Russia 1906-1914: What were the strengths and weaknesses of

Romanov rule from 1906 to 1914?

Why was there an increase in opposition to the Tsarist government between 1906 and
1914. [10]

 Anger and dissapointment at the Tsar’s failure to fulfill his promises to reform the
political system. It seemed that the lessons of the 1905 revolution had not been learned.

 There was increasing alienation from a growing middle class who felt frustrated at their
lack of real political power as promised by the October Manifesto. The Fundamental
Laws angered many Liberals (especially the Kadets). The aristocracy remained a
privileged caste with enormous social influence and political power. The Russian middle
class was increasingly well educated and yet was denied any real role in government.
The OM had raised their expectations, so the FL only served to make them even less
happy with the Tsar than they had been in 1905.

 There was a loss of support from the peasantry. Stolypin changed the electoral law to
reduce the number of peasant members and peasant voters. Despite Stolypin’s land
reforms peasants still suffered from debt and poverty. Much of the land used for
internal migration was unsuitable for farming. Stolypin’s encouragement of a wealthier
class of peasants (Kulaks) only made poorer peasants jealous.

 Revolutionary groups survived underground and continued to attract support although

they were successfully supressed by the Okhrana. (The Okhrana had forced Lenin into
exile in 1907 and show trials and executions had reduced membership of revolutionary
groups from 100,000 to 10,000 by 1910). However, although in exile or in prison Marxist
revolutionary leadership remained determined to overthrow the Tsar. Revolutionaries
even managed to assassinate Stolypin in 1911.

 There was the legacy of the Russian-Japanese war with the humiliation involved. People
had not forgotten or forgiven the Tsar for this defeat.

 Economic conditions worsened for many. There was a real failure to identify the
economic causes of 1905 and act on them. There was also a growing urban proletariat,
(increased by 2.5 million) often living in appalling housing conditions and dreadful
working conditions. This led to the great number of strikes in the period – notably at
Lena Goldfield in 1912 which resulted in violence. Although industrial production
increased by 50 1906-14, the conditions for urban workers did not improve. The Social
Revolutionaries (SRs) were critical of the OM, as were the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. It
did not give any more power to the peasants or workers.
 Massive increase in government oppression 1905-1910: Russification, pogroms etc
(Stolypin neckties and sending opponents into exile) alienated many, especially
minorites such as Jews and Poles. Terrorist groups such as the Black Hundreds were used
to intimidate and attack those opposed to the Tsar. This made him even more
unpopular.

Why, between 1905 and 1914, was the Tsarist regime able to survive the opposition to it?
(10)

 even within opposition groups, such as the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, there
were bitter divisions over policy and strategy.

 There was little agreement between liberal groups, such as the Kadets and those
who wished to abolish theTsarist system totally, such as the Bolsheviks. Many
liberals had been shocked and scared by the time they spent with radi

 The Okhrana was efficient and created an effective system of law enforcement and
informers. Many political opponents were exiled, imprisoned or killed. During 1906
1000 people were arrested, tried and executed for their part in the revolution.
21,000 were sent to prison camps in Siberia. Between 1907 and 1911 a further 1800
were hanged. (Stolypin’s neckties). Black Hundreds state terror groups also hunted
down and killed radicals. The Okhrana had forced Lenin into exile in 1907 and show
trials and executions had reduced membership of revolutionary groups from 100,000
to 10,000 by 1910.

 The peasantry mainly remained loyal to the Tsar as Stolypin’s land reforms secured
their loyalty
o He introduced reforms to dismantle the mir and to give Russia’s 125 million
peasants property rights and full citizenship (1907)
o He ended redemption payments through use of land banks, helped landless
peasants resettle to Siberia,
o He tried to modernise the local zemstvos so that the peasant representatives
had the same vote as an agrarian nobleman (1907)
o He ultimately created a new class of wealthy peasants the Kulaks – through
his “wager on the strong” policy.
o Agricultural output increased by a third, while peasant land ownership
increased by 30 per cent. And good harvests helped in years up to 1914.
o Traditionally peasants were largely a conservative, religious group who
rejected the SR’s efforts to radicalise them.
o Peasant revolts during the 1905 revolution were mainly specific to their
desire for land and for more political power. They did not want to overthrow
the Tsar (even in 1917)
  the Church and the Aristocracy (who owned much of the land and wealth) were
supportive of the Tsar.

 The army remained loyal to the Tsar. The Potemkin mutiny was the Navy not the
army and was an isolated incident. It wouldn’t be until WW1 that the army would
become hostile the the Tsar.

 The concessions made after 1905 also helped (OM), as did the work of the 3rd
Duma. There was at least an appearance, at times, that the Tsar might change for
the better. There were attempts to help peasants and workers. The formation of
trade unions had been made legal in 1905. In 1912, safety inspectors were
introduced into factories. Workers began to benefit from employee insurance
schemes which provided protection against accidents and illness. (altough little was
achieved in reality)

 The work of Stolypin improved the economic situation due to more industrial
investment. Heavy industry increased considerably. The production of iron and steel
rose by 50 per cent and by the outbreak of World War One, Russia was the fourth largest
producer of steel, coal and iron.

