The next stage of Russia’s development is often referred to as the time of the ‘Great Reforms’, notably the Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 under Alexander II. Unlike the Tsar’s father, Alexander appeared to embrace reform. However his reasons for unfolding such a seemingly radical change in Russia’s history are not due purely to the Tsar’s morality. The Great Debate of slavophiles versus westernisers had been slowly penetrating Russia through the medium of university lecturers and journalistic and literary work which mobilised public support for reform. This work done in the 1830s and 40s spread from educated society to reach the key decision makers in the government who in the 1850s and 60s spearheaded Alexander II’s reforms. Historian David Christian argues that the ‘timing and nature of the reforms depended on how particular politicians assessed the nature of problems’. This suggests that the Tsar’s politicians had more influence than it would first appear in what had previously been a completely autocratic state. Alexander II’s other reforms included introducing the first form of elective government in Russian history – the zemstva in 1864, although the voting was limited to the wealthy, and in 1870 this was extended to towns and cities. The Tsar’s government also introduced trial by jury. These were not decisions made by Alexander II alone, but he was the key individual that influenced the direction in which reform headed during his reign, leading to his nickname ‘the Tsar Liberator’.
There were many factors leading to the Emancipations of the Serfs, perhaps one of the most important was the impact of the Crimean war. The humiliating defeat at the hands of the British and French highlighted Russia’s backwardness and the weakness of her army – Nicholas’ generals appeared more concerned with the appearance of the men than with their actual training. The argument that reformation of the army required the abolishment of serfdom was given to Alexander II in 1855 in a memorandum written by Dmitrii Miliutin. It is also clear that while serfdom remained, Russian agriculture would stagnate and therefore so would the entire economy; in the end many Russians had come to accept that reform of some kind was unavoidable if their nation was to progress and it became increasingly convenient to use serfdom to explain all Russia’s current weaknesses: it was responsible for military incompetence, food shortages, over population, civil disorder and industrial backwardness – oversimplified explanations but with some truth nonetheless. These arguments obviously held influence over the Tsar’s decision, as in 1856 he told the nobility that ‘It is better to begin to destroy serfdom from above than to wait until that time when it begins to destroy itself from below’ and spent the next five years drafting the emancipation. He was therefore important in shaping Russia during this time as essentially he had the last say in how the country was run, although it could be said that the serfs would have been emancipated no matter who was in power because it was demanded by the people and essential for the growth of the economy.
After the assassination of Alexander II Russia entered a new period of development – complete repression coupled with rapid industrialisation. Alexander III, with his reactionary nature, immediately reversed a number of his father’s reforms and introduced complete repression over the entire nation. His policies had a dramatic long-term effect on his own dynasty as during his attempt to destroy the extremist groups he ordered the execution of Alexander Ulyanov, Lenin’s elder brother, which could be said to be the reason that Lenin murdered Nicholas II and his entire family when the Bolshevik’s came to power in 1917. Two individuals who changed Russia’s history hugely were Vyshnegradsky and Witte – finance ministers who were charged with modernising the economy in order to maintain Russia’s position as a Great Power. Vyshnegradsky began to finance Russian economic development through foreign loans which boosted the economy and laid the foundations for the rapid development of Russian economy under Witte – the first finance minister to show complete commitment to industrialisation. Witte had a huge impact on the development on the nation: increasing the production of coal, iron and oil, constructing the trans-Siberian railway, decreasing unemployment and allowing Russia to develop militarily. (+quotes) This is an obvious case of individuals having a significant impact over the future of a society, particularly as it could be said that Witte’s policies – notably the heavy taxes levied on an already overtaxed peasantry - added to the social unrest which led, ultimately, to the 1905 revolution.
The 1905 revolution was the result of resentment about Russia’s social, economic and political situation, even the spark, Bloody Sunday, was not caused by an individual. For this revolution it would appear as though the Tsar Nicholas II had very little influence indeed. The combination of widespread famine, poor living and working conditions in towns and growing opposition to autocracy led to extreme unrest among the public. The impact of the Russo-Japanese war should not be underestimated; ‘the news that Port Arthur had fallen proved to be just the catalyst…Russian society needed.’ Historian Peter Neville argues. The war undermined support for the Tsar’s regime and pointed out Russia’s weakness – the humiliation causing more unrest against the government. The 1905 revolution forced the Tsar into action, creating the October Manifesto and the first Duma – both of which would certainly not have come about had the revolution not happened. Another domino in the downfall of the regime was the First World War, although beginning with a huge rise in patriotism, Nicholas II and his government failed to govern competently and made a number of irresponsible decisions – such as becoming commander-in-chief and leaving the Tsarina in charge during his absence - leaving the public with no one to blame but the Tsar. The downfall of the regime was not due purely to Nicholas II’s ineffectual rule; the key events leading to his abdication – the Petrograd demonstrations and defection of the armed forces – could not have been stopped no matter who was in power at the time. It was unfortunate that the current Tsar was rather weak willed and lacking in many areas, but his predecessors must take a portion of the blame.
Bibliography
Neville, P, Russia, 2003
Christian, D, Imperial and Soviet Russia, 1997
Lynch, M, The Emancipation of the Serfs, History Review, 2003
Kochan and Abraham, Phillip Cummings, Russia 1800-1914
Peter Neville, Russia, 2003
From Peter Neville’s ‘Russia’
Tomson quoted in Philip Cummins’ ‘Russia 1800-1914’
Quoted in David Christian’s ‘Imperial and Soviet Russia’
Kochan and Abraham, Russia 1800-1914
David Christian, Imperial and Soviet Russia, 1997
David Christian, Imperial and Soviet Russia, 1997
Micheal Lynch, The Emancipation of the Serfs, History review, 2003
Peter Neville, Russia, 2003