Well now that I'm in yr 12, I don't need my prelim stuff anymore, and crappy as it is, there will be more use for it here than where it is currently, decaying in the depths of my hard drive.
Structured essay for 19th century Russia. I think I got 22/25 or something, forgot to mention AUTOCRACY in the first paragraph. So that's a tip for all you 06ers, be sure to mention AUTOCRACY in these types of questions.
Enjoy.
19TH CENTURY RUSSIA
Assessment 3 – Structured Essay
a) Describe the main features of political repression in 19th century Russia
Political repression in 19th Russia was characterized by strict censorship (especially of the media), severe restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms (on overseas travel and the reading of foreign books), with any anti-tsarist political activity ruthlessly suppressed and political opponents sent into exile. The power of the church and bureaucracy was extensive. Education, like everything else, was state controlled. Propaganda, often incorporated into education, was another tool of political repression.
The policy which provided the basis for much of political repression was the Nicholas System, which centered on the pillars of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. The Russian Orthodox Church was used to prevent opposition to tsarist rule, including by promoting the idea of the ‘divine right of kings’. The Imperial Private Chancery exercised great control over most aspects of Russian life, with its Section III comprising of secret police and a large network of informers who spied on ordinary Russians. A process of ‘Russianification’ was imposed on the ethnic minorities within the empire, quashing hopes of independence. The power of the zemstas and dumas – through which the ordinary people had a political voice – was sorely limited.
b) Evaluate the methods used by opponents of this repression up to 1907.
Main opponents of the tsarist regime were the Nihilist, Populist, Anarchist and Marxist movements. Their methods varied in effectiveness and included propaganda, terrorism, strikes and assassination attempts.
Nihilists spread anti-tsarist propaganda, exercised terrorism and staged assassination attempts on Alexander II. However, Nihilism was rejected by many Russians because of their violent methods and its appearance of being a fundamentally negative movement. In the short term Nihilism served only to increase government effects to control revolutionary ideas and groups, in particular prompting Alexander II to abandon reform and return to repression in the mid 1860s. However, in the long term, it helped to undermine belief in and respect for the main institutions of tsarist Russia – the tsar, the Church and the nobility, especially amongst intellectuals.
The Populists aimed to overthrow the nobility and government in order to establish a socialist society consisting of a loose confederation of communes. Most believed that socialism would be achieved by a violent revolution carried out by the peasant population, who were simply awaiting a call to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. So, in the ‘going to the people’ movement of 1873-5, university students – many of noble birth – dressed in rough clothing and went amongst the peasants to encourage revolt. However they made little impact on the peasants, who remained for the most part loyal to the tsar. Students received a much more positive audience if they focused on attacking the landowners, but overall the peasants did not understand the students and their aims and remained pessimistic about the chances of successful revolt. Some even handed over the youths to the authorities.
The failure of this movement resulted in Populism splintering into factions. Some, including the Narodnaya Volya (The People’s Will – that which succeeded in assassinating Alexander II in 1881), indulged in terrorism. Liberal Populists focused on achieving evolutionary change and undertook practical humanitarian work to improve the peasants’ conditions. The Socialist Revolutionary Party, a political party formed by the Populists in 1900, also exercised terrorism.
In the short term Populist methods achieved little, especially in regard to initiating peasant revolt; moreover it provoked severe government repression. 1500 were arrested as a result of the ‘going to the people’ movement and the Populist assassination of Alexander II only increased the determination of his successor to retain autocracy. In the longer term however, Populism played an important role in further undermining the tsarist system. Historian J N Westwood commented that the movement ‘made a start in developing the political consciousness of ordinary people….[and] inspired later generations of revolutionaries…’
Anarchists, like Nihilists, advocated change by violent revolution, forming small bands of terrorists who specialized in attacking members of the government and nobility. Anarchism was never a mass movement party because of government repression, and because most Russians rejected its violent methods. Its main effects were to demonstrate again the vulnerability of the tsarist regime to attack by determined individuals and to influence other revolutionary movements, especially the Populists.
Marxism, on the other hand, aimed to spread its ideas through organizing and propagandizing the industrial workers. Although the Populists organized the first large strikes in the 1870s, it was the Marxists that recognized it was a tactic more suited to the proletariat than the peasantry. They played a major role in the mass strikes of textile workers in 1896-7, which led to factory legislation limiting the length of the working day. Following this success, strikes began to proliferate rapidly. It was a Marxist faction – the Bolsheviks – that carried out a successful revolution and came to power in 1917.
