Question Plans
‘There was more change than continuity in the ways Russia was ruled
in the period from 1855 to 1956.’ To what extent do you support this
view?
Key Phrase is ‘More change than
continuity’
Good starting point would be 1917 and the overthrow of
the Tsarist system
This would suggest a complete break with the past
Autocracy overthrown, landed gentry lost power, the
Church reduced in status
Elections organised in 1917 which would give Russia a
truly representative parliament for the first time
But how much change was there?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Constitutional Assembly dissolved
Lenin instituted One Party state
Forbade criticism of the Party
Lenin re-created secret police – the CHEKA
Introduced centralised economic control
Under Stalin growth of elite class
Leadership cult and use of propaganda
The Great Purges
Change or continuity under the Tsars?
Alexander II made fundamental changes to Russian society
and made the first steps towards a more democratic/liberal
society
It is important to question his motives
Some changes forced upon him as the result of Edict of
Emancipation
Dismayed at reaction to the Edict Alexander II fell back
on repression
Repression continued under Alexander III who aimed to
undo previous reforms
Status of gentry re-established – Land Captains
Change or continuity under the Tsars?
Nicholas II introduced national Duma – first in Russian
history
Technically Russia now no longer an autocracy
Harsh methods used against demonstrators/protesters eg
Bloody Sunday 1905 and Lena Goldfields 1912
Policy of Russification forcing uniformity onto citizens in
Empire
Persecution of specific groups eg Jews under all Tsars
Change or Continuity?
• Weak Duma
• Secret Police
• Autocrat supported by
small elite
• Autocracy
• Persecution of
minorities
• Tsar worshipped
• Dissolution of Constit
Assembly
• Cheka/OGPU/NKVD
• Stalin supported by small
elite
• Dictatorship of the
Proletariat
• Persecution of minorities
• Cult of Lenin
Turning points in Russian History 1855-1955
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Assassination of Alexander II
The 1905 Revolution
The abdication of Nicholas II
The Bolshevik take-over in 1917
Stalin’s accession to power
1. Death of Alexander II
• Reign had given hope
of new attitude
towards reform
• Emancipation marked
greatest change for
centuries
• Death saw return to
repression as tool of
government
• Aim was to strengthen
the autocracy
• Reforms were
pragmatic
• Reign showed more
repression than
reform
2. 1905 Revolution
• Dumas's power very
• Duma established –
limited
autocracy ended
• Stolypin used force to
• Stolypin’s reforms
regain control
saw change in tack for
• Small percentage of
peasants
peasants benefited
• Consider reasons for
reform
• How much change had
occurred?
3. Abdication of Nicholas II
• Marked change in
government – end of
300 years of Tsardom
• Introduced liberal
govt under PG
• This led to
Bolshevism –
Dictatorship of the
Proletariat
• One form of autocracy
replaced by another
• Peasants still being
exploited
• Persecution of minority
groups continued
• Lack of freedom
continued
• Better life for some
4. Bolshevik take-over
• Nicholas II’s abdication
led to first truly
democratic govt
• Ended War for Russia
• Lenin ended Constit
Assembly
• Decree on Land
• Success in Civil War
cemented control
• DoP established
• Little real change in
the nature of Prov
govt
• DoP = new autocracy
• Centralised control of
economy
• Peasant suffering
continued in long
term
5. Stalin’s accession to power
• Accession saw
imposition of personal
control
• Huge changes for
peasants
• Impact of 5 Year
Plans
• Change in Russia’s
status
• Link with Lenin
• Stalin = ‘Red Tsar’
• Exploitation of
peasants not new
• 5 Year Plans = Witte’s
‘Great Spurt’
• Party bureaucracy =
gentry
Factors of change
Reasons why change occurred
• Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it
be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855 to 1956 was
caused only by involvement in wars?
•
‘Military needs were always the main reason for Russia’s economic
development.’ To what extent do you agree with this judgement?
•
‘The need to modernise their backward economy was the most
important why the rulers of Russia introduced reforms.’ How far do
you agree with this assessment of the period from 1855 to 1956?
War as a Factor of Change(1)
Impact of
First World
War
War caused collapse of the economy
and of the political system
Gave opportunity to enemies of the
tsarist system
1914 Tsarist state still quite strong
Counter-argument
Russia in 1914 on verge of collapse – still far behind western
powers in economic/social/political development
War as a Factor of Change(2)
Impact of
Russo-Jap
War
Direct link with 1905 Revolution
Tsar forced to make concessions via
the October Manifesto
Attempt at social engineering by
Stolypin
BUT political changes limited – pragmatic? How likely
without pressures of revolution?
Agrarian reforms were limited in scope – attempt to
redress balance of industrial expansion?
War as a Factor of Change(3)
Civil War
1918-20
Factories nationalised, small businesses
seized, food supplies requisitioned = War
Communism
War brought famine and suffering to
millions
Kronstadt Revolt forced change of direction –
introduction of the NEP
How significant was this?
War as a Factor of Change(4)
Huge social change
Edict of Emancip
Political changes
Eg local govt
Crimean
War
Serfdom had
already been
recognised as a
weakness
Change to judicial
system
Education and
Army reform
Other factors of change?
1) Military needs
• Defeat in Crimean War triggered reform
– Edict of Emancipation
• Under Witte economic expansion to
strengthen Russia as Great Power
• Stalin’s ‘Socialism in One Country’
designed to defend new communist state
Other factors of change?(2)
• Serfdom already identified as major problem –
holding Russia back
• Alexander II looking to strengthen autocracy
• Industrial expansion under Alexander III &
Nicholas II result of wanting to close gap with
West- not as result of defeat
• Stalin (as above) – expansion during time of
peace – Lenin had left behind problem of NEP
2. Economic considerations
• Crimean War demonstrated backwardness
of Russian economy
• Emancipation of Serfs pre-requisite of
changing economic base
• Local government, legal and Army reforms
have no link with this
2. Economic considerations(2)
Witte’s ‘Great Spurt’
• Argued that State must play major role in
promoting industrial development in order
to compete with other GPs
• Only effected transport and the peasants –
did not lead to political or social changes
2. Economic considerations(3)
• Political changes introduced by Nicholas II
NOT result of economic considerations
• Changes in regime in 1917 political not
economic
• NEP introduced to save the regime?
• Stalin’s reforms linked with need to
strengthen the state (like Witte?)