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.

Police State He alone had the power to rule.
No freedom of speech, travel God on earth.
abroad or press. Censorship Russia was his private land, the
in place. people his children.
‘Third Section’ kept Ruled using ukase (laws)
surveillance.
Meetings and strikes
Orthodox Church.
forbidden.
Russia deeply religious
Patriach of Moscow worked with
Army the Tsar and Over-Procurator was
1.5 million conscripted serfs – appointed by the Tsar to oversee
25 years forced service. church affairs.
45% gov expenditure. Bishops subject to Tsarist control
Higher posts given to nobles over appointments, religious
who bought positions. Used education and finances
Advisors
for wars and internal
Chosen by Tsar and could
uprisings.
not act without Tsar’s
approval.
Bureaucracy
Paid nobles. Corrupt and Nobility
incompetent. Orders Tsar needed them for support.
passed from centre to Many did support as
governors of the 50 Provincial Governors. Used to
provinces. One way control peasants on the mir.
system - no ideas flowed Tsar sometimes appointed
committees but rarely
listened to them
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 War
Why 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:
• 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 I
Obstacle 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 Civil Rights were limited.
 1842: Law of Obligated Peasants allowed landlords
to negotiate fixed agreements on land-holding
Could be bought and sold,
subject to corporal
and obligations in contract, but also freed landlords
from any obligations to support such peasants in
punishment, couldn’t marry
hard times = Only 27,000 had become obligated by 1858
without permission and
 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
could be conscripted.
Landlords could do
 Wanted broader scale of serf reforms but delay after Crimean war led to tensions
anything but murder a
When Alexander II comes to power he therefore:

serf!
  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 autocracy
Obstacle 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 laws
Obstacle 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!

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

Alexander II’s other reforms

 ALEXANDER II’S REFORMS - A SUMMARY

AIMS OF REFORM REFORMS TAKEN STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

(consider impact on society) (consider impact on society)

E • Break serfdom whilst minimising social, • Editing commission draw n up in 1859 by • Opened the door to modernisation of Russia – • Retrogressive as well as progressive
economic and political disruption that would Rostovstev à Count Panin first stage of reforms
M ensue • Strengthening of the village commune (mir)
• Emancipation statutes 1861 – serfs to be given • Monumental reform appreciated by all classes of – perpetuation of traditional farming
A • Ensure emancipation was financially and personal freedom in principle but had to remain Russians techniques and further barrier to
politically affordable. serfs for two years while charters were drawn transformation of Russian serfs into
N • Emancipating the serfs, the tsarist regime was
up individual peasant landowners
• Modernise Russia and make it more embracing social and economic modernisation
C
efficient • Serfs to remain ‘temporarily obligated’ • Disorder at Bezdna
I
• Russia was an anomaly in Europe • Redemption dues over 49 years at 6% • Gentry tried to push for greater political
P influence (representative assembly) –
• transformation of Russian serfs into
rejected
individual peasant landowners
A
• Wave of student protest n response
T • ‘The Bell’ by Herzen
• Needed cooperation of landowning classes
I
• Had to be self financing due to state
O finances

J • Nicholas I had founded a legal system. • Based partly on the British and French model – • Most forward looking of all his reforms • The peasants were excluded from this fair
accusatorial system. trial system.
U • codified the laws of Russia to make them • Essentially intact until 1917
uniform. • Independence of Judges • They had to make do with local courts with
D • Russians had, for the first time, the possibility government appointed justices of the
• Alexander now focused on reforming the • Open trials printed word for word in the Russian of a fair trial peace.
I Courier.
Judiciary.
• Crucial step in the evolution of a civil society • But the law of 1864 revolutionised Russia’s
C • Oral questioning in front of jury of peers with legal system.
barristers. • Autocracy was prepared to concede a basic civil
I liberty – e.g. Zasulich 1878
• Equality of all classes in the eyes of the law.
A
• Independence and competence of system

