Related questions
Question
GROWING OPPOSITION TO TSARDOM
1.) Read the attatched pictures to complete the table (in the activity higlighted) to explain why there was growing opposition to tsardom.
2. Using the completed table consider the question: 'How much opposition was there to the Tsar by 1917?' and what was the significance of the opposition?
Transcribed Image Text:52
Russia 1894-1941
Progressive Bloc
In early 1915, the Duma asked
Nicholas Il to replace his cabinet,
which they believed to be
incompetent to deal with the
war, with a 'ministry of national.
confidence. It was argued that
the new body should be made up
of more forward-looking Duma
members. Nicholas rejected the
idea, which caused the proposers to
form a group to persuade the tsar
to adopt more progressive ideas.
consisted of Kadets, Octobrists
id Progressists; they became
own as the 'Progressive Bloc.
politicians as one of the most able Russian administrators of all time but
the tsarina claimed he sympathised with revolutionists. This kind of action
caused much discontent within the government and was part of the reasons
for the formation of a 'Progressive Bloc' in the Duma to put pressure on the
tsar to take firmer control of proceedings.
Rasputin's influence on Russian government
If Rasputin had any influence on Russian government it came through.
his friendship with the tsarina. Through helping her son, Alexei, Rasputin
won over the confidence and admiration of Alexandra. If Rasputin had
wanted to help shape Russian political affairs then he would have done
so by persuading Alexandra to making certain ministerial appointments
or formulating a particular policy. However, there is little evidence to
support this. The main indicator of his interference is when he was asked to
reorganise the army's medical supply system. However, this hardly indicates
that he wanted to shape the direction that Russian government was taking.
Nonetheless, he was obviously seen as having some negative level of
influence over the royal family as he was despised by the tsar's advisers. It
is possible that such ill-feeling was a result of envy; Rasputin does seem to
have shown aptitude as an administrator (as in the case of dealing with the
medical supplies issue).
The role of the Fourth Duma
When the final (fourth) Duma was called (November 1912-February
1917) it was once more dominated by politicians from the far right (ultral
conservatives). Its tenure coincided with heightened and brutal repression of
civil disorder. This was characterised by state police killing striking miners
at the Lena Goldfields (1912) (see page 36). The murders outraged many
Duma members who viewed this as a retrograde step by the government in its
attempt to deal with Russia's economic and social problems. Guchkov (see
page 19), leader of the moderate Octobrists, warned the tsar and ministers
that the Russian people had become revolutionised by the actions of the
government and that they had lost faith in its leaders. In 1914, the Duma
made the following proclamation and prophecy of doom:
The Ministry of the Interior systematically scorns public opinion and ignores
the repeated wishes of the new legislature. The Duma considered it pointless
to express any new wishes in regard to internal policy. The Ministry's activities
arouse dissatisfaction among the broad masses that have hitherto been
peaceful. Such a situation threatens Russia with untold dangers.
Cited in Theofanis Ceorge Stavrou, Russia Under the Last Czar, 1969
The progress of the fourth Duma was interrupted by the outbreak of the
First World War in 1914. The Duma met a week after the start of the war,
but its work was disrupted when a group of socialist members walked out
mainly at Nicholas II's decision to commit Russia to a war they considered
unwinnable. However, initially the Duma had backed the tsar and voted for
its own suspension for the duration of the war but in 1915, with the military
failings it demanded its own recall and met for six weeks before it was
prorogued following its demand for a national government to take charge of
the war effort. Nicholas responded by suspending the Duma in August 1915,
and personally taking charge of the armed forces.
This was the last chance he had of maintaining the support of the
progressive parties. The result was that many members formed the
Progressive Bloc', which criticised the management of the war and
tried to persuade Nicholas to make concessions, but he continued to be
unwilling to listen. As his government proved increasingly incapable of
running the war so the Duma changed from being a supporter at the start
of the war to an opponent. However, despite its criticisms of government
rule, it remained an institution that was dominated by the 'old guard'
(supporters of tsarism and authoritarian rule). The final Dama became
infamous for eventually putting pressure on the tsar to abdicate in March
1917 and went on to form the backbone of the short-lived Provisional
Government.
