Monday 29 November 2010

Summary Question on the Industrialisation of Russia from the Textbook

How Far Was Russia a Modern Industrial Economy by 1914

A great deal of evidence can be found to support the view that by the outbreak of war in 1914, Russia was a modern industrial power. Stemming from the reforms of finance ministers Vyshnegradsky and Witte in the 1890s, Russia was by this time the world’s fifth largest industrial power; achieving an annual industrial growth of 8.5% PA. In particular, she was the second in the world in terms of oil production, the fourth largest producer of coal, pig iron and steel and the fourth largest in gold mining.

Despite this, however, Russia was in many ways still a predominantly agricultural society. In 1914, despite the move towards industrialization, some 4/5ths of the population were still peasants working in agriculture. Moreover, despite several attempts to reform the system, most recently Stolypin’s agrarian reforms of the previous decade, agricultural production had not been modernised and, indeed, many peasants continued to practice strip farming.

In this way, then, while Russia was at this time a major industrial power in Europe at the world, it was still fundamentally not only an agricultural economy, but an agricultural society that only showed limited signs of modernizing.

Question on Stolypin's Reforms from the Textbook

How Successful Was Stolypin in Helping Improve the Lot of the Peasants in Russia Between 1906 and 1911?

Stolypin’s reforms were highly successful in improving the state of Russian agriculture within this period, but is debatable the extent to which he helped to improve the lot of peasants per se.

It would appear initially that the reforms should have improved their lot, going beyond much previous reform - even the Serf Emancipation Act of 1861. Under the reforms, peasants were given ownership of their land and the strip farming system was abolished in favour single areas. Redemption Payments were also abolished and peasants were given additional support through Land Organisation Committees and Land Banks. They were also given the opportunity to buy state and crown land and thereby increase their holdings.

However, their assessment of their actual impact is mixed. The reforms did bring about an increase in peasant ownership and the heredity ownership of land increased during this period. A good harvest also helped to increase production and thereby peasant prosperity. Famers who took the subsidy and moved to Siberia to farm were particularly fortunate as the region quickly became one of the Empire’s major agricultural regions.

On the other hand, however, while a number of farmers grew rich, the reforms also led to many peasants becoming poorer. An increasing gap between rich and poor peasants emerged and many in the latter group lost their land and became increasingly alienated. Moreover, many of those who grew richer did not do so in the manner of the Kulaks, as planned by Solypin, but just helped to improve the situation of some of the poorest. The reform process was also a slow one, with only 14% of communal land passing into communal land during this period and only just over a 1/5th of applications for consolidation of heredity tenure having been processed. There were also wide variations across the country in terms of its impact with, indeed, some peasants continuing to strip farm as they had for decades.

In this way, while the reforms were somewhat of a success in reforming the lot of peasants (much more so than, for example, Alexander II’s reforms), they were not an unmitigated success. While output increased and the lot of some peasants increased, this was achieved at the cost of a growing divide between rich and poor. Many also suffered from the inefficiencies of the system in processing their applications that would, in theory, improve their lot.


Sunday 28 November 2010

Third Topic Completed (or...Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Russia 1904-06)

Just a brief two year period in this episode, but a pretty crucial one: beginning with the Russo-Japanese War and ending with the establishment of the Duma and yet more repression.

Why Did Russia Go To War with Japan?

1. Plheve, Minister for Internal Affairs, had told Nicholas that ‘a short swift victorious war’ would stem the growing tide of unrest against his rule

2. Russia wanted to ‘drive to the East’ to obtain more ports and coastline. Japan in turn wanted more land and resources.


What were the causes of the 1905 Revolution?

1. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War had shown (in a manner that harkened back to Russia's defeat in the Crimean War) her backwardness compared to Japan. Her army was defeated in a series of battles - including the sinking of the Baltic Fleet - and Russia had been shown to be militarrily and industrially inferior to Japan (a people that Nicholas had derided as 'monkeys'). Defeat led to further calls for reform from the Intelligentsia, demoralization of the army (such as the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin), as well as dissatisfaction among reactionaries. A Conference of the Marshals concluded that Russia was on the brink of anarchy and needed constitutional reform

2. Linked with this, there were growing demands for political reform (especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press). The Congress of Zemstvo passed a resolution calling for constitutional reform. This was initially agreed by Nicholas, but then he changed his mind.

3. There was also growing unrest and agitation in the country as living conditions for the urban workers and peasants deteriorated. A wave of strikes began in Petrograd in 1904 and by Autumn 1905, 2.5 workers were on strike. Peasants also engaged in a campaign of looting and burning landowner's property.

All these issues came to a head at the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre (1905), where the army killed 200 workers (and injured a further 200) who were calling for constitutional reform and improvements in workers rights.


What part Was Played by the Different Political Groups in the Revolution of 1905?

1. Liberals continued to push for reforms (particularly a constitutional assembly) as a way of solving internal problems

2. Social Revolutionaries continued their policy of assassinations and attempted to stir up peasants (forming the All-Russian Peasants Union). However, they also also supported Liberals in the push for reform.

3. Social Democrats were active in encouraging strikes and forming workers’ councils

4. Nationalists (Finns, Poles, Latvians etc.) seized on the instability to make demands for independence. This led to a violent backlash from ‘Union of the Russian People’ (who were supported by Nicholas)


The Response of the Tsar: The October Manifesto

1. Realizing that anarchy was close, the Tsar attempted to restore calm by asking for ‘suggestions’ from populous on how to reform the country

2. Witte suggested concessions were the best move to stave of mass revolt AND to detach Liberals (who would settle for reform) from revolutionaries (who wanted widespread social change). It would also enhance his authority.

3. The October Manifesto (1905) granted “civil liberty on principles of true inviolability of person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association”

4. An Edict (1906) reformed the peasants position by allowing them to consolidate their holdings and set up additional farmsteads. They could also leave their commune without permission of the Mir. Crucially Redemption Payments were abolished, arrears cancelled and the Land Banks were strengthened.


