Berenice Ings – Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964
Chapter 1: the nature of government
Specification – extended content (mark as completed)
Nature of rule in Russia from 1855-1964
Autocracy, Tsarist and Communist aims, ambitions, fears and concerns.
dictatorship and Similarities and differences in leadership between Tsars, Communists, individual
totalitarianism The effectiveness of Tsarism, Communism and individual rulers.
Developments in Similarities and differences in the features and functions of government
central institutions or ministerial positions.
administration
The extent of control of central government and its ruler.
Changes in local The development of central, regional and local government.
government Similarities and differences between Tsarist and Communist governments and
methods.
The role and impact of individuals on the nature or course of Russian
government (e.g. Milyutin, Witte, Pobedonostsev, Kirov, Zinoviev, Beria,
Kaganovich, Molotov)
The nature, aims and development of communists institutions such as the CPSU,
central committee, politburo, Sovnarkom, Comintern, Comifrom, Vesenkha,
Gosplan
Reasons for and the nature of de-stalinsation
Impact of war and revolution
The extent and Reasons for economic, political, military and social reform (e.g. need to catch up
impact of reform with the West, war, revolution, serfdom).
Extent to which reform was imposed ‘from above’ or ‘from below’.
Strengths, limitations and impact of reforms affecting the government, army,
economy and society (short- and long-term effects).
The significance some key reforms:
the Emancipation of the Serfs.
constitutional reforms and developments such as the October Manifesto, Fundamental
Laws, Constituent Assembly, development as a catalyst for revolution or opposition to
government
Similarities and differences between Tsarist, Communist and
Methods of individual rulers’ methods:
repression and government policies (e.g. education, judiciary, emergency powers, food requisitioning)
enforcement propaganda and censorship
secret police (e.g. Third Section, Okhrana, Cheka, NKVD, MVD, KGB)
‘guests of the Tsar’, the Lyubianka, exile and gulags
denunciations, fear, espionage, chistka and show trials
anti-semitism and pogroms
role of positions such as the Minister of the Interior
importance of individuals such as Trepov, Plehve, Dzerzhinsky, Yezhov, Beria
the Red Terror and Ezhovschina
ideological tenets of the Cold War and mistrust of the West.
The nature, extent Causes of opposition, including the 1905 revolution, the February and October
and effectiveness of Revolutions of 1917 and sides in the Civil War.
opposition both The nature of opposition or resistance to government:
before and after ideological, military, political, religious, social and personal
1917. social composition and extent of membership
aims and methods of opposition groups, movements and individuals: passive,
subversive or violent
government paranoia and fear of conspiracy.
The significance and effectiveness of opposition groups such as: Land and
Liberty, People’s Will, Narodnik, SRs, Populist, Menshevik,
Bolshevik, Octobrist, Kadet, Progressive, Black Hundreds, exiles and dissidents.
The role of individuals such as Plekhanov, Zasulich, Kaplan, Lenin, Trotsky.
1
,Berenice Ings – Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964
The ‘Polish syndrome’, nationalities and extent of involvement of greater
Russians or foreigners in opposition to Russian rulers (e.g. Czech legion,
Cossacks, western forces).
The significance of events such as the assassination of Alexander II, 1905
Revolution, the 1917 Revolutions, Kornilov coup, Kronstadt Mutiny, the
Leningrad affair, Doctor’s Plot, Polish and Hungarian Uprisings.
Reasons why opposition was weak or was more successful against Tsarism
than Communism.
Communist and Cold War mentality
The impact of the development of 20th century media and the press on opposition
and state control.
Comparative success of Russian leaders in preventing or quashing opposition
Government reactions to strikes, public demonstrations, dissent and political
Attitude of the Tsars, activism (e.g. Bloody Sunday, Lena goldfields).
Provisional Attitude and reactions to change (e.g. adaptation or manipulation of priorities,
Government and personal involvement, repression, reform).
Communists to Comparative contributions and extent to which individual rulers or regimes
political change. achieved success, caused development or modernised Russia (e.g. if Alexander II
The extent of deserves the title ‘Tsar Liberator’).
political change. Extent to which communism merely replaced one form of autocracy for another
(Communists as ‘Red Tsars’).
Extent to which Russian rulers preferred repression to reform.
