StolypinCareer and experience:

• 1901 – Governor of Saratov province and landowner.• 1902 – member of the Commission of Agriculture (set up following rural violence of 1901 due to bad harvests) • Hardliner and ruthless – known as only governor able to keep firm control during peasant unrest 1901, 1904-06• Developed an efficient police force which profiled every male under his control• Appointed Minister for Internal Affairs and replaced Goremykin as PM in 1906

Assassinated in 1911

Vision and opinions: • Control Duma - wanted to make sure Duma members were compliant. Changed the electoral law after the second Duma • Firm control and clamp down on revolutionary activity – 1906 established court martials led by military against political criminals (no defence,

death sentences carried out in 24 hours) = 1906-09 3000 executed • Hangman’s noose known as ‘Stolypin’s necktie’• Believed in radical reform of agriculture as the best strategy for resisting revolutionary demands• Carried through major programme of educational and health reform • Agricultural reform begun 1903 – removal of mir’s responsibility to pay taxes on behalf of all peasants in the village• Implemented by Stolypin 1906 and 1910-211 • Work done in 1902 Commission on Agriculture became the mainspring of government policy

Why reform? Change society - initiatives were essentially an exercise in social engineering: create more Kulaks (rural upper class) whom he saw as the

‘sturdy and strong’. Aim was to create a new class of richer peasants by encouraging them to set up as independent small farmers, building on progress already made as a result of emancipation in 1861.

Pacify the peasantry and curb revolutionary activity – avoid a repeat of rural violence of 1901 and 1904-06 and ensure the peasantry do not turn to revolutionary groups. They could instead act as a bulwark against revolution as prosperity would make them hostile to change and want to support the tsar.

Economic modernisation - wanted to break the vicious cycle of backwardness and compete with Western Europe. Future of Russia depended on prosperous peasantry and developing Kulak/rural upper class who could produce improved grain yields to export and trade

Stimulate internal industry – their industry would improve agriculture, and their wealth would be spent on consumer goods, so stimulating industry

How to reform?

Waller: Despite his reforms there was still widespread

Witte referred to the Duma system

as the ‘great illusion of our

Abolition of mir’s communal land tenure – hoped it would end peasant discontent and make them permanent owners of land. Land all in one piece rather than scattered strips.

Increase availability of land – 1906 amount of state and crown land available to peasants grew. Granted more rights 1906 - peasants granted equal rights in local administration, right to leave the commune and the collective ownership of land

by a family was abolished. Land was not the property of an individual who could withdraw it from the commune and consolidate it into one compact farm.

Land organisation commissions set up – peasants elected representatives to supervise new rights given and the new peasant Land Bank to help fund their land ownership

Redemption payments officially abolished 1907 Increase in government subsidies to encourage migration and settlement in Siberia

The Condition of the Russian Economy by 19141890’s 1900’s 1908

• Boom• Vyshnegradsky and Witte’s reforms

and focus on economic development (heavy industry, rail, foreign investment)

• Slump• European trade recession• Heavy industry affected (due to financing

by state and foreign investment)• Strikes e.g. Oil industry in Baku, textile

industry 1902-03

• 1908 - boom ended the slump

Russian Economy – the good! 1908-1913 – Russian industry growth rate 8.5% Entrepreneurs prospered Large modern factories attracted large numbers of industrial workers Increased overseas investment Light industry grew (despite neglect) due to consumer demand 1905 State injected money into heavy industry which grew

By 1914: 5th Largest industrial power! 4th largest producer of coal, pig iron and steel 2nd largest oil production due to expansion (thanks to Baku) 4th place gold mining Germany feared Russian industrialisation would outstrip German economy.

