Collapse of the autocracy
Opposition
In the years 1984 to 1914, opposition movements achieved little.
Alexander III and Nicholas II. Famine 1891-92. 1905 revolution
Achieved little Achieved something/other
• Opposition parties had little impact on • Liberal opposition achieved Duma –
the people. Peasants were preoccupied their representation and possibility of
with land and workers would strike reforms. They thus got what they
because of the economic reasons, not wanted
political. But! This achievement was limited as
• Opposition (other than liberal) was still Fundamental laws 1906 restricted power of the
not very well-formed. Social Duma. This limited liberals’ success
revolutionaries were disorganised and • Opposition parties achieved legal
Social Democrats divided. This possibility to exist by October 1905
prevented them from being able to manifesto. Before, they had to meet
achieve something. secretly and so this was definitely a
• It was 1891-2 Famine that made many progress. They could try to influence
people question the efficiency of the people openly, which was more
regime, not the opposition groups. effective.
Thus, opposition contribution and But! After 1905 revolution there were arrests of
achievement were limited. some members of the parties, which limited
the success
• Sr's used violent methods, like
assassinations of the officials (Stolypin,
Bunge) to weaken the regime. This
impacted government’s mood and
stability.
• 1905 revolution was achieved –
people’s pressure (General Strike) was
so significant, that the Tsar was forced
to grant October manifesto
But! The strikes were not co-ordinated by any
of the opposition groups; it was a chaotic strike,
and there was no opposition contribution
Conclusion: While opposition movement continued to develop, it did not have significant impact. Little or
nothing was achieved because of an opposition party.
The Marxist political parties opposing Nicholas II’s regime posed more threat by 1914 than they did in 1894.
More threat Less threat/other
• October manifesto allowed political • Marxist parties were divided into
parties to exist legally, which allowed Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. This
them to take form and pose direct prevented them from being as efficient
, threat. Previously, there was a system and impactful as they could be and so
of small cells, which had to be secret. they were not particularly threatening.
• Bolsheviks system of small cells made • Mensheviks accepted everyone, which
they harder to track by the police after made the party big and ‘visible’ for the
1905 revolution; at least one Marxist police. Many were arrested by the
party remained intact. army, which weakened them.
But! These cells did not allow them to do much: • Both Bolshevik and Menshevik leaders
2-3 people could not have much influence over were in exile (Lenin and Martov) and
a group of peasants, for example thus no major action could be taken.
• With the industrialisation, the target This was like before 1894, when
population of the Marxist groups – members of the parties were arrested
workers – grew (Moscow and St en masse.
Petersburg population doubled; 60% • In 1894 Marxist press was also in the
literacy level). They thus presented circulation as it was in 1914. So, it could
more threat with their grown be said that the opposition was actually
supporters quite strong back then.
But! The majority of the workers were apolitical
– they cared more about their lifestyle and
economy and didn’t have much time for
politics. This meant that Marxist groups did not
receive more support than before.
• Marxist parties were more threatening
because Nicholas II were less skilful in
dealing with the opposition, which
allowed it to grow. Alexander III used
repressive methods which resulted into
13 years of peace.
Conclusion: all political parties grew in their power under Nicholas II reign. Marxist parties did not achieve
anything, that could corroborate the idea of them being more challenging. Nevertheless, they were stronger
than under Alexander III.
‘In the years 1890 to 1905, liberal opposition was more challenging to the autocracy than the opposition of
radical groups.’ AS June 2019
While liberals posed certain threats to the autocracy through their control over zemstvas, their close
connections to the tsar, their co-ordination of actions and their gradual rise in popularity during the Russo-
Japanese war, the radical groups were more challenging because they were closer and more understandable
to the ordinary Russians, and they began to organise themselves in groups, which consequently allowed
them to influence the masses (as in 1905 revolution) and threaten the tsar.
OR
Neither of the oppositional groups seemed to pose a real threat to the autocracy. However, liberals were
more organised and so were able to take actions, unlike radicals, who 1. were hiding 2. were divided.
Liberals the most challenging Radicals more challenging/other
• Liberals are nobles, zemstvamen who None of the opposition groups was effective:
were close to tsar, so they could
Opposition
In the years 1984 to 1914, opposition movements achieved little.