Marxism was the most effective of the four Russian resistance movements. Populism also held some influence, at the height of its influence assassinating Alexander II in 1881. However, Nihilism and Anarchism did not have the same success, their ineffectiveness largely brought upon by resistance to their violent methods.
c) Explain why the tsars were able to maintain their autocratic rule throughout the 19th century.
Tsars utilized policies built more or less around the Nicholas System, with its central pillars of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, to extend the duration of the regime. The use of propaganda in education, peasant support, lack of effective opposition and reform were also delayed outright revolution.
Autocracy had been the traditional system of Russian government and tradition, and tradition, as history will endorse, is a notoriously obstinate mistress, determining culture, lifestyle and social structure. The ordinary Russian people had little or no say in how their country was run; it was a situation that had prevailed since the era of Peter the Great. Autocratic rule in Russia was characterized by political repression, including strict censorship (especially of the media), severe restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms. Any anti-tsarist political activity was ruthlessly suppressed and political opponents were sent into exile. The tsar held all legislative power and could dismiss ministers at will; no parliament existed. The influence of nobility was extensive. The Nicholas-established Imperial Private Chancery exercised great control over most aspects of Russian society, with its Section III comprising of the secret police and a large network of informers who spied on ordinary Russians. The power of the zemstas and dumas – through which the ordinary people had a political voice – was restricted first by Alexander II and then by successive tsars.
The Russian Orthodox Church, a fundamental mainstay of Russian tradition and society, has long exercised a role crucial to the maintenance of tsarist rule. This is particularly true of Nicholas II’s reign. The church advised the tsar on political matters and the tsar used the Church to prevent opposition to his rule, including by promoting the ‘divine right of kings’. The beliefs of the Church were reinforced and other types of Christianity actively discouraged.
Tsarist policies encouraged Russians to be patriotic and proud of their country and its achievements, including the autocratic system of government. The process known as ‘Russianification’ put pressure on various minorities within the Empire to adopt the dominant Russian culture and way of life. Russia was able to effectively crush Polish attempts independence in 1830, thus strengthening its totalitarian control and furthering its culture in the region.
Education was a significant tool of autocracy. Only a small number of Russians, mostly the nobility, had received a reasonable broad education, with most possessing a basic elementary education or none at all. Russian intellectuals were forbidden from travel overseas to ‘protect’ them from the evils of Western culture, and government spies attended university lectures. A student was once sent to a lunatic asylum for organizing opposition to the tsar. Propaganda formed an integral part of education, with students taught about the glories of Russia’s glories of past and present, and the role of autocratic rule in ensuring Russia remained distinct and powerful.
The support of the peasants, who comprised the majority of the Russian population, was imperative to the maintenance of the tsarist system. For the most part the regime managed to prey effectively upon the peasants’ lack of education, faith in the Orthodox Church and gullibility to propaganda. Serfs were intensely loyal to the tsar and were encouraged to view him as a father figure, supporting maintenance of his absolute rule.
Moreover, the 19th century failed to produce organized and effective opposition to the Russian tsarist regime. Initial resistance movements, the Nihilists and Anarchists, drew opposition because of their violent methods. The Populists hardly fared better, with the dismal failure of their ‘going to the people’ movement and their assassination of Alexander II only increasing the determination of Alexander III to maintain the current system of government. Their aims for society, especially those of the Nihilists and Anarchists, were also unrealistic and unsuitable for Russian adaptation. The only real, effective opposition to the regime was the Marxist movement, which did not come into prominence until the strikes of the late 1890s.
Reforms introduced, especially by Alexander II, also momentarily staunched the peoples’ thirst for revolution. The most significant of these was of course Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861, but his introduction of the zemstva and dumas, lifting of some restrictions, suspension of military recruitment, lessening of the ‘Russianification’ process, judicial and military reform, also had quelling effects. It was only the harsh repression of Alexander III and Nicholas II that conveyed Russia into the midst of revolution.
Aided by peasant support, propagandized education, lack of effective opposition and reforms, Nicholas I’s policy of ‘orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality’ bestowed endurance upon the Russian autocratic system. Ultimately, however, it did not survive the substandard rule of Alexander III and Nicholas II, that which gave the Bolsheviks the upper hand in the revolution of 1917.
Hoped that helped.