What were the reactions of the various groups?

1. Moderate Liberals (Octoberists) saw it as an opportunity to work with Tsar to make Duma a success

2. Nicholas felt he had broken his oath to maintain autocracy.

3. The Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries rejected it. As Lenin wrote "we have been granted a constitution, yet autocracy remains. We have been granted everything, and yet we have been granted nothing". He reiterated the Call to overthrow the Tsar, which led to further strikes and a Bolshevik uprising in Moscow

4. The Peasants saw it as an opportunity to take more land.

4. Mutinies continued within the army


The Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire (1906) - met the promises of October Manifesto WHILE maintaining autocracy (a conservative constitution)

1. It established the Duma (lower house - elected by popular vote) and the State Council (which was 50/50 appointed by Tsar / representatives of public bodies - i.e. Church, Nobility & Zemstva)

2. The Duma allowed for public debate and had power over state budget


However, while the October Manifesto offered concessions, it still retained a great deal of power for the Tsar:

1. The Duma was to be consultative (Tsar could reject advice)

2. There was still no universal suffrage (women, domestic servants and agricultural workers were excluded), while landowners and nobles were given more votes

3. The Duma was not to be a ‘constituent assembly’ that would draw up a new constitution for the country

4. The State Council had not been mentioned in the October Manifesto (It was also disconcerting that it could veto bills)

5. The Tsar also retained the right to veto bills, appoint ministers and dissolve the Duma and rule by Emergency Decree, as well as the right to declare war. He also had complete control of foreign affairs.

In the aftermath of this, The Tsar also continued to use repressive means against those who opposed him. The Army fired on striking workers in St Petersburg, arresting and exiling members of the St Petersburg Soviet, and put down an armed uprising of the Moscow Soviet with artillery. Meanwhile, the ‘Black Hundreds’ continued to violence against opponents of the Tsar (peasants, revolutionaries, Jews, Nationalists, students, and intellectuals)

Saturday 27 November 2010

AS History: One Week In

Phew, what a week it's been. I've really thrown myself into the material for Russia 1855-1917, and have so far completed three of the five elements from the unit.

I need to take a few days break from it to finish off some work for the day-job, and then my plan is to finish the remaining two elements within the next 10 days. Then I will go back through my notes, adding more material from some other A Level texts that I've bought. After that, I'll read some general histories of the period so get the big picture of how the era fits together.

I'm planning to definitely sit the AS in June, assuming that I can get a centre to accept me.

AQA-Style Question 3b

How successful was the Tsarist autocracy in reasserting its authority by the end of 1905?

The Tsarist autocracy was extremely successful during this period in reasserting its authority. Through a combination of modest reform that promised more than it delivered, and the use of repressive tactics against a variety of revolutionary groups, the Tsar was able to pull back from the catastrophic situation of early 1905 and largely maintain his autocratic position.

Primarily, through the October Manifesto, Nicholas (as Witte had planned) managed to separate liberals from revolutionaries by seemingly giving in to their long-standing demands for reforms. In the Manifesto, he granted many of the liberals demands, such as the establishment of a representative assembly and the enfranchisement of all adult males, re-established freedom of speech, assembly and association. However, in doing so, he also made sure to build in an number of amendments that maintained (and indeed, strengthened) his own position. While the liberals believed that the Duma would be a legislative body, Nicholas intended it to be merely a consultative body. Going further, he limited its powers by maintaining the powers to veto legislation, appoint ministers, and dissolve the Duma and rule by Emergency Degree if required. He also rejected calls for a constitution and introduced a State Council (controlled by him), who could veto legislation from the Duma. Control of foreign policy and the decision to make war and peace remained with him.

Those groups that rejected this settlement, such as nationalists, the social revolutionaries, social democrats and peasants were dealt with through repressive means. The army, for example, was turned on the Petrograd strikers and later the Moscow Soviet, while the Black Hundreds attacked nationalists, peasants, Jews and intellectuals.

In this way, it can be seen that by the end of 1905, the Tsar had been very successful in reasserting his autocracy. The country - and his rule - were no longer under threat of revolt by various reformist groups, who had either been given limited concessions through the October Manifesto or repressed through subsequent political violence.

AQA-Style Question 3a

Explain why Nicholas issued the October Manifesto in 1905

Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto as a way of reasserting control of the country in the aftermath of defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and growing unrest against his rule.

Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, a war that Nicholas had embarked on partly as an attempt to shore up his position through a decisive military victory against the ‘inferior’ Japanese, had served instead to both further highlight Russia’s backwardness and the incompetence of Nicholas himself. Just as in the Crimean War half a century before, the Russian army found itself under-equipped with long supply lines. It also found itself out-fought by the Japanese army - the much vaunted Baltic Fleet being destroyed within 24 hours of entering battle after a seven-month journey to the front. While the terms of surrender were not as harsh as they could have been, they nevertheless undermined Nicholas’s regime and increased calls for reform at home.

These calls for reform, again, can be traced back to the 1850s. The calls to bring in a constitution and universal suffrage, limit the powers of autocracy, remove censorship and repression, and improve the working conditions for peasants and the urban workers had been a dominant theme of Russian life for decades and had reached a head by this time. Opposition to Nicholas’ rule was growing among the Intelligentsia, nationalists, and the radical Social Revolutionaries. The power vacuum of Nicholas’ rule - described by one historian as ‘autocracy without the autocrat - also served to exacerbate the calls for reform.

The October Manifesto, then, can be seen as a response to these long-term trends that had been exacerbated by defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. Basic rights, freedom of Speech and assembly had been granted and then quickly retracted by Alexander II, before being further curtailed by Alexander III and Nicholas. Equally, the participation in the Duma and an extension of the franchise may be seen as a response to calls made by liberal reformers since the formation of Zemstvas over half a century before. More particularly, the notion that the Tsar would govern in conjunction and in consultation with representatives of the people can again be traced back to the concerns of the Intelligentsia over this period.