Y
L • As emancipation had now taken place, a • The new assemblies known as zemstva were a • Proper basis of government for the first time • These were in no way democratic.
vacuum now existed. concession to the gentry(gave them local political
O power) • Cheap • The vote was heavily weighted towards the
• Emancipation - the maintenance of roads gentry.
C and bridges, providing limited education • Opened up evolutionary development – taken in
• The zemstva operated a two tier system.
and medical care, was the responsibility of context of Russia this was a big step forward • They had 42% of the seats in the lower
District zemstva (uezd) and the higher provincial
A tier and 74% of the upper.
the Serf owners = new structure had to zemstva, (guberniya).
• Local Zemstvo officials had to engage in Russia’s
L be devised.
real social problems • The peasants had 38% and 10.5%.
• The vote was heavily weighted towards the
gentry (42% of the seats in the lower tier and Not on par with other Western countries
• By 1917, a cradle of new generation of more •
74% of the upper)
public spirited officials
G • Should have taken it further – national
• The peasants had 38% and 10.5%. assembly
• Another stage in the evolution of a ‘civil society’
O
• 1870 : zemstva structure extended to the towns
V 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

A • Emancipation = army recruitment needed • 1862 and 1874, Militutin reformed the army • Due to these reforms the army became more • People could still be represented by
changing along the Prussian model. civilised. eg Recruits no longer had to have their substitutes and officers remained heavily
R hair shaved off when called up. aristocratic.
• Compete with other Western countries and • Professional military service reduced to 15
M keep up with their modernisation years. • It was an exercise in social as well as military • The army was still based on peasant
reform. conscripts so that high levels of illiteracy
Y • Avoid repeats of events like the Crimean • higher educated people reduced further amongst the recruits reduced the
War • Recruits could now see light at the end of the effectiveness of training. Evident in the
• These rules applied to all classes of society. tunnel, and a return to their village and families. wars fought by Russia in the later
• Improve organisation, recruitment and
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
education • Restructured the army – empire divided into 15 • He would also give a lot back to his local
e.g. humiliating defeat by Japan 1904-5
districts to make mobilisation easier. community.
and Germany 1914-17.
 • Modernised training • Problems of supply and provisioning as well
as leadership remained.
• Education for officers was changed to focus on
general education

E • Military education needed to work in • Universities freed from former restrictions • Paved the way for evolutionary change • Statute put too much emphasis on the
tandem with civilian educational reform (1863) dangers of exposing the lower classes to
D • Education began to become more universal subversive influences through schooling
• modernise state to survive and prosper in a • Educational statutes (1864) (closing of Sunday Schools)
U competitive European environment
1. First to regulate and expand elementary • Upper sections of Russia’s educational
C schools
• Role of Russia’s universities – scrapping of establishment were vulnerable to seductive
entry quotas and new financial support subversive western ideas
A 2. Increase the number of secondary schools
meant increases in non-gentry backgrounds
and introduce intermediate school
T àradicalism = government on Conservative
footing
• More universal to all social classes
I
• Numbers and courses restricted but then a
O change of course was needed

N • More literate and numerate peasantry à

better able to operate as private farmers

C • Bellisustin (1858) wrote an exposé of the
poverty of the clergy in rural areas.
H
• This led to the minister for Internal
U meant that no concrete reforms were settled on
Affairs, Valuev to set up 1862
Ecclesiastical Committee was charged with
R
the overhaul of the Church.
C
• The climate of uncertainty after
• 1862 Ecclesiastical Committee was charged with
the overhaul of the Church.
• However, the slow style of Russian bureaucracy
until 1867- 69.
• By this time the political winds had shifted, and
Dimitrii Tolstoy, a highly conservative man, had
• 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.