Society and the lot of the workers Health

Extension of health services in provinces (by zemstva) 1912 State system of health insurance for workers

Education Stolypin aimed to achieve compulsory universal education for all in 10 years (start 1908) Spending rose: elementary schools 1.8% à4.2% budget 77% growth in students 85% growth in schools Literacy rate 1900: 30% à1914: 40%

Russian Economy – the bad! 1908-1914 number of workers only rises from 2.5 to 2.9 million – given the population increase of 28.5 million from 1897-1914 this should have

been larger (4/5ths population still peasantry) Population of Moscow and St Petersburg (major industrial cities) only increases by approx ½ million Trans Siberian railway still unfinished and despite growth of rail this was still under target Oil production was 10.2 tons in 1900 compared to 9.4 in 1910 and 1914 National income growth is 50% by 1913 - behind other European countries e.g. Britain 70%, Italy 121%, France 52% Foreign trade (£ millions) is only 190 by 1913 – Britain 1123, Germany 1030, and France 424SOCIAL COSTSEducation: Stolypin’s compulsory universal education target not achieved by 1914 Education levels still low Prospects for self improvement limited

Workers conditions Lack of effective trade unions and legal protection from employers Wages only rose 245 to 264 roubles a month whilst inflation rose by 40% Poor factory conditions Strike activity and unrest 1912 – Lena Gold field massacre led sympathy protest of 3 million workers 1912-14 (Bolsheviks involved in organisation)

Social engineering limited

4/5ths population still peasantry Wide scale evolution of private farmers/Kulak style peasant still had not emerge

Condition of Russia by 1914

The Good• POLITICS AND OPPOSITION: Elected parliament (duma) and Zemstva in place – forum for debate about policies/legislation = people involved

in law making, opposition split – liberals on side, revolutionaries split• MONARCHY: Autocracy weakened àmoving someway towards constitutional monarchy• PEASANTRY : position improving – Stolypin’s work, Kulaks established as efficient and independent agricultural producers• ECONOMY:

Kulaks improved Russian output and fuelled industrial growth economy sounder and much less reliant on foreign investment Industrial development: heavy/light industries can compete with West

• SOCIETY: Educational improvements State welfare legislation – improves workers conditions Increase in professionally qualified people (docs, lawyers)

= upwards curve of development? THIS MAY HAVE CONTINUED HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR WW1!!

The Bad• POLITICS AND OPPOSITION: Dumas powers limited – ‘great illusion of our century’ (Witte)

Stolypin had further eroded powers along with Fundamental Laws (restated power of tsarist autocracy) Zemstvas saw voice of well-to-do rather than mass of citizens dominating decisions Opposition carrying out assassinations and discontent had not gone away

• MONARCHY: Fundamental laws restated tsarist autocracy Nicholas II still man of past and ineffective – couldn’t see or push forward needed changes for C20th , didn’t understand political impact of

economic modernisation Still reactionary and oppressive: persecution of minorities Propped up Church: superstitious Admin (army and civil) still run by incompetent leaders

• PEASANTRY : agricultural reforms helped Kulaks but were harmful to some peasants • ECONOMY:

Stoylpin’s reforms difficult to assess by 1914 (harmful and helpful) Industrial growth obscured other major limitations Still behind compared to other countries Workers had to live in poor conditions to achieve these improvements

• SOCIETY: Still 60% illiteracy, only basic education for most Not enough teachers/doctors for rural areas Huge gap between rich and poor Tsar still didn’t understand their plight or impact of economic modernisation on society

How strong was opposition by 1914?

Future was promising for the Tsar and governing classes who retained control over Russia. Why? Pacification of some opposition: liberal and educated classes had grown more conservative in outlook wanting to distance themselves from

radicals and excess of workers and due to Witte’s policies (tactics to split opposition). Liberals were no longer revolutionary Undermining of the Dumas, internal squabbling and police activity weakened revolutionary groups Divisions amongst revolutionary opposition àMarxists were divided (SDs: Bolsheviks/Menshevik split) and Struve (one of original founders

of SD’s) condemned idea of revolution Surge of patriotism due to actions of other countries- Attention had turned away from internal concerns towards the patriotic call to

champion Slavs in Serbia and Balkans (1909 Bosnian Crisis) and their struggles against Turkey and A-HAll was looking well for the future of Tsarist autocracy and opposition was much less dangerous than in 1905-1906.....

Beneath the surface....None of issues which sparked 1905 revolution had been fully resolved...