October Manifesto Questions from Textbook

In what ways did the October Manifesto go beyond the promises made by Bulygin in July?

The October Manifesto went beyond Bulygin’s promises in several ways. Bulygin had promised the establishment of a Duma that would be consultative and have no share in either making laws or supervising the Government. The October Manifesto went beyond this by saying that “no law can become effective without the approval of the State Duma” and that “the representatives of the people should be guaranteed the supervision of the legality of the actions of authorities appointed by Us [i.e. the Government]”

Which promise ended Nicholas’ autocratic power?

The promise that Nicholas would undertake constitutional reform and that, as part of this, no law would become effective without the approval of the Duma.

Friday 26 November 2010

Summary Question on the Russo-Japanese War from the Textbook

How Far Was the Political Unrest of January-September 1905 the Result of Developments in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05?

Political unrest during this period was exacerbated by developments during the Russo-Japanese war, but the root causes of the instability were much broader and reached further back in time, to at least the 1850s.

As occurred half a century before in the Crimean War, Russia’s poor performance and ultimately her defeat in the war served to highlight her backwardness and heightened existing tensions in the country. Rather than the ‘short swift victorious war’ predicted by Plheve and the expansion of her territory, Russia found herself defeated by an enemy that the Tsar had promoted as being inferior (‘monkeys who play as Europeans’). The war also showed that despite Alexander II’s reforms in the 1860s and subsequent developments in industrialization and the transport infrastructure, Russia’s military was poorly supplied and could not effectively maintain its supply lines. While the Peace Treaty of August 1905 was not as harsh against Russia as it could have been, it, nevertheless, was a humiliation to Nicholas II and Russia.

That said, however, the unrest and calls for reform that accompanied Russia’s defeat did not arise in this period, but, again, can be traced back at least half a century. Calls for reform, for example, as well as demands for freedom of speech and censorship had been made by the liberal intelligentsia since the 1850s and particularly since the mid 1860s when Alexander II retreated on his earlier reforms. Alexander III and Nicholas II’s emphasis on maintaining autocracy and increasing use of repressive measures heightened calls for reform. Growing unrest in both the towns and the city could also be traced back to at least the 1890s and the ways in which the working conditions of the peasants and urban poor had been sacrificed in the drive for industrialization. In the case of the peasants it could be even arguably traced back to the 1860s and their dissatisfaction with the terms of the Emancipation Act.

To sum up, while the failure and ultimately the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese war did not help the situation in the country, it did not produce the social unrest in itself. Rather, the root causes of the unrest stretched back over half a century through various attempts by the Tsars to balance autocracy with the modernization of the country.

Thursday 25 November 2010

Second Topic Completed (or...Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Russia 1881-1904)

The five-part miniseries continues.

First a recap...

In 1881, members of the People's Will finally succeed in assassinating Alexander II. Russia was still a largely agrarian society with little or no heavy industry. Opposition to the Tsar was building, particularly among the liberal Intelligentsia, but hadn't really made any inroads yet.


Alexander III: A Return to Autocracy

When Alexander's son, Alexander III, came to the throne, he (perhaps not surprisingly) rejected his father's reforms and restated the principles of autocracy. Under his rule:

1. A Criminal Code was introduced along with other repressive measures to combat the growing threat of terrorism, such as the ‘Temporary Regulations’ (1881), which allowed for arbitrary arrest if public order threatened. He also extended the secret police (Okhrana) and formed ‘Land Commandants’, conservative landowners who were given arbitrary powers over serfs similar to those that they had enjoyed under the pre-1861 system.

2. Alexander also embarked on a policy of Russification, including attacks on minorities and religious persecution (particularly of Jews & Non Orthodox Christians).

3. Limited were placed on the power of Zemstva, with nobles and landlords having their position strengthened. There was also a tightening of press censorship.

4. Universities were brought back under Government control (1884) while schools were brought back under the control of the Orthodox Church. Student bodies were also made illegal.

5. Alexander also increased spending on the military and engaged in a policy of increased militarism (ostensibly lending his support to other autocratic rulers in the region)


How Did Russia Industrialise?
In 1881 Russia had little or no heavy industry to speak of, but by 1904 it had become the fourth largest economy in the world having undergone an 8% growth in the preceding decade. This was largely down to the influence of the Finance Ministers:

Ivan Vyshnedgransky (1887-92) sought to bring about financial stability within the country by maximizing state revenue and building up the gold reserve. This income, however, came from existing sources (e.g. tax arrears from peasants, indirect tax on state-owned railways, forests etc) not new ones. He also increased import tariffs to protect internal industries and secured investment loans (particularly from France).

Sergei Witte (1882-1903) believed that modernisation was the only way that Russia could preserve its Great Power status and curb potential unrest. He continued his predecessor's policies, including protective tariffs, heavy taxation, forced exports, as well as investing heavily in heavy industry, mining, oil and particularly railways. He also succeeded in attracting foreign investment (by tying a new roube to the Gold Standard) and expertise to advise on planning.


Their policies were a success, bringing about huge industrial growth:

1. Vyshnegradsky produced a surplus in balance of payments, state revenue increased, and exports of grain increased.

2. Witte kickstarted an industrial revolution in Russia. In particular the acceleration of railway building (particularly the Trans-Siberian Express) allowed the transport of raw materials, helped oil production, linked industrial centres, and linked agricultural areas with markets. The railway itself also stimulated the iron and coal industries as well as providing revenue for the transportation of freight and passengers.


But, this came at a price:

1. This growth was achieved at cost of the peasants (through indirect taxation, requisition of grain for export, no food) and the urban workers (who were poorly paid and worked in poor conditions'. Vyshnegradsky is often quoted as saying ‘We ourselves shall not eat, but we shall export’. The chaos wrought by the 1891 famine led to his dismissal the following year.

