Opposition to Russian rulers was more successful under the rule of the Tsars than the Communist governments.

LOA

Overall the stance is accurate to suggest that oppostion was more successful under the Tsars than the communist

Whilst some groups did have some consderiable failures under the Tsars ie workers and other groups like the nationlities had some success under the communist . In general they were more successful under the Tsars because the communist were much more strict and effective when it came to dealing with the opps .

Factors

Pesants

Workers

Political groups

Pesantry

Why were they a serious threat

Who was aware of this ?

How many revolts since when ?

What did he pass as a result ? When

Whilst this limited in ..... It still remains signficant ...

Throughout the period the pesantry were exploited and manipulated for cheap labour however they made up the vast majority of the population meaning when they revolted they put up a serious threat to the GOV , and were often given concessions during both the Tsars and the communist in order to prevent this .

There had been 1497 revolts since 1800.

Alex II was worried that they were go to abolish themselves 'from the bottom' - shows how the pesantry oppostion was a serious threat to autocracy .

1861 - emancipation edict passed - This gave the pesants social , politcal freedoms .ie could marry who ever they want , set up businesses and own land

creation of the Zemstva as a result 1864 - incresed poltical partcipation and control through local councils in every town

Although thease changes were largely superficial and v. limited in practise . Still remains sig as it shows the sucess of their ops , they were considered a threat and therefore met with concessions and comprmise - with their needs being taken into consdieration

This was mirrored under which Tsar

What were they unhappy with?

What were there revolts called and what were they linked to ?

Knowing the gov weakness they did what ?

What did they do to their property ?

Why was this a serious threat

What did the Tsar try and do ?What does this show

What was passed as a result and when

In what way was this similar emancipation

Nicholas ii

They were not happy with the redemption payments between 1900 and 07 , esp since demands were not being met . As well as genrel discontent after the ' superficial' emancipation'

Black earth region revolts - linked to the 1905 rev

Oransied strikes on rent and riots against landowners as the harvests got worse they would set houses of the gentry on fire and landowners were forced to flee

The pesants were united in their opposition - V serious threat given size and that the state was also dealing with opps from other groups at the same time

They tried to calm them down with concessions but failed and the violence continued to spread - shows the strength and severity of their oppostion and the weakness / fragility of the state

October mainfesto in 1905

Much like the emancipation of the serfs this was very limited in practice autocracy still remained , and the passing of the fundemental laws meant that all the changes made under the OM were undermined

However why is it still sig ?

It clearly shows how the opposition of the pesantry was serious threat to Nicholas ii gov as well as Alex II because of their size and unfication and therfore they were met with sigficant concessions like EA and OM which allowed them to become more econmically free which in turn would lead to social and pol freedom instead of just being met with violence . Thus showing how the oppostion from the pesantry was a sucess in the Tarist regimes

However, which communist leader did the peasants provide strong and successful opposition to much like the Tsars .

What group were they during the civil war ?

Why why they angry .

Were they a serious threat during the war ?

What was this made worse by ? ( might not be correct)

Was this a serious threat

Lenin

The greens - after the Treaty of Brest - Litvosk , forced pesants to give up all surplus grain at a much lower price .

Grain requestioning

Due to the size and influence of the movement they were a serious threat to Bolshevick power

Kronstadt mutiny - whilst this was not directly the pesants - they were rising against soviets on behalf of the pesantry oppostion and their ill treatment ( take out after being checked ) .

This was the biggest threat to the Soviet goverment , given how close the two were aligned . It was this attack that was the catalyst for the NEP

The NEP was it sig

What did it allow for

What does this show

Link between Tsars and communist

Whilst the NEP was short term it was the most signficant reform / concession to the pesantry up untill this point.

This is because they allowed for the end of grain requisitioning

Re introduction of a free market which peasants could gain extra profits for surplus grain - This increased self ownership and decentralised control

Although it was very short term in practice much like Emancipation and October mainfesto had a lot of impact in the ST .