Assassinations: No minister or official could feel safe after countless political assassinations (Stolypin 1911, 1905-1909 2,828 terrorist assassinations)

Radical revolutionary activity: SR’s 1905-1909 had 4,579 members sentenced to death (2, 365 actually executed) Duma/Zemstva anti-Tsarist feelings no desire to return to pre-1905 and pure autocracy, liberals enjoyed new political outlook Restlessness amongst peasants and workers on whom country relied

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: The Rasputin scandal was probably more a symptom than a cause of the position the monarchy found itself in by

Towns: bad to worse à1912 Lena Gold Mine slaughter, 1913 wave of strikes, 1914 more on strike than 1905 Many strikes organised by Bolsheviks (now dominated largest trade unions in Moscow and St Petersburg, newspaper Pravda with

circulation of 40,000)Tsar was still underestimating the possibility of a revolution.....

Evidence that Nicholas II was unchanged by 1905 and his actions would make revolution more likely...

Romanov Tercentenary• As labour troubles resurfaced, Nicholas became increasingly detached• Held jubilee ritual to celebrate permanency of Romanovs• Dinners, balls, flying doves, open carriages, banners and decorated streets – 3 month tour after!• Met with confetti, cheers, banners• ‘My people love me’ à’now you can see for yourselves what cowards those state ministers are. They are constantly frightening the emperor

with threats of revolution’Rasputin (faith healer)

• Gained influence at court and over appointments• Corrupt behaviour

= resentment within and outside political circles, civil servants, Church and army – VERY PEOPLE HE NEEDED TO PROP UP HIS MONARCHY!!• Stolypin and Duma president showed evidence dossiers against R but Nicholas said: ‘there is nothing I can do’ and ‘I will allow no one to meddle

in my affairs’ – criticising S and DP• Damaged reputation of Tsar • Symptom of state of monarchy by 1914 but not cause of its position

Entry into WW1 July 1914

Outbreak of War Reactions:• Nicholas ignored all warnings (incl. Rasputins and Durnovo)• Across Europe: outpouring of popular enthusiasm and patriotism• Russia – spirit of national solidarity:

Army carried icons of Tsar Duma voted war credits (raising of taxes and loans to finance war) St Petersburg renamed Petrograd (St P too Germanic)

Changing reactions: Initial victories turned into defeats – Battle of Tannenburg (300,000 dead/injured), Masurian Lakes Some success in South against Austria but limited Realisation that war would not “be over by Christmas” – quick victory would not be the case and concerns over numbers of men and

munitions inspired concern Rise in discontent in Petrograd Reports of military incompetence fuelled discontent Economy showed strains of war as early as Dec 1914 – serious shortage of munitions

Why go to war?Influence! To limit Austrian expansion and the influence in the Balkans. There was a political vacuum left when the Ottoman (Turkish) empire had

collapsed and rapprochement with the Austrians had failed. Russia had a long standing commitment to provide protection for the Slavic people – this tradition was based upon protecting Orthodox

Christianity from Islamic Turkey The Tsar took his role as protector of the people very seriously The Russian high command believed that Austria was in serious decline and could be easily defeate Russian power was based upon the belief that other countries should be forced to recognise a Russian sphere of influence Panslavism sentiment in St Petersburg. Desire to back Serbia which sought to carve out a Slav nation

Economics! Russian foreign policy in the period 1850-1905 had been characterised by expansionism particularly in the territory to the West and South of the

empire in Eurasia (Georgia, Finland etc.) Russia intended to increase its influence in the Balkans to allow for greater access to the Mediterranean

Humiliation!

Many Russian diplomats believed that Russia should avoid any humiliating withdrawal after the 1905 defeat in the Russo-Japanese War 1905 and because they had backed down during the Bosnian Crisis of 1908-09

Alliances! Russia had agreed to fully support Britain (1907) and France (1892) if a conflict arose France had been responsible for providing a series of loans to the Russian government 1901-1907

WW1 and the impact upon the Army• 1914-17: 15 million men• Mainly conscript peasants• Sent to fight without suitable weaponry• Lacked basic clothing and waterproof footwear• 1914 – only 2 rifles for every 3 soldiers• Soldiers had to rely on the weapons of fallen comrades to fight• 1915 – common that Russian artillery was limited to 2-3 shells per day

1915 Tsar Nicholas II becomes commander-in-chief of the army following defeat at Galiciea Heroic or foolish? Already lost confidence of general staff Did not possess military experience to turn war around Became more responsible for various disasters Distanced himself further from developments in Petrograd Tsarina (German) now in control along with Rasputin

1916 onwards:• Most obvious deficiencies gone due to quiet winter of 1915-16 which gave training opportunities and able to produce 10,000 more rifles a month• Brusilov offensive 1916 – most front line units had a reasonable stock of machine guns and artillery shells. This offence broke Austro-Hungarian

lines but ground to halt after 3 monthsBUT!