The Tsar was secure on his throne in 1914.’ How far do you agree? [20]

Arguments that the Tsar was secure

 The period 1905–1914 is by some historians as a period of stabilisation and
progress brought to an end by WW1. Accepted thinking is often ‘no war – no
revolution in1917’;
 There was massive repression in the years 1905–1910, which arguably kept
the radicals down and made a revolution unlikely
 There was an apathetic and disorganised working class who although
disillusioned were not a real revolutionary force in 1914
 The middle class although unhappy at their lack of power were apparently
prepared to work within the Tsarist structure. They feared a workers revolution
and therefore were willing to prop up the Tsar to protect their property and
interests.
 The middle class and working class opposition groups were divided both
within and between themselves

Arguments that the Tsar was not secure

 some see the revolution as inevitable, given the inflexibility and incompetence
of the Tsar and his regime, and the growing revolutionary feelings after 1912
(Lena)
  There was massive repression (Stolypin’s neckties) in the years 1905–1910,
which arguably had alienated radicals and minorities making revolution
inevitable
 There was a growing industrial work force, badly paid and treated, with a
growing reputation for striking and radicalism.
 Peasants were leaving the land and heading for the cities making
overcrowding a bigger problem and exposing the peasants to new
revolutionary ideas
 Increasingly by 1910, many middle class reformers were seeing the use of
violence as the only way forward and the regime seemed to be getting more
determined to avoid serious reforms.
 Poorer peasants were still unhappy and jealous at the success of the Kulaks
 The rise of Rasputin showed just how rotten the regime was.

 There were constant minor mutinies in the army and navy.

‘The Russian people supported Nicholas II between 1906 and

1914.’ How far do you agree with this statement? [20]

Arguments that people supported the Tsar

 The majority of Russians saw the political and social systems as best
suiting the country.

 The nobles supported Nicholas II and they were an important

political and social group.

 The large peasantry was dissatisfied with the consequences of

emancipation but did not link this dissatisfaction with Nicholas II
personally. They remained loyal.

 the protestors in Bloody Sunday were seeking to bring their

grievances to the attention of the Tsar. The disturbances became
widespread but were based on demands for social and economic
reforms rather than changes to the political system.

 The political radicals were few in number by 1914.

 Middle class reformers were few in number

 There was an improvement in the economy.

 In foreign affairs, Russia recovered from the defeat by Japan.

 Support for the Slav cause in the Balkans was popular in the build
up to WW1
  The army and the church remained largely loyal, and the army’s loyalty had
been critical in 1905.

 There was strong aristocratic support

Arguments that people did not support the Tsar

 There was a growing industrial work force, badly paid and treated, with a
growing reputation for striking and radicalism.
 Peasants were leaving the land and heading for the cities making
overcrowding a bigger problem and exposing the peasants to new
revolutionary ideas
 Increasingly by 1910, many middle class reformers were seeing the use of
violence as the only way forward
 Poorer peasants were still unhappy and jealous at the success of the Kulaks

Conclusion: Most Russians were unhappy but didn’t want to get rid of the Tsar. Only a small
amount of Marxists, SRs and radical Liberals wanted to overthrow him. It depends how one
defines “support”
There was limited opposition to the Tsarist regime between 1906 and 1914.’
How far
do you agree? [20]

INTRO: This is arguable. There were plenty of those who disagreed with much of
what the regime did, but the opposition was so diverse and uncoordinated that in
total it did not amount to a great deal.

Agree

 It was the disunity of the opposition that made it quite limited in impact.
Obviously the radical left wished totally to change the regime and hoped for
fundamental change in both the economic and social structure of Russia.
However, there were huge divisions within the Left with endless disputes
between the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries.

 Some of the more radical aristocracy were badly alienated by the ‘softness’ of
the October Manifesto, while others formed an important part of the Kadet
Party. The Kadets, however, disagreed strongly with the Octobrists, who
remained loyal to the Tsar

 Many middle class wanted a constitutional solution to Russia’s problems, and,

while disagreeing with Tsarist policies, saw the Tsar as part of the solution
and it took the WW1 to alienate them totally, although the Tsar’s attitude to
the Duma alienated many.
  The army and the peasantry remained basically loyal, and again it took the
appalling stresses of WW1 to alienate them.

 The Okrahna proved effective and there was ruthless enforcement of policy
by Stolypin – over 2700 were executed by his ‘neckties’. This shows that
opposition was limited as it was being succesfully repressed

DISAGREE

 By 1914 there was a gradual breakdown of order in the countryside with

increasing peasant takeover of lands. This was despite Stolypin’s land
reforms

 There was a substantial growth of unions and little was done to deal with
industrial unrest as the Lena goldfield crisis of 1912 showed.

 There were constant minor mutinies in the army and navy.

 The Okrahna proved effective and there was ruthless enforcement of policy
by Stolypin – over 2700 were executed by his ‘neckties’. This shows that
opposition was having an impact as is needed a huge effort by the
government to supress it.

Conclusion: Much depends on how ‘limited’ is viewed; opposition was frequently

radical but never co-ordinated.