Autocracy
1855 - March 1917- Russia was governed as an autocracy
Tsars had absolute power, said to be ordained by God and all
Russians had to obey the will of the Tsar or suffer punishment -
expected willing and total submission of his subjects
As this was a system based on religious faith, did not require
the tsar to be made accountable to the people through
elections.
tsar was obliged to act as a moral judge on behalf of God, had
a paternalistic duty to protect his subjects and control their
behaviour for the good of the nation as a whole - supported in
this role by the Russian Orthodox Church
autocracy was viewed as a practical necessity because empire
was so vast and diverse that it was better if one person had
total control over imperial affairs
a liberal democracy and constitutional government =
disastrous - would have led to too many people demanding too
many different policies
As the vast majority of the population were illiterate peasants,
democracy would have resulted in the governance of Russia by
those who lacked the ability to reason
Continuity in the belief in autocracy
there was variation in how autocratic power was used by the
tsars throughout the period
the significance of autocracy was continuously enforced
through manifestos, speeches and policies
Nicholas I
2
,Berenice Ings – Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964
- used propaganda and slogans to promote tsarism
- reinforced with legislations- the Fundamental Laws of
1832
- 'the emperor of all the Russians is an autocratic and
unlimited monarch: God himself ordains that all must
bow to his supreme power, not only out of fear but also
out of conscience'
Alexander II
- Did not waver from his father’s statement, although
made reforms
- after an assassination attempt was made on him 1866,
he adhered very strongly to the concept of autocracy
Alexander III
- blamed moves towards liberalism for his father's
assassination in 1881
Nicholas II
- introduced another set of Fundamental Laws which
reiterated the need for the preservation of autocracy
- 'The All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme
autocratic power. Not only fear and conscience, but God
himself, commands obedience to his authority. The
Russian Empire is governed by firmly established laws
that have been properly enacted'
all of the tsars consistently promoted and justified autocracy
clear that ultimate power and control rested in the hands of
the tsar
Changes in the way autocracy was implemented
differences in the way the tsar performed their autocratic role:
- Alexander II opted for a string of reforms which
appeared to represent a dilution of autocracy
- Alexander III quickly resorted to a more repressive form
of autocracy, where opposition was ruthlessly
suppressed. Heavily influenced by Pobedonostsev-
argued that constitutional government was unworkable
- Nicholas II continued the same way - constitutional
reforms were implemented in 1905. These were forced
on the tsar as a result of economic crisis and the
disastrous consequences of the Russo-Japanese War. The
Fundamental Laws of 1906 diluted the effect of the
reforms so that by 1917 the duma was little more than a
talking shop frequented by politicians committed to
autocracy
the tsars used their autocratic power differently according to
their differing circumstances
3
, Berenice Ings – Russia and its Rulers 1855-1964
political, economic and social reforms were never made with
the intention of the tsar relinquishing any degree of control
Dictatorship
Marx and the idea of superstructure
Marx believed that the foundation or base of society was
maintained and established by a ruling elite and this base
benefited the elite to the detriment of others - in Russia =
agricultural serfdom, with a small amount of industrialisation
to maintain this a superstructure of institutions was needed by
the ruling class to establish order
Marx believed this was unfair and bound to lead to conflict and
the only way to change this was to destroy the base
Russian intellectuals took this to mean that serfdom and
capitalism should be replaced by a more egalitarian society
Marx and the labour theory of value
under a capitalist economy the proletariat would never gain
the full value of their efforts as a disproportionate amount of
wages would be taken away to provide capitalists with profits
far in excess of what was needed to maintain industrialisation
this would eventually prove unacceptable to workers as they
increasingly realised that they were being exploited
Marx predicted the result would be a worker uprising to
overthrow the system - expected to begin in the advanced
industrialised European nations
Whereas Russia was largely rural and backward and not the
kind of place where a revolution would happen
Marx and the dictatorship of the proletariat
Marx referred to the likely conflict between capitalists and
workers as a class struggle - final part of an ongoing series of
struggles throughout history between different social groups
the conflict between capitalists and workers would be resolved
when workers seized control of the means of production,
distribution and exchange.
before full communism could emerge, there would be a
dictatorship of the proletariat where political control would be
placed in the hands of the workers and those representing
their interests
the bolsheviks under Lenin and Stalin modified these
guidelines to suit their circumstances
4
