Despite their consistent failure, peasant opposition was not devoid of success. Peasant disturbances had increased following the ascension of Alexander II and Lenin, with armed force being employed 185 times between 1856-60 and the Green armies of the peasantry providing stubborn resistance to both Red and White forces. Opposition from the peasantry had shaped policies of several rulers, war communism was badly affected as the peasants battled requisition squads for supplies and collectivisation was also met with initial resistance. However the eventual outcomes differed as Lenin abandoned war communism for NEP, whilst the self-inflicted famine of 1932 helped speed up the collectivisation process. The peasantry had also influenced Alexander II’s decision to implement the Emancipation Act, stating that ‘’it is better to abolish serfdom from above, than to wait until it will begin to abolish its self from below’’. However despite this success the continual failure of peasant opposition was again evident under Stalin as famine, terror and purges killed millions. Peasant opposition was often divided and lacked a unifying cause, meaning that it was rarely successful in the 1855-1964 period.
Russian Governments also had to face internal opposition from several sources. As well as individuals and parties with varying degrees of involvement in mainstream politics, this included the urban workers but also nations under Russian control. The Polish Revolt in 1863 was easily crushed by the Russian military, and in 1956 the Hungary Rebellion fared the same. This was not merely a continual display of failure but also showed how important the army was to the state.
Domestic opponents such as the urban workers and revolutionary groups fared slightly better. Strikes may have been non-existent under communist regimes, however they were commonplace under Tsarist Governments. Even though the Putilov Works strike was argued by some to be the catalyst for the 1917 revolution this was an exception. Military force was continually employed by the state, with Lenin crushing the Kronstadt mutiny in a similar effect to the Lena Goldfields massacre of 1912 and Bloody Sunday. The workers were controlled by the state throughout the period with Stalin’s 5 year plans continuing the military discipline in the workplace which Lenin had introduced. Strikes under Alexander III in the 1880’s did little to influence state policy. The revolutionary groups which became prominent in the 1870’s lacked a unifying cause much like the peasantry and this often resulted in continual separation and division which limited their effectiveness. The Social Democrats had split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the same way that Land and Liberty had previously split into the Black Repartition and the People’s Will.
Again, these domestic opponents did enjoy some success. Not just the 1917 revolution, but also the concessions made in the October Manifesto and the assassination of Alexander II by the People’s Will. All shared a common theme in that they were successes in the short term, but did not go according to plan in the long term. The deposition of the Provisional Government removed any possibility of a democratic Russia and the assassination had previously removed any chance of a constitutional monarchy. In removing Nicholas II and the Provisional Government, opposition still did not completely succeed as once Lenin and his Bolsheviks seized power, little changed. Arguably, despite the success of the 1917 revolutions Russia simply switched from one form of autocracy to another, which is not what opponents had hoped for. Lenin is repeatedly argued to be a ‘red Tsar’, because he was just as autocratic as the Tsars before him, despite not having absolute authority. Tsarist repression was intensified through the use of the Cheka, and the situation became far worse under Stalin than at any point under Romanov rule. So in that sense, opposition was rarely successful as it had not brought about meaningful chance to the Russian state.
Opponents within mainstream politics were rarely successful either. The October Manifesto had introduced the Duma which initially promised much, however in the long term it failed to have any impact on Nicholas II’s autocratic rule. The first two Duma’s contained a large amount of opponents intent on reform and just as Lenin dissolved the Constituent Assembly, the first two Dumas met the same fate. Nicholas II was keen to maintain autocracy as his predecessors had been. Stolypin’s changes to the electoral system ensured that the third Duma was filled with pro Tsarists whilst Lenin banned political parties altogether. The continuing failure of internal political opposition heightened under Stalin, who wiped out opponents such as Kamenev and Zinoviev through the use of show trials and in the case of Trotsky, exile.
Success for mainstream political opponents was limited. The Central Committee were successful in removing Khrushchev in 1964, and following Alexander II’s Emancipation Act the Nobles, who were opposed to the prospect of losing land, had been compensated. The Central Committee were opposed to Khrushchev in a similar way that the Nobles were opposed to the Emancipation Act, and both succeeded in achieving their aims. However despite this, opposition to Russian Governments was rarely successful.
Russian Governments also had to face international opposition however they were rarely successful either. The Black Sea clauses were denounced by Alexander II in the aftermath of the Crimean War in 1856 and nothing had changed by 1964, with opposition to communism also lacking success. Despite their stance against communism, international opposition could do little to prevent it. The descent of the iron curtain following the Great Patriotic war epitomised the lack of success by international opponents throughout the period. Having been mostly dormant under Tsardom, international opposition had come to the forefront following the 1917 revolutions. Britain and France, already opposed to Russian withdrawal from the Entente, were among several nations who intervened in the civil war on the side of the Whites, however their withdrawal in 1920 was a further setback, having previously failed to re-establish the Eastern Front as Lenin was determined to ensure peace at any price. Failure to stop the Cold War escalating under Stalin and Khrushchev again showed up the failure of international opposition.
High level of repression from Russian Governments towards all sources of opposition is another explanation of why they were rarely successful. The threat of death, exile and imprisonment was used by the Russian state throughout the period, with Lenin intensifying Tsarist repression following a brief relaxation in Nicholas II’s 1905 concessions. The failure of the Kronstadt mutiny demonstrated communist intolerance for opposition which Stalin would go on to intensify. Despite relaxation under Khrushchev, Stalinist repression had wiped out any opponents with similar effect to Alexander III and Lenin’s use of the Okhrana and Cheka respectively. Unlike Tsarist Governments where repression had provoked opposition and increased tensions, repression and clever use of propaganda under communist Governments removed any possibility of opposition succeeding.
Opposition to Russian Governments throughout the 1855-1964 period was rarely successful, whether it came from the peasantry, the intelligentsia, the workers or overseas. Heavy use of repression and the continuing deployment of military force were key factors, as was the clever use of propaganda by communist Governments in particular, such as the cult of Stalin. Even when opposition to Russian Government had succeeded, such as the removal of Nicholas II and the Provisional Government or the assassination of Alexander II, the events that followed were not successes as opponents had hoped for. In addition to Government intervention and reform, opposition consistently lacked a shared ideology and a common cause, so it was rarely successful throughout the 1855-1964 period.