2. It was also achieved at a great financial cost. The state budget under Witte increased heavily and the Russian economy became dependent on foreign loans, spending much of her revenue on repayments. When foreign investors began to withdraw funds, the result was increasingly scarce capital, the closure of factories and, consequently, political agitation.

3. Industrialisation also led to the emergence of both a middle class, from whom revolutionary leaders would later emerge, and an increasingly discontented urban poor who would provide their followers.


The Problems of the Rural Economy
The impact on the rural economy was particularly strongly felt, with it being effectively sidelined (if not sacrificed) in the pursuit of industrial modernisation. The situation of the peasants got worse during this period, with a growing gap between richer and poorer peasants, and Russia having the highest mortality rates in Europe. The main problems of the rural economy were:

1. Agricultural production was unable to keep up with growing Russian population.

2. The Land Banks, that had been introduced to allow peasants to buy land, had often served to increase peasant’s debts

3. The inherent conservatism of Mirs continued to hold back innovation and new farming techniques

4. The status of the nobility and landowners also declined as they struggled with debts, and tried to manage farms as businesses.


The Growth of Opposition
Opposition to the Tsar continued to grow in this period, although, as in the previous decades, no one group had fully achieved its aims by 1904. At the most, they can be seen to have contributed to the momentum of later change. The main opponents to the Tsar were:

1. Socialist Revolutionary Party (1891) that was created by former populists. Its principal aim was for the labouring poor (peasants and workers) to work together in order to get rid of autocracy and redistribute land. It adopted the former populist tactics of trying to stir up peasants and engaging in political assassinations (between 1901-05, it had committed 2000 assassinations)

2. Social Democratic Movement adopted a Marxist position, focusing their attention on the urban workers and believing that Marx's Stages of Development would drive the motor of Russian history towards the Revolution. It coalesced as the Marxist Social Democratic Party in 1898 and subsequently split (1903-06) into
a. Mensheviks, who believed in evolutionary struggle and that it was acceptable to work with other liberal groups to bring about gradual social change, and
b. Bolsheviks, who rejected ‘bourgeoisie politics’ and believed in Revolution at all costs, seeing themselves as the Revolutionary Vanguard leading workers to Revolution.

3. Intelligentsia/Liberals who sought to reform autocracy, ideally through the implementation of a parliamentary system, a reduction in censorship etc. As during the 1850s, these were divided between Slavophiles, who looked for a Russian solution, and Westerners, who looked to western/Enlightenment Values.
This group, became more politicised after the Government's bungling of the Great Famine (1891-2). The Zemstavas had to provide relief work, which added strength to their belief that they should have a say in nation’s governance. Liberals also reacted strongly to Alexander IIIs reduction of Zemstva powers and his dismissal of their request that they could operate as an advisory board as ‘senseless dreams’.


Nicholas II: 'Autocracy without the Autocrat'

When Alexander IIIs son, Nicholas II, came to power in 1894, he promised to 'Reassert the principles of autocracy’, believing that his power was being undermined by western ideas and urban rest. Although, the blame for the situation of Russia at this time cannot be laid solely at his feet, he did exacerbate existing problems in several ways:

1. He was not suited to autocracy: he tried to continue Alexander III repressive policies but was unable to make decisions and constantly replaced ministers. This led to a power vacuum, with the Tsar unable to either formulate policies or respond to growing rural and urban unrest.

2. His response to existing problems was to resort to increasing brutality, sending in the army and police to break up demonstrations. This, again, served to heighten unrest.

AQA-Style Question 2a

Explain Why The Moderate Liberal Opposition Grew Stronger Between 1881-1904

The liberal opposition to Tsars Alexander III and Nicholas II grew stronger during this period as a reaction to their increasing emphasis on autocracy.

Following the assassination of his father, Alexander III continued and, indeed, extended the former’s post-1861 reactionary policies. He brought in the Criminal Code (described by one historian as ‘a veritable constitutional charter of an authoritarian state’) as well as other measures to combat the threat of terrorism such as the Temporary Measures, the introduction of Land Commandants, increased powers for the secret police and increased censorship. These policies were likewise extended by his successor Nicholas II who on his inauguration promised to ‘reassert the principles of autocracy’ (a phrase with could have been uttered by his great-grandfather, Nicholas I). Under his rule during this period, autocracy was fiercely defended with the military and army being called upon to quell unrest.

This increasing intransigence and emphasis on autocracy threatened the liberal opposition’s desire to engage in dialogue with the Tsar and bring about reform and explains on one level why their opposition grew during this period. Clearly, a parliamentary system was never going to occur under either Tsar. However, another equally important factor is that many of the reactionary policies implemented by Alexander III in particular would have impacted particularly on those areas of society where the Intelligentsia were based. Limits were placed, for example, on the powers of the Zemstva and the position of Nobles and Landowners within them were increased. This, they would have perceived, as a throwback to the pre-Emancipation Act era. Equally, Universities found themselves placed back under Government control while schools again returned to Church control. Freedom of the press was also curtailed and, no doubt, the Intelligentsia would have found themselves under threat by the secret police.

Moreover, their attempts to enter into a dialogue on reform had been rejected by Nicholas III as a ‘senseless dream’. As his rule went on and it became more and more clear that there was a power vacuum with him being unable to make decisions and that this lack of leadership was exacerbating existing social problems, they would have pressed more and more for reform. This became particularly clear in 1892 following the Government’s inept response to the Great Famine, particularly as Zemstva’s had to step in and provide relief work.

To sum up, the liberal opposition to the rule of Alexander III and Nicholas II during this period grew as a reaction to their increasing emphasis on autocracy coupled with their introduction on counter-reforms that curbed freedoms won under Alexander II; reforms that would have impacted strongly on those areas of life dominated by the intelligentsia.