• Lack of experienced soldiers due to losses in early stages of war

Key problems by 1916:1. Superiority of Germans – e.g. Rail network (move men quicker). August 1916 ground Russian advance to a halt. Losses at Tannenburg and

Masurian Lakes2. Diminishing morale in the army – lost faith in idea of expanding Russian empire. Led to high number of desertions3. Economic decline – difficult to fund war effort and provide equipment. War time production pressures led to deteriorating work conditions, longer

hours and harsher punishments4. Political problems – opposition to mismanagement of war from Duma, War Industries Committee and Zemgor 5. Heavy casualties – 3,600,000 dead/seriously wounded by 19166. Lack of effective leadership – Tsar Nicholas no real experience and even the Russian High Command had no faith in abilities

Why did war make revolution more likely?

1. High casualties:2. Lack of supplies3. Military defeat 4. Refugees 5. Scorched earth policy 6. Disease 7. Overcrowding 8. Infrastructure

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION:

Was the war the key turning point which led to revolution by 1917?

Wade:

The war was central both to the coming of revolution and to its outcome. It put enormous strains on the population

and dramatically increased popular discontent. In undermined the discipline of the army. Whether Russia,

without the war, could have avoided revolution is an

9. Government inefficiency 10. Leadership

Why was the Tsar forced to abdicate?

Effects of the war• Russian defeats at Tannenberg & Masurian Lakes• 3,600,000 dead/injured by 1916• Terrible conditions and shortages

Effect at home:• Food (bread) & fuel shortages• Inflation• Unemployment• Soldiers returning from frontline• Ban on sale of vodka!

Tsar Nicholas on the front line from 1915• Tsar was seen as personally responsible• Tsarina (German) running country with Rasputin• Impact of Rasputin – alienates liberals, conservatives and family members

Loss of support:• Middle classes wanted greater say in govt. And have become more oppositional during war• Non-governmental organisations e.g. Zemgor proven worth by organising relief during war• Upper classes resented Tsarina & Rasputin• Harsh winter of 1916 • Army increasingly convinced of incapability of Tsar• 26th Feb – Tsar orders Duma to be shut down but it refuses

Effects of the war by February 1917• Jan 5th – 150,000 demonstrate Petrograd• Feb 14th – 100,000 on strike• News of bread rationing from March 1st sparked unrest as bread queues led to attacks over limited supplies• Feb 22nd, 20,000 workers from Putliov engineering works in Petrograd go on strike• Feb 23rd, International Women’s Day – march turns political and joined by students and workers – 240,000 involved• Waved red flags, sang Marseillaise, demanded end to Tsardom overturning statues• Feb 25th – 3 days of violence, looting, drunkenness and closure of major factories and shops• Police officers attacked• Tsar orders use of force

Army failure to support Tsar• 26th Feb – Tsar orders army to restore order by force• Turned riots into revolution after 40 deaths• Army then refuses to obey orders• Some regiments shot officers• Joined demonstrators and marched on Duma • Soldiers mutiny including cossaks

Result – 27th Feb 1917• Duma forms a special committee of all political parties. Rodzianko leads group of members to create the Provisional government• Army High Command generals ordered to support the Duma committee• Soviet of Workers’ Deputies/Petrograd Soviet (body of socialists) set up with Mensheviks dominating. They invite factories to elect

representatives to attend a meeting where a Provisional Executive Committee is elected

Tsar Abdicates• Railway workers refused entrance to Petrograd to Tsar• Kronstadt soldiers mutinied• Army elect committees to send representatives to the Soviet - Order no 1 (soldiers rights) issued• 1st March – Petrograd Soviet recognised Provisional Government formed by members of Duma • 2nd March 1917 Tsar abdicates – Mikhail (Nicholas’ younger brother) refuses the throne

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION:

Waller:

In Petrograd, Rasputin began to meddle in political appointments

and policy decisions, whilst there were rumours that Nicholas’s German wife,

Alexandra, was deliberately sabotaging the war effort.