H Emancipation made it crucial that the political influence.

church did manage to engender loyalty in
the peasants.
 Was 1866 a turning point?
Bromley argues that:
• April 4th 1866: attempted assassination of Tsar by Karakozov
• Arguments Tsar became more reactionary as a result ‘ 1866 represented only one of
• Withdrawal of Alexander II - Assassination attempt – radicals had unwittinglymany changes
turned one ofinthedirection
more in the
liberal Tsars towards repression amidst arguments that change had unsettled reign of Alexander
Russia, impact of II. It acquired
extra significance
eldest son’s death and new marriage in 1880 mentally and physically distanced him from the because it was
reforming elements within his family e.g. Duke Constantine the first time in the reform era
• Alex grew more aloof and became less inclined to resist those who urged for that ideological
a more radicalism made
repressive,
a direct
harsher line: shown by listening to Conservative ministers, Churchmen, and Alexander IIIimpact on the tsar in
(son and heir to throne) person, and it occurred at a time
when the principal reforms were
Reaction 1: Repression of education in place and further reform was
hard to justify’
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
activity
Melikov’s immediate ministerial changes and concessions included:
• Relaxation of censorship
• Release of political prisoners
• 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 repressive
Loris-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,
MILDER
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 BEHAVIOUR

• Zemstv
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
• Mercha
Modernisation strategy saw the Tsarist regime strengthened which angered the radical intelligentsia
•
• Prosper
Reactionary measures post 1866 and inconsistencies angered opposition e.g. Censorship and the press

Intelligentsia
Key Beliefs: remaini
• Press (g
• 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: later ce
• Univers
• 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
• The Rad
for the
• Representative assembly
Key Influences:

R.I. trie
• followers of Western ideas (travelled abroad)
Support Base:

Russia.
• Literate and educated members of society
• Small group due to relatively minor educated sector of society
•
two mov
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

 Nihilism
development of zemstva’s (forums for debate)
 Methods:
• Created forums of debate
• Books and pamphlets
• Wrote in the press

Nihilism
Key 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
change
Didn’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!

Populism
Key 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 We must go hungry, but exp
(-) 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
Save Russia by rapid and forceful ind
• 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.
• 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
developments
Result!
• 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

Heavy Industry Growth

1880

• 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 LINK BETWEEN RAIL AND HEAVY
INDUSTRY
1910
• Textiles still dominated: 40% industrial output 1. Growth of rail led to opening up
• Impressive growth in heavy industry e.g. St Petersburg, Baltic Coast,ofand
Russian
Moscowinterior so new areas
• 1908: 40,000 factories with 2.6 million workers of natural resources
Impact:
2. Linked major industrial areas and
Evidence: agricultural areas together and
• with
8% annual growth 1894-1900 – highest of all countries in last decade ports
of C19 th and markets
• Moved up industrialised nations league table 1887-97 3. Stimulated development of coal
• Became worlds 4th largest industrial economy and iron with new industrial areas
• 1901 Baku produced more than half of the worlds oil, exceeding thealong
USA the length of rail track

4. Trans-Siberian rail huge industrial

Successes:
✔ Increase in exports and foreign trade stimulus
✔ Imports and exports grew in quantity and value
✔ Trading with other nations: Germany, UK, China, USA HOT SPOTS
✔ Continued foreign investment – Nobel, Rothschild in Baku Engineering:
• St Petersburg
• Moscow
Failures:
• Poland
 Bulk of export trade was still grain rather than industrial goods and this • Riga
 increase still fell short of Witte’s predictions Metallurgy:
 Trans-Siberian rail development was huge drain on finances • Urals
• Poland
 Under Witte, state budget doubles eating into profits of economic growth
• Caspian
 Dependence on foreign loans which had to be paid back with interest Sea/Baku 1871
 Focus on heavy industry led to a neglect of domestic and light industry • Caucusus
 Neglect of agricultural modernisation – reinforced by assumption that Coal
 peasants could just simply be forced into producing more grain • Baku coalfields
• Poland
• Donbas
SOCIAL CHANGES CAUSED BY INDUSTRIALISATION Sugar Beet Extraction
• Kiev
Middle Class: • South Eastern
Ukraine
1897 Iron Ore
• South Eastern
• More crossed threshold into middle management (small workshop owners, traders, merchants) Ukraine
• 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
• 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