-cherry
Anyone else got similar stuff, feel welcome to post.
Structured essay for 19th century Russia. I think I got 22/25 or something, forgot to mention AUTOCRACY in the first paragraph. So that's a tip for all you 06ers, be sure to mention AUTOCRACY in these types of questions.
Enjoy.
19TH CENTURY RUSSIA
Assessment 3 – Structured Essay
a) Describe the main features of political repression in 19th century Russia
Political repression in 19th Russia was characterized by strict censorship (especially of the media), severe restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms (on overseas travel and the reading of foreign books), with any anti-tsarist political activity ruthlessly suppressed and political opponents sent into exile. The power of the church and bureaucracy was extensive. Education, like everything else, was state controlled. Propaganda, often incorporated into education, was another tool of political repression.
The policy which provided the basis for much of political repression was the Nicholas System, which centered on the pillars of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. The Russian Orthodox Church was used to prevent opposition to tsarist rule, including by promoting the idea of the ‘divine right of kings’. The Imperial Private Chancery exercised great control over most aspects of Russian life, with its Section III comprising of secret police and a large network of informers who spied on ordinary Russians. A process of ‘Russianification’ was imposed on the ethnic minorities within the empire, quashing hopes of independence. The power of the zemstas and dumas – through which the ordinary people had a political voice – was sorely limited.
b) Evaluate the methods used by opponents of this repression up to 1907.
Main opponents of the tsarist regime were the Nihilist, Populist, Anarchist and Marxist movements. Their methods varied in effectiveness and included propaganda, terrorism, strikes and assassination attempts.
Nihilists spread anti-tsarist propaganda, exercised terrorism and staged assassination attempts on Alexander II. However, Nihilism was rejected by many Russians because of their violent methods and its appearance of being a fundamentally negative movement. In the short term Nihilism served only to increase government effects to control revolutionary ideas and groups, in particular prompting Alexander II to abandon reform and return to repression in the mid 1860s. However, in the long term, it helped to undermine belief in and respect for the main institutions of tsarist Russia – the tsar, the Church and the nobility, especially amongst intellectuals.
The Populists aimed to overthrow the nobility and government in order to establish a socialist society consisting of a loose confederation of communes. Most believed that socialism would be achieved by a violent revolution carried out by the peasant population, who were simply awaiting a call to rise up and overthrow their oppressors. So, in the ‘going to the people’ movement of 1873-5, university students – many of noble birth – dressed in rough clothing and went amongst the peasants to encourage revolt. However they made little impact on the peasants, who remained for the most part loyal to the tsar. Students received a much more positive audience if they focused on attacking the landowners, but overall the peasants did not understand the students and their aims and remained pessimistic about the chances of successful revolt. Some even handed over the youths to the authorities.
The failure of this movement resulted in Populism splintering into factions. Some, including the Narodnaya Volya (The People’s Will – that which succeeded in assassinating Alexander II in 1881), indulged in terrorism. Liberal Populists focused on achieving evolutionary change and undertook practical humanitarian work to improve the peasants’ conditions. The Socialist Revolutionary Party, a political party formed by the Populists in 1900, also exercised terrorism.
In the short term Populist methods achieved little, especially in regard to initiating peasant revolt; moreover it provoked severe government repression. 1500 were arrested as a result of the ‘going to the people’ movement and the Populist assassination of Alexander II only increased the determination of his successor to retain autocracy. In the longer term however, Populism played an important role in further undermining the tsarist system. Historian J N Westwood commented that the movement ‘made a start in developing the political consciousness of ordinary people….[and] inspired later generations of revolutionaries…’
Anarchists, like Nihilists, advocated change by violent revolution, forming small bands of terrorists who specialized in attacking members of the government and nobility. Anarchism was never a mass movement party because of government repression, and because most Russians rejected its violent methods. Its main effects were to demonstrate again the vulnerability of the tsarist regime to attack by determined individuals and to influence other revolutionary movements, especially the Populists.
Marxism, on the other hand, aimed to spread its ideas through organizing and propagandizing the industrial workers. Although the Populists organized the first large strikes in the 1870s, it was the Marxists that recognized it was a tactic more suited to the proletariat than the peasantry. They played a major role in the mass strikes of textile workers in 1896-7, which led to factory legislation limiting the length of the working day. Following this success, strikes began to proliferate rapidly. It was a Marxist faction – the Bolsheviks – that carried out a successful revolution and came to power in 1917.