This shows a clear pattern between the Tsars and the communist of the peasantry putting up a serious and successful opposition to the gov and thus being met with very sig political and econmic concessions in attempt to calm them down - perhaps suggesting that the opposition from the peasantry was equally successfull under bot the Tsars and the communists

This is furthered by whom ?

However which leader suggests that the the stance is correct ?

What did he do to upset them ?

Stats

Why had they been the biggest opposition to the pesants ?

all most all of Krushchevs refroms were focused on the pesantry ie the Virgin land schemes and the seven year plans and general welfare schemes were all focused around improving the lives of the peasants and thus stimulating argiculture production - he has learnt from Stalin's and Lenin's mistakes - knew the power of the peasantry - this reinforces the argument that the peasants were successful in their opposition throughout the time period .

Stalin .

Stalins policy of forced collectivisation and 'dekulakisation' was inevitiably unpopular ie 60% of farms had been collectivised by end of 1929 and the grain profits were taken away from them

Much like the Tsars and Lenin , the Kulaks and the pesantry were the biggest threat to the Stalin and his policy of collectivisation but instead of dealing with their opps via concessions he thought it would be more effective if they were removed .

How did they oppose collectivisation ?

However

They violently objected abodning their farms -in many cases

they slaughtered their livestock and destroyed all of their equipment - animosity towards the soviet regime had become so great Stalin was forced to slow down the process .- Perhaps suggest that oppostion was equally successful under the Tsars and the communist.

Dekulakisation and the purges was a direct response to the pesantry oppostition .

Over 10 million were purged and to sent to labour camps in Siberia those who opposed him were shot and their land confiscated - The peasants were at ' war with Stalin- this clearly shows how the pesantry oppostion was largely unsuccessful during the communist regimes although they had some minor success under Lenin the scale and severity of Stalins attack on them suggest they were largely a failure although they were not completely sucessfulll under the Tsars ie Alex III undid all of their poltical reforms in Zemstva etc and did not respond to their grievences/ oppostion this was nowhere near the scale and severity of Stalin - suggesting the stance is correct

The workers

General summary

The workers much like the peasantry were exploited and used for their labour . Although they were largely unsuccessful throughout the period as they were respected or seen as a class under the Tsars unlike the peasantry they did have some minor successes under the tsars . The scale and the severity of the communist response means the stance is correct

Alex III

The defeat of the Crimean war showed what

What were working conditions like

Were they allowed to strike and join trade unions

What was introduced

The Russian industry was in a desperate state and needed an urgent reform .

With the growth in industry a new urban class was produced however the workers were poorly skilled , badly paid , over worked as well as as awful housing ie living in a wooden hut

Trade unions and so was striking however they occurred a lot esp in 1882 1885

Inspections of factories were introduced and a min working hours were introduced .

Although this was very limited in practise , conditions still remained poor and the industrial workers were still not considered a class .

Still sig shows that the Tsars reconised the grievences and importance of the industrial workers . Partially successful

This was taken even further under who ?

Date what happened

Other workers wanted what

The news spread through what

Father Gapon

What were they met with

This was taken even further under Nicholas II , as the industry grew the opposition/ grievances became more serious

1905 ' bloody sunday'

5 men were sacked from the Puitlov factory

Other workers went on strike demanding reinstatement

The news spread through the the city quickly and 105,000 workers throughout the city went on strike

Angry with their ill treatment father Gapon head of the Mill assembly marched down with thousands of workers outside the Winter palace , demanding change

they were met with open fire and 200 were killed 800 wounded - Short term failure - perhaps suggest they were not successful under the Tsars .

However it was a long term impact/ success . Why ?

What happened as a result

What was passed as a result

This event was a catalyst for the 1905 revloution - people were not happy happy with the way the Tsar handled the situation .

Strikes across all the major industrial cities ie Moscow , Warsaw - this shows how opposition of the industrial workers was a serious threat because of their unity - they were a serious threat to the econmically weak Tsarist regime and therefore both Alex II and Nicholas were forced to respond to them ?