• Growth of opposition: middle class lack of

Living Standards
Living standards varied in different parts of the country

central gov input, revolutionaries in

 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)
impoverished rural areas,
•
• Highest mortality rates in Europe – average life expectancy was 27.25 years compared to 45.25 in England

discontented workers

1880’s development of
Trans Sib railway a rail = 1905 59,616km
huge drain on built allowing greate
finances exploitation of
resources and trade
 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

Populism HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION

Development of ‘self education circles’
• Muscovite Society of Translators and Publishers Waller: the assassination was to prove a huge
• Translated and reproduced the writings of foreign socialists
disappointment for the opposition. It yielded no
• Made contact with radicals in the West practical benefits and, on the contrary, led to a wave
1886 People’s Will reformed: of arrests, greater police surveillance, the
• Reformed amongst students of St Petersburg universityabandonment of Loris-Melikov’s proposed reforms and
• 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 Revolutionaries

Basic 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 Democrats

Plekhanov’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 Bolsheviks

1903 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’) Bolsheviks!

• Men of the Majority aiming
Broad based party with a mass working class membership for proletariat overthrow. Dedicated revolutionaries o
• 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 Intelligentsia

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

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
HISTORICAL
INTERPRETA
Nicholas II (1868-1918)
TION
Beliefs Waller:
• Deeply influenced by his father and committed to preserving his policies
Nicholas II
• Maintenance of autocracy – although his personality was not suited to such a strong willed role
always lived
• Rejection of constitutional monarchy ideas
in the
shadow of
• 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
Long term discon
Revolutionari
•Socialist revolutionar
a peasant revolution to
 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)

Events
War 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 1905

The 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 control
2. Demands of the liberals anxious to keep control of the movement for reform
3. Radical revolutionaries determined to press home their advantages
4. 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 work
3. A measure of land distribution with compensation
4. 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 asWitte:
opposition
I have a constitution in my
2. Buy off the peasantry
head, but as to my heart, I spit on it.
3. Appease some of the less radical workers
4. Calm student discontent Lenin: We have been granted a
5. Minimise opposition from the press constitution, yet autocracy remains.
6. Undermine support for revolutionary groups e.g. Bolsheviks We have been granted everything,
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 Manifesto

Reaction:
• 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
• 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 Radicals
Reaction:
• Trotsky and Lenin tried to get the workers to fight on declaring the promises worthless
• Denounced the promise of elections
• Called for‘We have been
an armed risinggranted
to bringa Tsarism
constitution,
to anyet
endautocracy remains. We have been granted everything, a
• 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 Moscow
Why?:
• 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 Workers
Reaction:
• 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 Petersburg
Why?:
• 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

Peasants
Reaction:
• 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 1905
Why?:
• 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 Navy

Reaction:
• 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 upon
Why?:
• 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
• 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
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
• Crushing of Soviets and Workers
• Repression by Tsar
Waller: The Tsar had survived but the
• Concessions made by Tsar
power of the Russian workers could
• Shortcomings of the revolutionaries
• Crushing of the nationalities no longer be ignored
• 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 to
not only out of fear, but out of a genuine sense of duty.
Article 4: To the All-Russian Emperor belong supreme autocratic power
Article 9: No legislative act may come into force without the Emperor’s
ratification
Article 87: The Emperor may rule by decree in emergency circumstances
when the Duma is not in session
Article 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
• 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
I am suffrage,
struggling to abandonment
get my agrarianofreforms
emergency laws
passed. abolition
I will ofthe
dissolve theDuma and
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 HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
• Groups which favoured government did best
• Outcome: Waller: Although the third Duma ran
 Octoberists and Rightists won majority of seats its course, by 1912, it was clear that
 Kadets and Socialists reduced in size and divided in principles
the Duma system was not working
• Nature: Far more submissive and had no control over the actions