AQA-Style Question 2b


How far was the personality of Nicholas II responsible for the instability of Russia in 1904?

Nicholas’s personality played a large role in the instability of this period. However, the blame for the instability can not be laid completely at his feet.

At his inauguration, Nicholas promised to ‘reassert the principles of autocracy’ and during this period he continued, if not heightened, the counter-reformist policies of his father, Alexander III. Wishing to both quell growing unrest and counter the influence of western influences on reform, he ruthlessly quelled unrest using the army and police. That said, however, Nicholas III was a particularly inept autocrat and his rule has been characterised as ‘autocracy without the autocrat’. He seemed unable to make decisions and sacked those ministers who showed initiative, fearing that they would undermine him. He limited the powers of the Zemstva and centered power on himself, while all the while being unable to wield it effectively. This power vacuum was shown in stark contrast through the Governments bungling response to the Great Famine of 1891-2; particularly as local Zemstava had to step in to offer relief.

However, while Nicholas was an ineffective ruler, he did not create the situation that Russia found herself in during this period. The growing rural and urban unrest were a consequence of both the failed agricultural policies of his grandfather and his father’s mortgaging of the Russian workers against industrial growth and increasing emphasis on autocracy and repressive measures. Nicholas could arguably have responded in a different way to the situation, but there can be no denying that the situation that he inherited - leaving aside the growing industrialization - was not an ideal one.

To sum up, the personality of Nicholas II - his emphasis on autocracy without the ability to actually be an autocrat - played a large role in the instability of Russia in this period. However, in many ways he can be seen to have simply exacerbated existing problems through his ineptness rather than being the sole cause.

Tuesday 23 November 2010

First Topic Completed (or...Everything You've Ever Wanted to Know About Russia 1855-81)

Well, it's been a pretty hectic week. I've thrown myself into Russia 1855-1917 and have already completed the first block of the unit topic (1855-81)
Aside from anything else, it's been the most fun I've had for ages with this kind of thing - no writers' block, no 'how do i start or conclude this?', just engaging with the material and looking for connections. I've also let grammar slip in places in my excitement and not bothering to proof read stuff (which I always hate doing in the day-job anyway)

No one has marked any of this stuff yet, so I may be talking/writing rubbish, but hopefully I'm not. The plan is still to work through the topic as soon as I can and then supplement my notes with background reading and then try and do as many past papers as I can. I'm also hoping to be ready to sit the AS in June.

The summary of where we are so far is...

Russia at this time was largely a feudal, agricultural society - a patrimonial society with the Tsar at the top controlling everything. He had control of the military, economy and politics. There was no freedom of speech and the life and death of every Russian was in his hands. The majority of the population were serfs who had little or no rights, and who worked for landowners and paid them taxes.


In 1855, Alexander II came to power and introduced several reforms?

Why did he want to reform agriculture with the Serf Emancipation Act (1861)?

Several reasons:
1. Defeat in the Crimean War: had shown Russia's backwardness when compared to its western opponents. Her troops were under equipped and poorly equipped and were poorly disciplined (a peasant conscript army). Communication and transport infrastructure were also poor and contributed to Russia's defeat. Alexander II believed that this threatened Russia's status as a 'Great Power'

2. Revolution 'From Above': Alexander wanted to try and stimulate the economy while maintaining his own position. He preferred that revolution come 'from above' than 'from below' and believed that strengthening the economy would simultaneously strengthen his autocratic rule.

3. Clamour for Change: Alexander also realised that he could not maintain the level of social control that his father, Nicholas II, had enforced. There was growing debate about what should be done from nobles, those who looked to the west for a solution and those who looked for a 'Russian solution' to the problem

4. Serfdom as an impediment to Change: Alexander believed that serfdom was an impediment to economic development. It was inefficient, gave peasants no incentive to develop new farming methods, restricted the development of industrialisation (by restricting peasant's movement) and ultimately could not feed Russia's growing population.

In brief, Alexander wanted to stimulate the economy and thereby protect both Russia's position as a 'Great Power' and his own autocratic rule.


What Were The Main Reforms?

1. Serfdom: Serfs were released from their landlords, given their homes and land and granted basic rights. They were attached to their village communes (mirs)

2. Military: A large conscript army was replaced by a smaller, better-equipped and better-trained army. Military Schools were also set up.

3. Education: primary schools were established, secondary education opened to commoners, universities were expanded and given more autonomy. Education became free of the Orthodox Church

4. Judiciary: A legal system with equality before the law was introduced along with some limited freedom of speech

5. Zemstva: There were elected representatives at the local level to deal with local issues and bureaucracy (i.e. sanitation, road building etc). These were elected by all levels of the population.

6. Economic Reform: Various measures were also introduced to try and kickstart the economy, such as reforming the Treasury, encouraging foreign investment and liberalising trade policies and tariffs.


Were they successful?

Not really. They were a step in the right direction, but brought with them a series of problems. The major successes of the reforms were:

1. Agriculture: Some peasants grew rich and were able to sell their surplus.

2. Infrastructure: railway construction stimulated growth in the iron, coal and engineering industries - necessary preconditions for industrial growth

3. Legal Reform: was wide-ranging, but ultimately autocracy remained.


The main problems with the reforms were:

1. The reforms did not increase productivity among serfs: in fact it deteriorated. They were also more and more demoralised. They swapped control by the landlords for control by the Mirs and were crippled with paying for their freedom through Redemption Payments (in addition to taxes). Landlords also kept most of the land - particularly the best bits - for themselves. The Mirs were also conservative and meant that the peasants were impeded from innovating and had no access to modern farming techniques or equipment.

2. Political Reform was Limited: Despite some reforms, autocracy remained. Free speech was also largely limited, trade unions and political parties were banned, professional organisations were still placed under surveillance, and dissidents could be banished. Moreover, the majority of the votes and seats on the Zemstva went to landowners and the nobility.