There were many changes of ministers in the 12 months after 1915, including 3-4 changes in some ministries and these were

• Exiled to Siberia – end of the Romanovs

The Provisional Government

Problems they inherited: Problems with the land – peasants were helping themselves to the land Existence and powers of Petrograd Soviet How and who should the PG be made up of? Tsar abdicating did not solve Russia’s problems e.g. workers unemployment and inflation Continuation of involvement in WW1 – series of defeats and desertion by army Choice of PG leaders

The nature of the government• Was only to rule until a Constituent Assembly was created by an equal, direct and secret ballot leading to a constitution.• Elected under equal, direct and secret ballot• Would draw up a new constitution• Prince Lvov to be PM• ‘Commissars’ – new committee of ministers to be appointed• Mainly composed of Liberals (Octoberists and Kadets)• Kerensky – only socialist – also on the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet

Uneasy compromise• PG only really controlled Moscow, Petrograd, and Central European provinces = reliant upon Soviet support for survival• Soviet agreed not to press for redistribution of land or state control of industry• Provisional government promised to carry out some Soviet demands:

Complete amnesty for those charged with religious, terrorist or military crimes Freedom of speech and ability to form TU’s Self government for the army Civil liberties for army same as civilians Citizen militia to be established to keep order (elected) Promise of independent judges, trial by jury etc. Garrison of St Petersburg to retain its weapons and remain in the city

Why was the PS willing to support a ‘middle class’ PG?

HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Waller: It was essential that the Petrograd Soviet give the new government support since it controlled the factories, essential

a) Soviet was aware of the need for the experience of the PG to maintain the economyb) Leaders feared working class anarchy and were uncertain of their ability to control their own workersc) Leaders feared counter-revolution (supporters of old regime may try to seize back power if things were going to quick)d) Leader’s Marxist views were founded on the belief that a middle class revolution had to precede a working class one

Composition of the PG/coalition government

• Composed of: liberals (Octoberists, Kadets) and one socialist, Kerensky• PM’s: Lvov then Kerensky• Chief members were:

Lvov: Kadet, favoured decentralised government. First leader. Stepped down 4th July as could not control mix of liberalists and socialists Milyukov: Kadet, favoured constitutional monarchy, no sympathy for socialists. Forced to resign due to note to Britain and France

promising continued support in the war Guchkov: Octobrist, supported strong government, forced to resign after Milyukov’s note Kerensky: SR and member of Petrograd Soviet. Acts as link between PG and PS and later PM

Problems facing the Provisional Government

PROBLEM 1: Composition and Framework of PG/Coalition government• Composed of: liberals (Octoberists, Kadets) and only one socialist, Kerensky• PM’s: Lvov then Kerensky• Chief members were:

Lvov: Kadet, favoured decentralised gov. First leader. Stepped down 4th July as could not control mix of liberalists and socialists Milyukov: Kadet, favoured constitutional monarchy, no sympathy for socialists. Guchkov: Octobrist, supported strong government Kerensky: SR and member of Petrograd Soviet. Link between PG and PS and later PM

PROBLEM 2: Choice of leaders• Prince Lvov first PM – traditionalist, wealthy aristocratic landowner. Kadet. Experienced (first Duma, Zemstav, Zemgor). Favoured

decentralised government. Could not control the mix of liberalist and socialists• 4th July, led by Kerensky - associated with the middle class. • Not seen as having anything in common with the working class, therefore, how could they possibly represent them?

PROBLEM 3: Role and Position of the Petrograd Soviet• Essential that the PS give the PG support (control of factories, essential services, military) the very things a gov needs to survive• PS made up of 3000 members, not dominated by one party, but leaders included Kerensky (SR) and Mensheviks• Compromise made: PS would not push for land redistribution or state control of industry if the PG carried out most of its other demands e.g.