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
• 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:
Witte referred to the Duma system as the ‘great illusion of our century’
 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 • Political Party Representation and composition of the Dumas
ministers to gauge popular feeling • Choice of Interior Ministers (Goremykin, Stolypin, Korovtsov)
• Helped spread democracy by encouraging public political debate as • Nicholas’s attitude towards the Dumas
their activities were reported in the press • Use of repression by the Tsar and government
• Used their powers e.g. approving the budget and questioning of • Existence of Fundamental Laws and Emergency powers including
ministers to good effect the ability to dissolve the Dumas
• Approved important reforms • Limited powers of the Dumas
• A promising experiment which would have succeeded but was
never given enough time to show its true worthWaller: Despite his reforms there was still widespread rural poverty

Agrarian Reforms

Stolypin
Career 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?
 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 1914

1890’s 1900’s 1908

• Boom • Slump • 1908 - boom ended the slump

• Vyshnegradsky and Witte’s • European trade recession

reforms and focus on
economic development • Heavy industry affected (due
(heavy industry, rail, to financing by state and
foreign investment) foreign investment)

• Strikes e.g. Oil industry in

Baku, textile industry 1902-03
 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 424
SOCIAL COSTS
Education:
 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
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
 Propped up Church: superstitious
 Admin (army and civil) still run by incompetent leaders Waller: The Rasputin scandal
• PEASANTRY: agricultural reforms helped Kulaks but were harmful to some peasants
was probably more a symptom
• ECONOMY:
than a cause of the position the
 Stoylpin’s reforms difficult to assess by 1914 (harmful and helpful)
monarchy found itself in by
 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-H
All 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
  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 months
BUT!
• 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 Lakes
2. Diminishing morale in the army – lost faith in idea of expanding Russian empire. Led to high number of
desertions
3. Economic decline – difficult to fund war effort and provide equipment. War time production pressures
led to deteriorating work conditions, longer hours and harsher punishments
4. Political problems – opposition to mismanagement of war from Duma, War Industries Committee and
Zemgor
5. Heavy casualties – 3,600,000 dead/seriously wounded by 1916
6. 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? HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION:

1. High casualties: Was the war the key turning point which led to revolution
2. Lack of supplies by 1917?
3. Military defeat
4. Refugees Wade:
5. Scorched earth policy
6. Disease The war was central both to the coming of revolution and
7. Overcrowding to its outcome. It put enormous strains on the population
8. Infrastructure and dramatically increased popular discontent. In
9. Government inefficiency undermined the discipline of the army. Whether Russia,
10. Leadership without the war, could have avoided revolution is an

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!
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION:
Tsar Nicholas on the front line from 1915
• Tsar was seen as personally responsible Waller:
• Tsarina (German) running country with Rasputin
In Petrograd, Rasputin began to
• Impact of Rasputin – alienates liberals, conservatives and family members
meddle in political
Loss of support: appointments and policy
decisions,
• Middle classes wanted greater say in govt. And have become more oppositional whilst
during warthere were
rumours that Nicholas’s
• Non-governmental organisations e.g. Zemgor proven worth by organising relief during war German
• Upper classes resented Tsarina & Rasputin wife, Alexandra, was
• Harsh winter of 1916 deliberately sabotaging the war
• Army increasingly convinced of incapability of Tsar effort. There were many
• 26th Feb – Tsar orders Duma to be shut down but it refuses changes of ministers in the 12
months after 1915, including 3-
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
• 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

Petrograd Soviet
 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 HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION
• Prince Lvov to be PM
• ‘Commissars’ – new committee of ministers to be appointed Waller: It was essential that the
• Mainly composed of Liberals (Octoberists and Kadets) Petrograd Soviet give the new
government
• Kerensky – only socialist – also on the executive committee of the support since it
Petrograd Soviet
controlled the factories, essential
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?

a) Soviet was aware of the need for the experience of the PG to maintain the economy
b) Leaders feared working class anarchy and were uncertain of their ability to control their own workers
c) 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 Trotsky
5. Bolshevik control of the Soviets
6. 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)
Decree on Peace (immediate peace)
Decree on Land (all land property of the people to be red
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
• Lenin claimed majority support for the new government

• 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.

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

BOLSHEVIK RULE!!! = END OF TSARIST RUSSIA