The October mainfesto- this allowed for political reforms such as freedom of speech , assembly a state duma - although this was limited in practise by the fundemental laws which meant that autocracy remaind - still sig as it shows how the workers were v successful as they were a unfied oppostition and thus were able to put pressure on the weak Tasrist gov and get grivences taken into considration - suppourts statement

The same pattern occured when

What had been happening in the petrograd

in 1917 - Feb revloution

A series of strikes - the situation in the capital slowly deterioted

They went around Petrograd marching - unified in their opposition as a result the police could not stop them and eventually the army joined them in their opposition - The pressure of this event and the war meant the Tsar was forced to abdicate .

Huge success this shows clear parallels of the workers during the Tsarist regime being a sucessfull form of opposition because of their unifcation and size they are able to cause signficant disruption to the weak Tsarist and thus able to make very signficant and impactful change .

Why were they going to be treated different under the communist ?

Very little opposition under who

However who was it different ?

Oposition

What was installed into them

What happened in 1928?

What does this show ?

Due to the Socialist background of the Bolshevicks and their ties with the Petrograd soviet workers more of a priority .

There was very little opposition from the workers under Lenin .

Oppostion was a sucesss

Under Stalin he used his economic policy as a way of controlling and opresssing the workers - similar position like the Tsars

They were forced into labour and given very low wages due to inflation . Although there was a lot in internal oppostion and discontent , unlike the Tsars they could not publicly march on the streets due to the fear of being sent to a gulag camp .

Fear - if they did not meet targets they were accused of sobtage

Shakhty trial - there were very little evidence agaisnt workers however they were executed - the story spread around moscow - created fear and prevented opposition

Supports stance , although there was still industrial opposition under the Soviets , the workers were less successfull because of how strict and terrorising the soveit regime was - much like pesantry

Novercherka

1962 , k were not happy with rise in meat and diary price rises , rioted on street and met with open fire

24 were killed and 240 were used for show trials - smiliar to Stalin - oppoistion was not a success due to the strict soviet regime .

Stance is correct

Political opposition

The Kadets and octoberists -

How were they different to populists and Marxists

What were there aims

Mondernised

Press and assembly

Workers and pesants

monarchy

How did they

How did the liberals oppose the Tsar

Why were they not happy with the Tsar

How did the Kadets respond

Did this have a large impact

What were Ocbertists like

The Kadets and the Octberists were made up from the inetllegensia and the bourgeoisie therefore they were less radical in their aims although this meant they were less of a threat it did mean that there demands were more likely to be responded to by the Tsars .

They were most prominent during Nicholas II reign

Be more like the west and be more modernised

Free press and a reprsentive assembly

Improve conditions for the workers and peasants ie land

a consistutional monarchy and full equality for all citzens

They supported Tsar but wanted change

The Kadets and Octberists main opposition was through the state duma the Kadets had a majority on the 1st Duma

Not happy with his false promises of suffrage and representation - DUMA was shut after an outbreak of violence .

200 Kadets adjorned in Finland and directly spoke against the Tsar and his superficial political changes

No - it provoked little response and most who joined were banned from elections and there were no riots in the Duma - Failure under the Tsars - by the second duma the kadets had been dissolved out - failure - weren't politically involved till the Duma and failed when they were in there

They put political pressure on the Tsar during the civil war but were too appeased by the civil war - which was superficial and undermined by the October manifesto

Oppostion was largely unsuccessful during the period of the Tsars

The populists

In what were they different to liberals

Unlike the liberals the populasist had been a what to the what

The Nordicks brief synopsis of what happened

What did Land and Liberty do ?

Why was it a long term failure

The SRs

What did they do under Nicholas II - Who did they Kill

Why was this signficant

They were more radical and therefore posed more of a threat

An ongoing threat to the Tsarist regime - they started under Alex II

Members of the gentry were determined to change the political system - they decided future laid in the hands of the peasants . went to the peasants to encourage uprising but failed - peasants weren't interested - Movement was crushed - Although it was a short term failure the movement grew more radical and bigger - split into ' Land and liberty'

They actively got rid of the tsar - they assented Alex in 1881 -this clearly shows how opposition was more successful under the Tsars , this would have never happened under any of the communist leader due to the police - Short term success

Much like the liberals they had some short term success but long term failure - They did not get rid of the Tsarist regime and when Alex III took over the throne he was far more repressive ie 150 members arrested and reforms undone - opposition was partially successful under the Tsars

Formed under the Nicholas - dissopented with his approach to politics - like Land and liberty they were radical and were willing to use terriorsim

They blew up the new Minister of interior - the Tsars closest adviser

Although this alone did not cause his abdication the political pressure from the Populists and the Marxist were a very signficant contributor to the Tsars abdication

Who did the SRs continue to act like this under ?