3. Military Reform was Limited: Again, despite the shift from a conscript to a professional army, there were still problems with supply and leadership. The majority of the troops were also still illiterate peasants who could not benefit from the new training.

4. Economic Reform was Limited: The economy was still weak and the tax system was not reformed.

Ultimately, the reforms as-they-were were also short-lived, being curtailed after 1866, when someone tried to assassinate Alexander. Following the attempt on his life, began to listen more and more to reactionaries who attacked his reformist policies and its 'foreign influences'.


How did Alexander React to the 1866 Assassination Attempt?

1. Eradication of 'Western Influences' from Education: Zemstva powers over education were removed and the Church began to control rural schools again. Schools and Universities were forced to follow a traditional curriculum and, in the latter, courses that encouraged critical thinking were forced out (hmmm sounds familiar). Censorship was tightened as were bans on extra-curricular student activities.

3. More Power to Police: Police surveillance - through the Third Section - was increased. Those caught were subject to show trials (until this backfired).

4. Persecution & Russification: A harsher policy was introduced towards ethnic and religious minorities (esp. Jews) and an increased emphasis on Russification prevailed.


Who Were Alexander's Main Opponents At This Time?

1. The Liberal Intelligentsia: wanted Alexander to further his reform policies and for him to turn Russia into a parliamentary state modelled on Western Europe and Enlightenment ideas.

2. The Populists: wanted to transform Russian society by winning the peasants over to socialist ideas by stirring within them a sense of resentment over their exploitation. After the split in 1879, Black Partition wanted used moderate means to try and win a redistribution of the black soil region of Russia to the peasants, while The People's Will used assassination to try and overthrow the Government.

3. Marxists (after 1872): wanted to create a communist society in Russia.

4. Reactionary Nobles and Landlords: wanted to roll back Nicholas' reforms.


How successful were they by 1881?

They were generally unsuccessful, although the People's Will did manage to assassinate Nicholas in 1881. This arguably backfired, though, as his son (Alexander III) was a complete reactionary and sought to further roll back his father's reforms. If any of the opponents achieved success, then, it was perhaps the reactionary nobles and landlords!

1. Russia did not become a parliamentary state and indeed, Alexander III's counter-reforms impacted on those areas of public life where the liberal intelligentsia were based.

2. The Populists found the peasants hostile to their views (they were conservative, superstitious and supported the Tsar). By 1881 the moderate Black Repatriation had been severely weakened by arrests.

3. Marxism had no impact at this time beyond intellectual circles. Marx's ideas could not be applied to a non-Capitalist and non-class society. That said, Marxism would later triumph, but that would be three decades away.


Summary Questions on Economic Change from Textbook

1. Explain why Witte tried to transform the Russian economy between 1894 and 1904?
Witte tried to transform the Russian economy in order to both preserve Russia’s place as a Great Power and, closer to home, to curb potential unrest stemming from the seeming failure of the Tsar’s reform policies.

2. How successful were the Russian government in promoting economic change and modernization between 1891 and 1904?
The Russian government were extremely successful in promoting economic change and modernization - particularly industrialization in this period. Over the course of the decade, Russia had the highest industrial growth of any country (8%) and had become the fourth largest economy. However, this success was undermined in several key ways.

Under the direction of Vyshnedgransky and particularly Witte, the Russian economy industrialised exponentially. The former, for example, managed to produce a surplus in the balance of payments, as well as increasing state revenue and exports of grain. Witte in his turn tied the rouble to gold reserves and attracted international investment and expertise. More importantly, he accelerated the growth of the railway infrastructure (particularly the Trans-Siberian express) with the key effects of linking industrial centres and agrictultural centres to markets, as well as stimulating the iron, coal and oil industries. Revenues were also generated from the transport of freight and passengers. He also achieved large increases in heavy industry, coal, pig iron, oil and textile production.

On one level, then, it can clearly be seen that during this period the Government were extremely successful in this regard. However, the process of modernization came at a high cost, particularly for the peasants and urban workers, who bore the brunt of the process through indirect taxation, requisition of grain for export, a lack of food, and, for the latter, poor pay and conditions. Equally, Russia found itself increasingly dependent on foreign loans and repayments (the burden for paying which again fell on the peasants). The process of modernization also completely ignored the agricultural economy, and indeed, some historians have argued that it was effectively sacrificed for greater industrial output. The situation of the peasants not only got worse, but they were unable, due to the conservatism of the mir, to utilise innovative farming techniques or new machinery. They were also unable to produce enough food for Russia’s growing population, leading to, in some cases, famine.

In this way, to sum up, while the Russian government were extremely successful during this period at promoting economic change and modernization (industrialization), this came at a price in terms of a neglect for agricultural modernization and an increasing over-reliance on foreign investment.

Industrialization of Russia Questions from Textbook

1. How industrialized was Russia by 1904?
Russia was extremely industrialized. By 1904 it had become the world’s fourth largest economy, and had, between 1894 and 1904, experienced the highest industrial growth of any country in the world

2. How successful were the finance ministers of this period 1886-1903 in transforming Russia economically?
The finance ministers Vyshnedgransky and Witte were extremely successful in transforming Russia economically during this period. As a consequence of their reforms, industrial output grew exponentially as did the harvesting of natural resources. The development of the railway system also allowed for raw materials and finished products to be transported easily and linked both industrial areas and agricultural areas with markets.
That said, the reforms were bought at a price (particularly among the peasants and urban workers) and led to a growing dependence on foreign loans.

How important was the spread of the railway network to the growth of the Russian economy by 1904?
The railway network - particularly the Trans-Siberian express, played a key role in the growth of the industrial economy in Russia in this period. Its construction, which itself required huge amounts of heavy industrial production, oil and coal, allowed for the transport of both raw materials and finished products. It also connected both industrial areas and agricultural areas with markets. The transport of freight and passengers also provided large revenues.

