• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month


Extracts from this document...


'THE TSARIST REGIME WAS SECURE BY 1905' EXPLAIN HOW FAR YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS SATEMENT By 1881 Russia was a very powerful country; the size of the country was equivalent to two and a half times the size of the USA. However, Russia was seen as a backward country in social, political and economic terms. The Tsar claimed all absolute authority, it was a criminal offence to oppose the tsar in 1881, and Russia was in autocratic rule. This just showed how little Russia had advanced politically. By 1905 the tsarist regime was secure in some cases but not in others. Progressive tsars up to Alexander II took steps to modernise Russia, so that they could be on the same wavelength as the 'western' powers. The modernisation f the country did not include the extension of political rights. State censorship was imposed on the press and on published books. This shows to some degree that the regime was not secured as people did oppose the regime otherwise censorship would not be needed. However by 1905, there was a massive change in industrialisation, the economy of Russia made a remarkable turn around. With the duma (created in 1870), cabinet, the zenistra proved to be quite useful with 15,000 extra schools being introduced by 1880. In addition, the interest in local politics grew as forums and discussions within assemblies grew to be frequent occasions. The Russian monarchy veered to the right after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and in the personal politics of the last two tsars, Alexander III and Nicholas II, that is where it stayed until 1917. ...read more.


Emancipation had a far worst effect on the nobility because they were totally unprepared and as a result did not survive, they had to sell of land to pay existing debts. The most important reason for Emancipation was the desire to strengthen the Russian State in military, economic and industrial terms. It was hoped that revitalised peasant economy would provide the basis for industrialisation by providing surplus capital for investment, but this aim was not achieved. Therefore the Emancipation Decree of 1861 did not solve the problems of the peasantry and only made things worse then they already were. This showed that the regime was not very secure at all, and had opposition in this case, as the poor were treated badly and wanted to start a revolution. Emancipation act of 1861 had a far-reaching effect on Tsarist society by not solving the problem of the peasantry because of the economic, social and political effects. Conditions for the poor had worsened since 1891 when famine swept through the southern region of Russia and forced millions of peasants to leave their families and village communities to search for work in towns. Most of the industrial workers who worked in the factories were peasants and women. Women filled the textile factories in St Petersburg and Moscow, which was the poorest paying industry in Russia.. The industrial workers were angry at the poor living and working conditions. Living space was at a premium so workers had to occupy accommodation provided by the employers. There were ten to a room and a single sheet separated bedrooms. There was no privacy and famine easily spread. Also there were no regulations on safety or hours of work, so some people died or were badly injured and had to work 12-15 hours per day. ...read more.


The outstanding spokesman for this viewpoint was Lenin. Although the Bolshevik Party was well organised and was becoming increasingly popular in Russia, both Lenin and his deputy were caught unawares by the March Revolution of 1917 and were unable to seize the opportunity offered by this revolution to get themselves into power. Hence the liberals got in first. The tsarist regime remained secure as none of the oppositions were able to pose a threat to the Tsar up to 1905. This was achieved through the Okhrana, the army and greater police surveillance to keep the opposition in check. Also in each group there seemed to be disturbances which stopped the groups from succeeding such as leadership disputes, little success, couldn't seize power etc. In conclusion, I don't the tsarist regime was not totally secure by 1905. The economy and the industry of the country got a massive boost through the direction of Sergei Witte. The 'great spurt' helped to stimulate reformers and revolutionaries alike through the rapid industrial growth in the 1890s. It was very successful in crushing all opposition through the Okhrana, the army, the Orthodox Church and by 1905 opposition groups didn't pose a serious threat as the groups were much disorganised. However on the other hand by 1905 the regime was opposed and angered many peasants and middle class workers, they endured sickening working conditions the were living in poverty and received poor wages, and had to pay taxes on grain and also on items such as alcohol and salt. If I was personally in their position I would consider revolting and would be willing to part of a revolution. By 1905 the Tsarist regime was secure in some places but not in others. FAHIM TALUKDER L6SD ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text


Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. To what extent did the emancipation of the serfs in Russiain 1861 improve the ...

    As the serfs had no money, paying was almost impossible so this meant that they had to work for the landowner instead, meaning that they were doing almost the same as what they had before the edict but now they were in debt too.


    the historian says: "and perhaps not" which suggests that he is not certain that "the most painful stages would have passed". Another source which supports Kokovstov's point is Source 3 which shows statistics comparing Russia's average annual industrial growth rate with that of other nations involved in WW1.

  1. Why was the Tsarist regime able to survive the revolution of 1905?

    After the defeat they demanded wage rises, formation of trade unions and that certain laws were to be abolished. These demands led to people joining together for their cause and on Oct 22nd 1905 thousands of industrial workers, people of all ages marched to the Tsars palace in St Petersburg.

  2. Assess the strengths &amp;amp; weakness of Russia around 1855

    They were around 44 percent of Russia's population. Serfs were the property of a little over 100,000 land owning lords (pomeshchiki). Some were owned by religious foundations, and some by the tsar (state peasants). Some laboured for people other than their lords, but they had to make regular payments to


    it was apparent when he was alive Stalin would have certainly of had him assassinated. Another form of opposition which was less threatening but still apparent involved the growing educated and free thinking middle class able to read and understand western authors and ideas.

  2. explain the importance of the use of force in enabling the Tsarist regime to ...

    and carried out the orders of Tsar, which consisted of the use of force. Source A and B both show that military force was used before the Revolution and the Tsar had no problem in using it. An eyewitness in Source A claims that the military 'rode right into the

  1. How secure was the Tsar's powers up to 1904?

    The aim of this was to show workers the benefits of a non revolutionary approach to social problems. Similar organisations were set up in other trade in different areas, but when in 1903 Zubatov unions led strikes in south Russia the employers put pressure on the government to have them disbanded.

  2. How successfully did the Tsarist regime deal with the problems of Agriculture between 1856 ...

    The Mir made all decisions as to issues regarding land distribution and use, including times when crops should be sown and reaped. To try and ensure fair distribution of land, a family would maintain use of land in both good and bad areas that was normally allocated in strips.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work