Marxism was the most effective of the four Russian resistance movements. Populism also held some influence, at the height of its influence assassinating Alexander II in 1881. However, Nihilism and Anarchism did not have the same success, their ineffectiveness largely brought upon by resistance to their violent methods.
c) Explain why the tsars were able to maintain their autocratic rule throughout the 19th century.
Tsars utilized policies built more or less around the Nicholas System, with its central pillars of orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality, to extend the duration of the regime. The use of propaganda in education, peasant support, lack of effective opposition and reform were also delayed outright revolution.
Autocracy had been the traditional system of Russian government and tradition, and tradition, as history will endorse, is a notoriously obstinate mistress, determining culture, lifestyle and social structure. The ordinary Russian people had little or no say in how their country was run; it was a situation that had prevailed since the era of Peter the Great. Autocratic rule in Russia was characterized by political repression, including strict censorship (especially of the media), severe restrictions on civil liberties and personal freedoms. Any anti-tsarist political activity was ruthlessly suppressed and political opponents were sent into exile. The tsar held all legislative power and could dismiss ministers at will; no parliament existed. The influence of nobility was extensive. The Nicholas-established Imperial Private Chancery exercised great control over most aspects of Russian society, with its Section III comprising of the secret police and a large network of informers who spied on ordinary Russians. The power of the zemstas and dumas – through which the ordinary people had a political voice – was restricted first by Alexander II and then by successive tsars.
The Russian Orthodox Church, a fundamental mainstay of Russian tradition and society, has long exercised a role crucial to the maintenance of tsarist rule. This is particularly true of Nicholas II’s reign. The church advised the tsar on political matters and the tsar used the Church to prevent opposition to his rule, including by promoting the ‘divine right of kings’. The beliefs of the Church were reinforced and other types of Christianity actively discouraged.
Tsarist policies encouraged Russians to be patriotic and proud of their country and its achievements, including the autocratic system of government. The process known as ‘Russianification’ put pressure on various minorities within the Empire to adopt the dominant Russian culture and way of life. Russia was able to effectively crush Polish attempts independence in 1830, thus strengthening its totalitarian control and furthering its culture in the region.
Education was a significant tool of autocracy. Only a small number of Russians, mostly the nobility, had received a reasonable broad education, with most possessing a basic elementary education or none at all. Russian intellectuals were forbidden from travel overseas to ‘protect’ them from the evils of Western culture, and government spies attended university lectures. A student was once sent to a lunatic asylum for organizing opposition to the tsar. Propaganda formed an integral part of education, with students taught about the glories of Russia’s glories of past and present, and the role of autocratic rule in ensuring Russia remained distinct and powerful.
The support of the peasants, who comprised the majority of the Russian population, was imperative to the maintenance of the tsarist system. For the most part the regime managed to prey effectively upon the peasants’ lack of education, faith in the Orthodox Church and gullibility to propaganda. Serfs were intensely loyal to the tsar and were encouraged to view him as a father figure, supporting maintenance of his absolute rule.
Moreover, the 19th century failed to produce organized and effective opposition to the Russian tsarist regime. Initial resistance movements, the Nihilists and Anarchists, drew opposition because of their violent methods. The Populists hardly fared better, with the dismal failure of their ‘going to the people’ movement and their assassination of Alexander II only increasing the determination of Alexander III to maintain the current system of government. Their aims for society, especially those of the Nihilists and Anarchists, were also unrealistic and unsuitable for Russian adaptation. The only real, effective opposition to the regime was the Marxist movement, which did not come into prominence until the strikes of the late 1890s.
Reforms introduced, especially by Alexander II, also momentarily staunched the peoples’ thirst for revolution. The most significant of these was of course Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861, but his introduction of the zemstva and dumas, lifting of some restrictions, suspension of military recruitment, lessening of the ‘Russianification’ process, judicial and military reform, also had quelling effects. It was only the harsh repression of Alexander III and Nicholas II that conveyed Russia into the midst of revolution.
Aided by peasant support, propagandized education, lack of effective opposition and reforms, Nicholas I’s policy of ‘orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality’ bestowed endurance upon the Russian autocratic system. Ultimately, however, it did not survive the substandard rule of Alexander III and Nicholas II, that which gave the Bolsheviks the upper hand in the revolution of 1917.
Hoped that helped.
-cherry
Anyone else got similar stuff, feel welcome to post.