AQA-Style Question 1

How Successful was Opposition To The Tsarist Regime Between 1861 and 1881 in Achieving Its Aims?

Opposition to the Tsar during this period came from four main areas during this period; the liberal intelligentsia, Populists, Marxists (from the 1870s onwards) and reactionary nobles and landlords. While only arguably the latter group was successful in achieving its aims, all of the groups achieved some successes during the period

The liberal intelligentsia had as their aim the furthering of Nicholas II’s policies, and in particular desired to turn Russia from an autocracy to a parliamentary state modeled on those in western Europe. The Nihilists, for example, wished to sweep away the ancien regime, in the shape of the Tsar and the Orthodox Church, and replace it with a completely new system, influenced by Enlightenment values, based on reason and science. By 1881 this had clearly not happened and, indeed, Alexander II had already begun to roll back some of his earlier reforms, particularly in the spheres of political freedom, education and the judiciary where many of the Intelligentsia were based.

The Populists also sought to transform Russian society by winning the peasants over to socialist ideas through stirring among them a sense of resentment over their exploitation (i.e. their lack of land and tax burden). Like the Intelligentsia, the Populists also largely failed in this, finding that the peasants were too backward, conservative and supportive of the Tsar to wish to replace the status quo with socialism. When the Populists split into two groups in 1879, the moderate Black Partition, which wished to redistribute black soil land to the peasants had, by 1881, been weakened by arrests. In contrast, in 1881 the more radical People’s Will had assassinated the Tsar, although this did not weaken the state.

Marxism also became a source of opposition in the 1870s among intellectuals. However, by 1881 it had made little impact beyond this group and largely seemed un-applicable to Russian society which seemingly lacked the basic preconditions for a Marxist revolution, such as a capitalist society and a class-based society.

Finally, there were also a number of nobles and landowners, many who had opposed Alexander’s reforms from the beginning, and found their situation worse after the reforms who continued to oppose them.

Looking at these four interest groups, it is clear that none of them, aside from to an extent the reactionary nobles and landowners, had fully achieved their aims by 1881. While the growing calls for revolution ‘from below’ by the intelligentsia was gaining momentum, Russia still remained an autocracy - indeed, one that was becoming more and more so. Equally, the Populists attempt to produce socialism among the peasants had also failed, although the show trails of its members during this period gave them a platform to air their views publicly. While the splinter group, The People’s Will ultimately succeeded in fulfilling one of its aims by assassinating the Tsar, this did not bring about the social change that they desired. Indeed, in many ways it backfired by bringing the more ruthless and autocratic Alexander III to the throne. By 1881, Marxism also had made few inroads into Russian political life, although it would become successful decades later. Arguably, the opposition group that succeeded most in its aims during this period were the reactionary nobles and landowners who were able to use their influence to persuade an increasingly disenchanted Nicholas II to roll back his earlier reforms.

Monday 22 November 2010

Summary Question 2 from Textbook

OK bearing in mind what I said in my last post about being unsure of how to tackle questions at this level, here is my response to a particular question. According to the AQA book that I’m using, when they ask ‘how successful’, I need to develop argument, show a balanced judgement, supporting what I say with detailed evidence. There should also be a conclusion that “should flow naturally and again provide evidence to support your judgement”.

Tackling the question with limited reference to the notes....

How Successful Were Alexander IIs Reforms in Transforming Russian Society

Between 1855 and his assassination in 1881, Alexander II implemented a series of reforms in an attempt to modernize Russian society. Responding to a wide range of factors such as defeat in the Crimean War, his belief that serfdom was the main factor impeding the process of modernization and his desire that social change should come ‘from above’ rather than ‘from below’, Alexander sought to reform serfdom and other areas of Russian life while simultaneously maintaining his own autocratic power. Alexander’s reforms were concentrated primarily within the areas of agriculture, the military, education and the judiciary, most notably in the emancipation of the serfs in 1861, where serfs were released from the control of landowners, obtained basic rights and ownership of the land. While the reforms did indeed go a great way to transforming Russian society, as I will show below, many of the reforms were tempered with retrograde measures that maintained the status quo. Moreover, despite all the reforms, Russia remained an autocratic society.

The main successes of the reforms in transforming Russian society may be seen in the areas of agriculture, the military, education and the judiciary. In the area of agriculture, serfs were released from control by landlords, gained basic freedoms and control of the land. In the military, the large, under-equipped conscript army was replaced by a smaller, better-equipped professional army with compulsory military service and training schools. In education, primary schools were established, more commoners in cities had access to secondary schooling and university education was expanded and given more autonomy. Education was, in particular, no longer dominated by the Church. In the sphere of judiciary, a court system modeled on the European system was created and the idea of equality before the law was introduced. Taken together, this would support the view that Russian society was transformed by Alexander’s reforms.

However, there is also much evidence to support the alternative view, that Alexander’s reforms, while going in some way the direction of radical reform, actually were not as reforming as they seemed.

For example, in spite of agricultural reforms, some historians have shown that not only did agricultural production fall after the reforms, but the peasants became increasingly demoralized. While they had been freed from the landlords, they had to pay for this freedom and their land through the system of Redemption Payments. Consequently, many still had no incentive to innovate or produce great surplus. Similarly, the village communes to which they were attached (mirs) were conservative and again stifled any peasant innovation. Despite the reforms, most peasants had no access to modern farming equipment or knowledge of modern farming techniques. At the end of the reforms, landowners also still owned 2/3 of the land.

Equally, while there was some degree of political reform, with the creation of local parliaments (Zemstva), Russia did not adopt a parliamentary system and, indeed, remained an autocratic society. In addition, while there was some emphasis on political freedom, free speech was limited (especially within the universities), the Ministry of the Interior could still banish those believed to pose a political threat, political parties and trade unions were still banned, and professional organizations could still find themselves under surveillance, as under the reign of Nicholas II. Moreover, within Zemstvas, there was no equality and nobles and landlowners retained most seats and had more votes.

