• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month


Extracts from this document...


'THE TSARIST REGIME WAS SECURE BY 1905' EXPLAIN HOW FAR YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS SATEMENT By 1881 Russia was a very powerful country; the size of the country was equivalent to two and a half times the size of the USA. However, Russia was seen as a backward country in social, political and economic terms. The Tsar claimed all absolute authority, it was a criminal offence to oppose the tsar in 1881, and Russia was in autocratic rule. This just showed how little Russia had advanced politically. By 1905 the tsarist regime was secure in some cases but not in others. Progressive tsars up to Alexander II took steps to modernise Russia, so that they could be on the same wavelength as the 'western' powers. The modernisation f the country did not include the extension of political rights. State censorship was imposed on the press and on published books. This shows to some degree that the regime was not secured as people did oppose the regime otherwise censorship would not be needed. However by 1905, there was a massive change in industrialisation, the economy of Russia made a remarkable turn around. With the duma (created in 1870), cabinet, the zenistra proved to be quite useful with 15,000 extra schools being introduced by 1880. In addition, the interest in local politics grew as forums and discussions within assemblies grew to be frequent occasions. The Russian monarchy veered to the right after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, and in the personal politics of the last two tsars, Alexander III and Nicholas II, that is where it stayed until 1917. ...read more.


Emancipation had a far worst effect on the nobility because they were totally unprepared and as a result did not survive, they had to sell of land to pay existing debts. The most important reason for Emancipation was the desire to strengthen the Russian State in military, economic and industrial terms. It was hoped that revitalised peasant economy would provide the basis for industrialisation by providing surplus capital for investment, but this aim was not achieved. Therefore the Emancipation Decree of 1861 did not solve the problems of the peasantry and only made things worse then they already were. This showed that the regime was not very secure at all, and had opposition in this case, as the poor were treated badly and wanted to start a revolution. Emancipation act of 1861 had a far-reaching effect on Tsarist society by not solving the problem of the peasantry because of the economic, social and political effects. Conditions for the poor had worsened since 1891 when famine swept through the southern region of Russia and forced millions of peasants to leave their families and village communities to search for work in towns. Most of the industrial workers who worked in the factories were peasants and women. Women filled the textile factories in St Petersburg and Moscow, which was the poorest paying industry in Russia.. The industrial workers were angry at the poor living and working conditions. Living space was at a premium so workers had to occupy accommodation provided by the employers. There were ten to a room and a single sheet separated bedrooms. There was no privacy and famine easily spread. Also there were no regulations on safety or hours of work, so some people died or were badly injured and had to work 12-15 hours per day. ...read more.


The outstanding spokesman for this viewpoint was Lenin. Although the Bolshevik Party was well organised and was becoming increasingly popular in Russia, both Lenin and his deputy were caught unawares by the March Revolution of 1917 and were unable to seize the opportunity offered by this revolution to get themselves into power. Hence the liberals got in first. The tsarist regime remained secure as none of the oppositions were able to pose a threat to the Tsar up to 1905. This was achieved through the Okhrana, the army and greater police surveillance to keep the opposition in check. Also in each group there seemed to be disturbances which stopped the groups from succeeding such as leadership disputes, little success, couldn't seize power etc. In conclusion, I don't the tsarist regime was not totally secure by 1905. The economy and the industry of the country got a massive boost through the direction of Sergei Witte. The 'great spurt' helped to stimulate reformers and revolutionaries alike through the rapid industrial growth in the 1890s. It was very successful in crushing all opposition through the Okhrana, the army, the Orthodox Church and by 1905 opposition groups didn't pose a serious threat as the groups were much disorganised. However on the other hand by 1905 the regime was opposed and angered many peasants and middle class workers, they endured sickening working conditions the were living in poverty and received poor wages, and had to pay taxes on grain and also on items such as alcohol and salt. If I was personally in their position I would consider revolting and would be willing to part of a revolution. By 1905 the Tsarist regime was secure in some places but not in others. FAHIM TALUKDER L6SD ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    In the civil war, some soldiers fought to get the Tsar reinstated, so obviously there were some Russians in 1917 that did not share the opinion (towards the Tsar) of the 100 men we see in the source. Therefore, we cannot assume that the entire army shared the opinions of

  2. How secure was the Tsar's powers up to 1904?

    The aim of this was to show workers the benefits of a non revolutionary approach to social problems. Similar organisations were set up in other trade in different areas, but when in 1903 Zubatov unions led strikes in south Russia the employers put pressure on the government to have them disbanded.

  1. How did living conditions change in towns as a result of the Industrial Revolution ...

    medical practises and have a reasonably effective cure if epidemics should break out again . Though , none of this had taken place and resulted in those sick being left to die . During 1839 onwards, a man by the name of Thomas Southwood Smith had formed the Health of

  2. How far did the 1905 revolution weaken then Tsarist regime?

    Village councils, Zemstvas, were set up, and these were very successful; they organized transport of food etc. The Zemstvas success offered an alternative to the Tsarist regime, which was previously unthought-of of concept. The people discovered an alternative to the Tsar and had gained power to help themselves out of poverty.

  1. "Why did the Tsar survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of March ...

    The war had furthermore hindered food production, peasants were taken off the fields to go fight in the war which meant that there was less labor available and animal such as horses and mules were sent to front to help the army, the food production was failing.

  2. "Tsarism in Russia had been made secure by 1914." How far do you agree ...

    The soviets did not threaten the Tsar too. The first soviet only lasted 50 days and its influence outside St Petersburg was almost negligible. Therefore, by granting further concessions, the Tsar was able to win over groups of his opponents who only wanted reforms for a better life.

  1. Which of the following views best explain the fall of Tsarism of Russia? ...

    This is shown when the historian says: "the regime could always win the last trick as long it could rely on the army" Although it is only the view of only one historian it tells us the processes of modernisation and industrialisation would have been less painful without the war as far as the Tsar's position and power is concerned.

  2. Was the Russian government policy towards the peasants and the workers in Russia from ...

    They were forbidden to be sold apart from their land and families. These reform policy of Nicholas I towards the peasants didn't satisfy the peasants as a whole. They were convinced that "they belong to the landlords but the land belong to them."

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work