Self government for army Citizen’s militia to keep order PS to retain weapons and remain in the city

• This led to a dual power arrangement: PG ‘ruled’ while PS was watchdog protecting interests of soldiers and workers and protecting against any Tsarist ways returning

PROBLEM 4: Continuation of problems of condition of Russia• Tsar abdicating did not suddenly solve Russia’s problems • Soviets established in urban and rural areas to represent various groups• Nationalities – only Poland granted independence. Others ordered to wait until a Constituent Assembly was set up• Shortages of fuel and raw materials and food• Conciliation Chambers and Factory committees set up but the PG usually supported employers to ensure discipline : refused limit on 8 hour day,

wage rises or improvements in conditions – workers had no say in management of factories they worked in• Unemployment still continued causing discontent• Living standards were still poor, Soviets created to aid this merely added to grievances • Inflation coupled with Russia’s industry still behind European rivals = factories were forced to close• This led to clashes between government and workers: strikes (175,000 in June)• Alienation of workers against PG who weren’t doing enough for them

PROBLEM 5: Policies towards the peasants • The peasantry expected immediate change• Expected with collapse of Tsardom that the rich landowners would be forced to hand over land to peasantry• PG finally set up Land Committees to collect information• Delays led to increasing frustration• It decided to refuse to give land to the poor peasants in the rural areas.

• Seemed to confirm that the Provisional Government did not understand the desires of the poor. • New grain requisitioning schemes still provided less than they needed or were entitled to• Peasants started hoarding grain, arresting and punishing local officials and seizing landowners property organised by the revived mir , volost

(parish), and councils – represented and organised peasantry – in order to get their demands met • This impacted on the nobility, church and Kulaks• The PG was forced to use armed force to control their activities

PROBLEM 6: Continuation of the War• Decided to continue in WW1• War was hated by the Russian people who had suffered greatly as a result of it – lost lives, food/resources shortages, splits in PG over

continuation and discontent• Conscription and defeats demoralised the weakened army• Soldiers committee’s were set up – some improvement and less aristocratic control but much continued as before• Committee’s often ignored PG and PS’s orders – 365,000 desertions March-May 1917 (compared to 195,000 Aug 1914-Feb 1917)• PG torn between the need to restore order and fear that a strong army might lead to a right wing military coup

Challenges to the Provisional Government

Opposition 1: Lenin returns + +

Lenin (Bolshevik leader) returned to Russia in April 1917. He is desperate to see the Bolsheviks take power. Delivers April Thesis at Finland Station: Peace, Land and Bread as well as All power to the Soviets Reaction to this is mixed (still minority group, too soon?, too radical?, meddling Mensheviks)

Opposition 2: July Days• Workers, sailors and soldiers were angry that the war and the fuel and food shortages continue = rioted against the PG • A poor harvest and closure of 586 factories in Petrograd adds to this.• The PG responded with ‘punishment brigades’ • Soldiers and Kronstadt sailors joined workers to chant “All power to the Soviets” attacking property, looting shops, and seizing rail buildings as

well as marching towards the Tauride Palace • Bolsheviks were blamed (although probably minor involvement in spontaneous event), and arrest warrants issued (Lenin was actually on holiday

at time)• Trotsky was sent to Gaol.• Lenin quickly returned and then fled again to Finland.• Neither condemned nor supported rebellion stating it had simply come too soon.• Soviet newspaper Izvestia denounced role of Bolsheviks, said Lenin was working with Germans, and Bolshevik propaganda and buildings were

burned• Kerensky replaces Prince Lvov as PM as only hope of bringing factions together. Decided to keep a coalition government including Liberal

Kadets to encourage stability and avoid civil war

Opposition 3: Kornilov Affair• A general called Kornilov is appointed wanting a return to court martials. He gets so angry with the weakness of the Russian Government that he

threatened to take power himself • He and his troops got on trains to go to Petrograd to take power.• Kerensky was in a panic, and he gave rifles to the Bolsheviks’ Army, the Red Guard, to defend Petrograd against Kornilov.• However, Kornilov didn’t arrive – the railway workers had pulled up the tracks so the trains stopped. The Bolsheviks look like heroes and have kept

the rifles!