The decision by Nicholas to go to the front was criticised by many and,
at least in part, this was because it left the unpopular tsarina and Rasputin
in charge of affairs in Petrograd. As neither were trusted by Russia's elite
this further weakened the position of Nicholas and was made worse by the
deteriorating position both on the home front and in the war. Therefore,
although Nicholas' decision might be seen as heroic and an attempt to
strengthen Russia's position, it backfired and played a crucial role in his
downfall.
Activity
This section has looked at the reasons for the growing opposition to tsardom.
1 Re-read the section and complete the following table to help you explain why there was growing opposition.
Issue
Actions and policies of Nicholas II
The role of Alexandra
The role of Rasputin
Nicholas II attitude to the Fourth Duma
The formation of the Progressive Bloc
Nicholas decision to go to the front
How did it create
opposition?
The 1917 Revolutions
How important was the issue in
creating opposition (mark out of six:
0= not important; 6 = very important)
Why was there a revolution in March 1917?
Military weaknesses and mounting economic problems gave fuel to the
critics of the tsar. The fact that the Brusilov Offensive had not led to an
outright military victory appeared to dishearten and exhaust the tsar.
Nevertheless, by early 1917 Nicholas II still thought that by spring another
offensive would be possible and that ... God will give us victory, and moods
will change'.
Within three months, though, he had abdicated. There were three main
steps towards this revolutionary event.
Judgement
2 Using your completed table consider the question: 'How much opposition was there to the Tsar by 1917?" What
was the significance of the opposition?
Transcribed Image Text:0
Russia 1894-1941
Alexei Brusilov 1853-1926
Brusilov was a skilled cavalry
officer who fought in the war
against Turkey 1877-78. He
commanded a major offensive
against Austria Hungary in 1916,
which concentrated forces and
used smaller well trained units. He
is regarded as a highly successful
and innovative commander by
military historians
Alexei Kuropatkin 1848-1925
Kuropatkin, as minister of war, had
opposed the war against Japan
1904. He commanded Russian
forces poorly in Manchuria. He
was recalled in 1915 and went on
to mismanage the Northern Front
through costly frontal assaults
and a failure to support more
imaginative commanders. He was
sacked in 1916.
others, with, for example their bread ration falling 25 per cent in the first
three months of 1916. But regional variation is not particularly important
as the social unrest that resulted from high prices and shortages gathered
momentum in the places where it was likely to have the greatest impact-
the growing towns and cities in the west of Russia.
Transport and communications
The war placed severe pressures on the transport system in Russia.
particularly the railways. Lines became blocked, signalling mechanisms broke
down and engines became stranded (often as a result of running out of fuel
Railway stations and depots started to struggle to handle the vast volumes of
freight (mainly munitions and food). As indicated in the sections above, all of
this was to have serious repercussions for the supply of materials and food to
soldiers and civilians.
Activity
There is much date among historians about the role of the First World
War in bring about fall of tsarism (see also the storical debate
section on pages b
1 Re-read this section and use the information to help you complete the
table below that addresses we key stion; ine First World War was the
far do you agree? Write your
main reason for the fall of Nicho
ideas out in bullet point form
The First World War was the main
reason...
There were other reasons...
2 Complete the divity by colour coding what you think is the most to
least in portant reasons: green for very, yellow for medium and red for
minir Once done, write a summary answer, in up to four sentences,
to the question.
Why was there growing opposition to tsardom?
In many ways Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall in March
1917; his leadership during the First World War was poor and showed traits
similar to those in evidence in the pre-war period.
He ignored how the war affected the well-being of the Russian people
on the home front. He seemed more interested in discussing, with his
ministers, trivia rather than the pressing problem of food shortages.
■ His decision to take command of the armed forces in August 1915
obviously backfired. Nicholas had some training as a soldier (in a cavalry
regiment) but this did not prepare him for the demands of a conflict
on the scale of the First World War. His views on strategy and tactics
were unoriginal. He gave the impression that, when he based himself in
the military headquarters at Mogilev, it was to take a holiday from the
pressures that were mounting in Petrograd. For example, he would often
request to go for a ride in his Rolls-Royce in the Russian countryside c
play dominoes when he should have been focusing on the war effort.