Alexander III and Nicholas II. Famine 1891-92. 1905 revolution
Achieved little Achieved something/other
• Opposition parties had little impact on • Liberal opposition achieved Duma –
the people. Peasants were preoccupied their representation and possibility of
with land and workers would strike reforms. They thus got what they
because of the economic reasons, not wanted
political. But! This achievement was limited as
• Opposition (other than liberal) was still Fundamental laws 1906 restricted power of the
not very well-formed. Social Duma. This limited liberals’ success
revolutionaries were disorganised and • Opposition parties achieved legal
Social Democrats divided. This possibility to exist by October 1905
prevented them from being able to manifesto. Before, they had to meet
achieve something. secretly and so this was definitely a
• It was 1891-2 Famine that made many progress. They could try to influence
people question the efficiency of the people openly, which was more
regime, not the opposition groups. effective.
Thus, opposition contribution and But! After 1905 revolution there were arrests of
achievement were limited. some members of the parties, which limited
the success
• Sr's used violent methods, like
assassinations of the officials (Stolypin,
Bunge) to weaken the regime. This
impacted government’s mood and
stability.
• 1905 revolution was achieved –
people’s pressure (General Strike) was
so significant, that the Tsar was forced
to grant October manifesto
But! The strikes were not co-ordinated by any
of the opposition groups; it was a chaotic strike,
and there was no opposition contribution
Conclusion: While opposition movement continued to develop, it did not have significant impact. Little or
nothing was achieved because of an opposition party.
The Marxist political parties opposing Nicholas II’s regime posed more threat by 1914 than they did in 1894.
More threat Less threat/other
• October manifesto allowed political • Marxist parties were divided into
parties to exist legally, which allowed Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. This
them to take form and pose direct prevented them from being as efficient
, threat. Previously, there was a system and impactful as they could be and so
of small cells, which had to be secret. they were not particularly threatening.
• Bolsheviks system of small cells made • Mensheviks accepted everyone, which
they harder to track by the police after made the party big and ‘visible’ for the
1905 revolution; at least one Marxist police. Many were arrested by the
party remained intact. army, which weakened them.
But! These cells did not allow them to do much: • Both Bolshevik and Menshevik leaders
2-3 people could not have much influence over were in exile (Lenin and Martov) and
a group of peasants, for example thus no major action could be taken.
• With the industrialisation, the target This was like before 1894, when
population of the Marxist groups – members of the parties were arrested
workers – grew (Moscow and St en masse.
Petersburg population doubled; 60% • In 1894 Marxist press was also in the
literacy level). They thus presented circulation as it was in 1914. So, it could
more threat with their grown be said that the opposition was actually
supporters quite strong back then.
But! The majority of the workers were apolitical
– they cared more about their lifestyle and
economy and didn’t have much time for
politics. This meant that Marxist groups did not
receive more support than before.
• Marxist parties were more threatening
because Nicholas II were less skilful in
dealing with the opposition, which
allowed it to grow. Alexander III used
repressive methods which resulted into
13 years of peace.
Conclusion: all political parties grew in their power under Nicholas II reign. Marxist parties did not achieve
anything, that could corroborate the idea of them being more challenging. Nevertheless, they were stronger
than under Alexander III.
‘In the years 1890 to 1905, liberal opposition was more challenging to the autocracy than the opposition of
radical groups.’ AS June 2019
While liberals posed certain threats to the autocracy through their control over zemstvas, their close
connections to the tsar, their co-ordination of actions and their gradual rise in popularity during the Russo-
Japanese war, the radical groups were more challenging because they were closer and more understandable
to the ordinary Russians, and they began to organise themselves in groups, which consequently allowed
them to influence the masses (as in 1905 revolution) and threaten the tsar.
OR
Neither of the oppositional groups seemed to pose a real threat to the autocracy. However, liberals were
more organised and so were able to take actions, unlike radicals, who 1. were hiding 2. were divided.
Liberals the most challenging Radicals more challenging/other
• Liberals are nobles, zemstvamen who None of the opposition groups was effective:
were close to tsar, so they could