Result:• The Provisional Government (P.G.) are unpopular because they shoot peasants who take land by force. • Crime is rocketing: the P.G. don’t seem to be in control ! Winter is coming …• The Bolsheviks are increasingly popular in the Petrograd Soviet and they have control of the Moscow Soviet as well as lots of support.• Lenin spends a whole night convincing reluctant Bolsheviks that the time is right for Revolution !

The Revolution of October 1917

Seven key reasons for Bolshevik’s succeeding in gaining power:1. Kerensky and the Provisional government problems and mistakes (long term and during the event)2. Slogans and propaganda (e.g. Newspapers)

3. Role of Lenin 4. Role of Trotsky5. Bolshevik control of the Soviets6. Red army 7. Support of the army and navy

Key events:

Lenin returns• October 7th – Lenin in Petrograd to talk to central committee to convince them to take power immediately• Kerensky was concerned about a Bolshevik takeover, so sent radical troops away from Petrograd• The Bolshevik controlled Soviet claimed Kerensky was ‘abandoning the city’ to the Germans• Provided an excuse for the Bolshevik controlled Soviet to setup a Military Revolutionary Committee (Trotsky led) to defend the city in the face of

a German threat

Soviets set up military revolutionary committee• Trotsky led• 66 members, 48 were Bolsheviks• Appointed Commissars to military units to issue orders and organise weapon supplies• Committee controlled:

200,000 Red Guards 60,000 Baltic sailors 150,000 Petrograd garrison soldiers

• Declared purpose: control troops movements (in the face of a German threat)

Lenin’s Plea• Convinced Central Committee (10 to 2 votes) that ‘an armed rising is the order of the day’• Zinoviev and Kamenev agreed refused, publishing their own views in Novaia Zhin: ‘If we take power now and we are forced into a revolutionary

war, the mass of soldiers will not support us’

Kerensky’s Mistake• Kerensky tried to close down two Bolshevik newspapers• Tried to restrict the Military Revolutionary Committee• Bolshevik propagandists claimed it was a betrayal of the Soviet and abandonment of the February Revolution• Gave Bolsheviks excuse to act!

Role of Trotsky• Trotsky had tremendous power and influence on the Military Revolutionary Committee• Organised final stages of revolution• Used support of Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee and, in the name of the Second Congress of Soviets, 5000 sailors and soldiers from

Kronstadt moved into the city• They were supported by the Red Guard• Seized key positions – communication and infrastucture were targets for seizure (telephone, rail, bank)

Kerensky flees to Petrograd• Kerensky fled to the Front when he realised the Petrograd troops wouldn’t defend the Provisional Government• Hoped to meet loyal troops to march back to Petrograd• Rest of the Provisional Government held a Winter Palace emergency session• The Aurora gun shot signalled the beginning of the Bolshevik attack

All Russian Congress of Soviets• First session 26th October• Kamenev told them the Petrograd Soviet had been taken by force and a new governing committee was to be set up• Lenin would lead it• Soviet Council of People’s Commissars/Sovnarkom was to be created who would, between them, run the country• It would be made up of Bolsheviks or left wing Social Revolutionaries• The delegates were not in full agreement• 390 Bolsheviks accepted it• 80 Mensheviks and 180 right wing Social Revolutionaries as well as 30 others formed the majority claiming it was a Bolshevik coup and that

power had not been taken in the name of the soviets• They left, leaving only those who were prepared to support Lenin

Decree on Peace (immediate peace)

Decree on Land (all land property of the people to be redistributed by village soviets)

• Lenin claimed majority support for the new government

Impact in PetrogradBolsheviks remained in power thanks to agreeing to inter-party talks and also Bolshevik agitators

BOLSHEVIK RULE!!! = END OF TSARIST RUSSIA

• Generally small scale affair• Trotsky claimed 25,000-30,000 were actively involved (5% of all workers and soldiers in the city) to boast that it was a ‘popular revolution’• How many were actively involved is the question though• Photos suggest perhaps forces were smaller • Kerensky set up HQ in Gatchina near Petrograd and had rallied forces of 18 Cossack regiments and some SR cadest and officers. Many

commanders did not join in case they looked counter-revolutionary. Their army was still bigger than Lenin’s.• Fighting ensued.