Nicholas relied on generals who were of mixed calibre. The tsar made som
good appointments (Brusilov, for example) but also some very poor ones
(Kuropatkin, for example). This might not have been too big a problem
or to
but Nicholas exacerbated matters by not consistently supporting his
commanders and by allowing infighting between them to occur. Witte
claimed Nicholas did not have the willpower to deal with key military
figures and Rasputin went further by saying he did not have the courage
to do so.
His decision to act as chief of the army had serious repercussions for the
governance of Russia more generally (see the sections on the influence of
Alexandra and Rasputin below).
Alternatively, the fall of the tsar might be seen to have resulted from a
mixture of circumstance, the incompetence and deviousness of others and
bad luck.
There was no obvious reason for Nicholas to have believed that the war would
go as badly as it did; it should also be remembered that he was reluctant to
enter the war in the first place, but in many ways he had little option.
■ Nicholas made military appointments in good faith and probably did not
bargain on the incompetency of some generals, such as Evert and Kuropatkin.
Individuals, such as Rasputin, appeared determined to undermine the
authority of the tsar.
Overall, it is possible to defend Nicholas's actions but he was still
responsible for, with hindsight, some poor decision making especially when it
came to the appointment and trust he placed in key military personnel.
Tsarina Alexandra's influence on Russian government
In 1894, Princess Alexandra married Nicholas II and subsequently took on
the title of Empress of Russia (and Tsarina). Alexandra was the German
granddaughter of Britain's Queen Victoria; both of these foreign connections
caused suspicion among the Russian people. The empress had inherited the
haemophilic gene from her grandmother and passed it on to her son Alexei.
This was significant, as it was to influence her relationship with the religious
mystic, Rasputin.
Alexandra was deeply religious and was quick to adopt the Russian Orthodox
Church. Her faith influenced her attitude towards the royal court, which she
thought was too ostentatious, and to peasants, with whom she sympathised.
From 1915, when he took control of the army, Nicholas II was away at the
Eastern Front for much of the time. This left the governance of Russia in the
hands of Alexandra and Rasputin, who by this time had become a personal
adviser to the empress. The historian Orlando Figes has claimed Alexandra
then became the real autocrat in the capital', although she was encouraged
by her 'holy friend' who 'used her as a mouthpiece for his own pretensions
to power'. In particular, Alexandra used her authority to appoint ministers
whom she could manipulate and would not question her role from within
the Duma. For example, she appointed and dismissed three ministers to the
position of chairman of the Council of Ministers until she arrived at the one
(Prince Nikolai Golitsyn) whom she deemed to be the most accommodating.
On occasion her appointments were questioned, such as in the case of
Alexander Protopopov who was given the post of minister of internal affairs,
but Alexandra pleaded and demanded that they should be adhered to. This
clearly indicates that her influence on Russian government was considerable
and that she showed a level of determination and decisiveness that was not
always displayed by her husband.
Alexandra's most significant political decision was the sacking, in March
1916, of Alex Polikanov, the minister of war. He was considered by fellow
The 1917 Revolutions
Gregory Efimovich Rasputin
1871-1916
Rasputin was born in Western
Siberia to a peasant family. He
spent some time in an Orthodox
monastery before travelling around
Russia. In 1903, he arrived in
St Petersburg and quickly gained a
reputation as a mystical healer, but
also as a sexual predator. In 1905,
he had been introduced to the
tsar and tsarina as someone who
might be able to cure Alexei of his
illness. After becoming acquainted
with Rasputin, Alexei's health did
seem to improve, which endeared
the monk to Alexandra. In 1916,
Rasputin was murdered, under
strange circumstances, by a group
of aristocrats.
Alexander Protopopov
1866-1918
Protopopov was from a wealthy
noble family. A charming former
cavalry officer he was appointed
minister of the interior in 1916 and
virtually ran Russia. Reactionary
and incompetent he suppressed
criticisms, failed to solve the food
crisis and to foresee the revolution.
Delusional, he was reduced to
consulting the ghost of Rasputin.
He was executed in 1918.
51
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by stepSolved in 3 steps