Where did they play a major role

40,000 Czech were what

What did they join

Who crushed them

What does this show

Lenin - suggesting perhaps suggesting that opposition was equally under Tsars and communists

They played a major role in the civil war weren't happy with Lenin shutting down the CA

captured by the Austro-Hungarian army - An army that had helped Russia a brawl broke out between them - this was fuel for the SRs - they all travelled towards Moscow

Trostsky sent order to get them all killed - one in ten were shot

They joined an Anti bolsehvick government with other political groups - V signficant a united opposition

However they were eventually crushed by Trotsky - 50 k men - That although the same opposition groups existed under both Tsars and communist and the strict and extreme methods of communist meant that they were destroyed - SR crushed - no open political opposition to the communist only internal

The Marxists

Alexander III was more successful at dealing with opposition than any other ruler of Russia in the period from 1855 to 1964’. How far do you agree?

Factors

And what rulers would you use under them

LOA -

Empire

Alex III

Krushechev

Stalin

Pesants

AlexIII

AlexII

Lenin

Industry

Alex III

Nicholas

Stalin

Whilst Alex III was definitely the most repressive Tsar the extent to which the communists dealt with opposition means that they were more repressive - Stalin

Alex III

How did he deal with opposition from the empire

Who was this similar to

in order to maintain control and prevent further opposition he introduced tight laws and really introduced Russification with thin in the Empire - was very paranoid about the Jews and their effect on Russian society - 1400 pieces on anti Semitic legislation , put jews back in the pale - Kishnev 1903 -- re introduced Russian books and education in the baltic provences - this was very sig - very repressive and thus effective - dealt with very little opps - had learnt from his father's mistakes .

Krush -1956- Hungarian uprising 1956- desalinisation wanted independence away from the soviet empire - thought K was more liberal - destalinsation - thousands involved marching the street .- K sent in 30,000 troops to quash it - leaders were executed - Made it clear that destalinisation was not getting rod of soviet control -SHOWS THAT BOTH USED LARGE SCALE REPRESSION TO PUT DOWN - IN THIS WAS ALEX III WAS MORE LIKE A COMMUNIST than TSAR - REPRESSIVE .

However the scale to which Stalin used it was much more effective

for example in the 1950s Polish workers went on strike for various reasons - 300,000 - Stalin rounded them up and sent them to concentration camps - shows the scale to which he used it -

Doctors plot against the Jews 1925

Pesants

Alex III

What was introduced in 1889 ?

In contrast which two leaders dealt with peasantry opposition with reforms

why

What did they introduce

Like his father he was increasingly worried about the peasant uprising and the power of the serfs however he was not going to meet them with reform .

Peasantry were forced back into the Mir and land banks were introduced in 1889 - Land captains were reintroduced - Nobility were sent into watch over and dictate peasant communes - re inserting noble control over the pesantry - however there were no major peasant uprisings till Nicholas - suggests repression was working

Lenin and Alex

- pesants had played a key role in the cvil war the greens as well as Kronstadt mutiny threat very sig

- Alex 1487 pesant revolts since 1800 - better to abolish from the top than the bottom - BOTH WERE FORCED TO REFORM

NEP - 1921 , ended grain req , could sell surplus grain

Emancipation -1861 - social freedoms etc

NEP WAS ST however there were no major peasantry revolts - was this because of the NEP or communist terror

Emancipation only satisfied them for the ST - Bedvest revolt - related it was facade - threat

Alex III was more effective

Opposition from the politcal opposition .

How did Alex III deal with the political oppostion