Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
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?

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?

icon
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?
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: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?
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
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
steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer