In Extract A, it claims that Alexander III formed a repressive society where the idea of liberalism could not
legitimately exist. This can be a convincing when Extract A states Alexander III “deserved reputation of intolerance
and heavy-handed policy methods” as the Okhrana 1881 and the key policy of Russi cation. Okhrana was a
formation of secret police, given extensive powers compared to third section, that had the powers to arrest,
surveillance and interrogated suspected opposition. This clearly highlights A.III high intolerance to opposition for
the stability of the autocracy and for the revenge of his father’s assassination. Russi cation was a heavy policy to
implement amongst all minorities, all classes and all opposing ideas, this was done through severe restrictions and
punishments if not obeyed such as the Poles teachings had to be in Russian by 1869. Additionally Extract A fairly
claims that “anything smacking of liberalism was hated by the tsar” this could be supported through the use of
restricted opposition. For example, A.III attempted to regain retribution from Peoples Will who successfully
assassinated A.II by publicly hanging their 5 leaders in March 1881 and arresting a further 10k to create humiliation
and deterrence. This showcases A.III “intolerance” and his hatred of liberalism of western ideas. Additionally A.III
hatred of liberalism was his lack of support for his father’s liberalising reforms in which he counter reformed at the
beginning of his reign, such as Judiciary System 1886-1888. The judiciary reforms enforced by A.III removed the
western liberal idea of an open and fair trial in any legal system, as it caused trial to be held in camera, with the
addition of special courts to punish political criminals. Therefore, showing his distaste for liberalism, by reversing
his father’s “liberal” reforms. Finally, Extract A con dently states that A.III was successful “in turning back the clock
in local government”, this is historically accurate as although the Zemstva existed it practically became an
ordainment for Russian society. In 1884, Alexander III reintroduced the power of the church over the Zemstvas
regarding primary schools, whilst reducing Zemstva autonomy in 1890. Although Zemstva lost much of its power,
there were a few decisions it still could advise or implement within Russia, therefore leading to the creation of Land
Captain in 1889, who were nobles that could overturn the Zemstvas decision. This made the Zemstva an
infrastructure of ‘tokenism’ as it had no real impact in the later 1880’s. In conclusion, it can be said that Extract A is
fairly convincing due to its many historical accuracies.
However, Extract A can be viewed unconvincing when it slightly exaggerates Alexanders III reforms and behaviour
along side his attitude. Extract A claims that A.III hated “anything smacking of liberalism”, although there is
evidence to support this statement, it heavily ignores some of the progressive reforms created by A.III. A.III during
his reign had reduced redemption payments in half, removed temporary obligation and opened a Peasants Land
Bank in 1883 all to support the peasantries economic inequalities. This therefore would allow the peasants to move
into the possible middle class sector that was formed in the 19th century, with their own independence. Although
this was done for industrial development, such as peasantry investing into the industrial sector, this would have
given them economic liberties and if they were successful could climb up the chain in the hierarchical power, giving
them social developments. This was a form of western & liberal modernisation carried out by Russia and A.III cannot
be said to hate “anything” but could be argued to hate most of anything liberal. Furthermore, Extract A states that
Alexander III “succeeded in turning back the clock” on his fathers liberalising reforms, however this cannot be said
to be truly accurate due to the continuation of the Emancipation Edict 1861. This policy of emancipation gave
peasants freedoms and opportunities which they never had before, and was to be considered a western policy.
Therefore, this causes Alexander III to not have fully turned back the clocks, or even turn them back at all in some
categories as A.III later assisted the peasants further by reducing redemption payments and abolishing temporary
obligation. However, it can be argued that A.III did not reverse emancipation as it would have created enormous civil
unrest which would have led to the collapse of the autocracy. In conclusion, Extract A is convincing overall although
it does contain slight exaggeration of the extent of A.III policies.
fi
legitimately exist. This can be a convincing when Extract A states Alexander III “deserved reputation of intolerance
and heavy-handed policy methods” as the Okhrana 1881 and the key policy of Russi cation. Okhrana was a
formation of secret police, given extensive powers compared to third section, that had the powers to arrest,
surveillance and interrogated suspected opposition. This clearly highlights A.III high intolerance to opposition for
the stability of the autocracy and for the revenge of his father’s assassination. Russi cation was a heavy policy to
implement amongst all minorities, all classes and all opposing ideas, this was done through severe restrictions and
punishments if not obeyed such as the Poles teachings had to be in Russian by 1869. Additionally Extract A fairly
claims that “anything smacking of liberalism was hated by the tsar” this could be supported through the use of
restricted opposition. For example, A.III attempted to regain retribution from Peoples Will who successfully
assassinated A.II by publicly hanging their 5 leaders in March 1881 and arresting a further 10k to create humiliation
and deterrence. This showcases A.III “intolerance” and his hatred of liberalism of western ideas. Additionally A.III
hatred of liberalism was his lack of support for his father’s liberalising reforms in which he counter reformed at the
beginning of his reign, such as Judiciary System 1886-1888. The judiciary reforms enforced by A.III removed the
western liberal idea of an open and fair trial in any legal system, as it caused trial to be held in camera, with the
addition of special courts to punish political criminals. Therefore, showing his distaste for liberalism, by reversing
his father’s “liberal” reforms. Finally, Extract A con dently states that A.III was successful “in turning back the clock
in local government”, this is historically accurate as although the Zemstva existed it practically became an
ordainment for Russian society. In 1884, Alexander III reintroduced the power of the church over the Zemstvas
regarding primary schools, whilst reducing Zemstva autonomy in 1890. Although Zemstva lost much of its power,
there were a few decisions it still could advise or implement within Russia, therefore leading to the creation of Land
Captain in 1889, who were nobles that could overturn the Zemstvas decision. This made the Zemstva an
infrastructure of ‘tokenism’ as it had no real impact in the later 1880’s. In conclusion, it can be said that Extract A is
fairly convincing due to its many historical accuracies.
However, Extract A can be viewed unconvincing when it slightly exaggerates Alexanders III reforms and behaviour
along side his attitude. Extract A claims that A.III hated “anything smacking of liberalism”, although there is
evidence to support this statement, it heavily ignores some of the progressive reforms created by A.III. A.III during
his reign had reduced redemption payments in half, removed temporary obligation and opened a Peasants Land
Bank in 1883 all to support the peasantries economic inequalities. This therefore would allow the peasants to move
into the possible middle class sector that was formed in the 19th century, with their own independence. Although
this was done for industrial development, such as peasantry investing into the industrial sector, this would have
given them economic liberties and if they were successful could climb up the chain in the hierarchical power, giving
them social developments. This was a form of western & liberal modernisation carried out by Russia and A.III cannot
be said to hate “anything” but could be argued to hate most of anything liberal. Furthermore, Extract A states that
Alexander III “succeeded in turning back the clock” on his fathers liberalising reforms, however this cannot be said
to be truly accurate due to the continuation of the Emancipation Edict 1861. This policy of emancipation gave
peasants freedoms and opportunities which they never had before, and was to be considered a western policy.
Therefore, this causes Alexander III to not have fully turned back the clocks, or even turn them back at all in some
categories as A.III later assisted the peasants further by reducing redemption payments and abolishing temporary
obligation. However, it can be argued that A.III did not reverse emancipation as it would have created enormous civil
unrest which would have led to the collapse of the autocracy. In conclusion, Extract A is convincing overall although
it does contain slight exaggeration of the extent of A.III policies.
fi