Also, in spite of the shift from a conscript army to a professional army, there were still a number of problems within the military with continuing poor leadership, serfs still dominating the ranks and continuing problems of supply and poor training.

In conclusion, while Alexander’s reforms were successful in a number of areas, they could have gone further and in some cases arguably were not as reforming as they could have been. Most importantly, if the main driving force for the reforms was the modernization of Russia and the creation of a stronger economy and more efficient agricultural system, then the results are mixed. Despite the changes in agriculture, for example, there was no increase in productivity and serfs in effect swapped one form of bondage for another. Equally, despite the emergence of local parliaments, political power remained centered in the existing elites. Freedom of speech and association also remained curtailed. The economy also remained weak as compared to Western countries. That said, Russia did begin the process of industrialization in this period, helped in no small part by the creation of a railway network. The legal and political forms, while still retaining an element of the ancien regime were also wide ranging and a success.

However, perhaps the best way of answering the question of how successful they were is to examine the reaction of the Russian population at the time.

[which is covered in the next chapter of the coursebook]

The Journey or the Destination?

It's only been a couple of days into the A Level and already I'm getting obsessed (in a mildish) way with the destination of study (getting a good grade) rather than the journey of learning.

My main concern at the moment is whether at this level there is THE ANSWER that I should be learning rote-fashion, or whether - like at undergraduate and degree level - there are a variety of responses and it's up to me to respond to the question with arguments and evidence as I see fit. When I did my A Levels back in 1994, I essentially got all the past papers, produced model answers for each of them and revised those. I'm unsure whether this is the most appropriate way to tackle an A Level and whether they way that I would tackle it is too under/postgraduate-y.

hmmmm

Sunday 21 November 2010

Summary Question 1 from Textbook

Explain Why Alexander II Decided To Embark on a Series of Reforms When He Came to Power in 1855

When looking at Alexander II's motivation to reform Russian society when he came to power, four main interlinking reasons can be highlighted.

The first was reaction to defeat in the Crimean War (1853-1856). Russia's defeat in the war had shown her backwardness when compared to her western opponents, Britain and France, and threatened her position as a 'Great Power'. During the war, for example, there were not enough weapons for the troops and poor discipline. There was also no transport or communication infrastructure, both of which, again, hampered the military. The war had also disrupted Russian exports and provoked peasant uprisings. Military leaders, such as Milyutin, in particular claimed that the problem lie in the use of serf conscripts, and argued for a modernised army.

Secondly, Alexander himself believed that limited reforms and freedoms could simultaneously stimulate the Russian economy and maintain autocracy. Alexander was not a liberal reformer, and believed that it was better to reform society 'from above' than have it reformed 'from below' by peasant revolutionaries. Alexander believed that if serfdom could be reformed and a communication infrastructure developed, then it would not only develop Russia economically, it would also strengthen his position.

Thirdly, linked with this, Alexander realised that it was becoming more difficult to maintain the level of social control and repression his father, Nicholas I, had enforced. Social unrest was building both among the Intelligentsia and the peasants, both of whom were clamouring for social change. Intellectuals, for example, pushed for reform, with some suggesting that Russia should reject its traditions and become increasingly western. Others pushed for a 'Russian solution' to her problems. Equally, nobles were finding their incomes falling through their dependency on peasant labour, and needed to be prompted to engage in other ventures.

Fourthly, Alexander believed that serfdom was a handicap to economic development. Serfdom not only stymied the development of industrialization (by, for example, restricting peasant movement) but also gave peasants no incentive to innovate as all the profits would be taken by landowners. He also knew that serfdom was becoming increasingly inefficient and was unable to both feed Russia's growing population and produce sufficient surplus. in addition, landowners were finding themselves in increasing debt, being unable to sell their grain to modernised western states who could undercut them on price.

To sum up, Alexander was not motivated to reform by liberal sentiments, but by the desire to maintain the status quo and Russia's place as a 'Great Power', while simultaneously reforming and stimulating the economy. Reacting to a combination of military, economic and political considerations, He preferred that this change come 'from above' rather than 'from below'.


Saturday 20 November 2010

Progress Check 1

I've spent a few hours today beginning to work through the material for Russia 1855-1917. Im now up to page 20 of the course book, which is [drumroll] the first Progress Check.

* What is meant by an 'autocratic' form of government?
An autocratic form of government is where sole power resides in one person, such as the Tzar or, in Nazi Germany, the Fuhrer. It can be compared with democracy, where power resides within the people.

* What were the main features of serfdom?
Under serfdom in Russia, the land that was owned by landowners had serfs attached to it. The serfs worked for their rent and paid taxes. They could be used for military purposes by the landowner. Serfs had few rights, could not travel and relied on their landowners for the application of justice.

* What were the main features of the 'patrimonial state'?
Within the patrimonial state, economic and all other forms of power stemmed from political power. The Tzar had complete power, as control of the economy and military. He also had control of public information (ie. no free press) and the life and death of the people. Within the patrimonial state, there were local institutions, but these were controlled by either nobility or the churches.

* To what extent had Russia experienced an industrial revolution by 1855.
Russia had not experienced an industrial revolution at all by 1855. That would begin slowly in 1860. While Russia possessed an industrial infrastructure, this was basic compared to the western Europe and relied on a mass of labour rather than technological advancement. The majority of the Russian population at this time worked in agriculture (indeed, as late as 1917, over 80% of the population worked in this way)


EDIT: OK, looking at the answers, lets see how I did. Question one (thankfully) is fine. Question two needs expanding, bringing in how serfs faced restrictions on movement and how the landlords had legal power over them. Question 3 is a fine (in fact, its a bit more detailed than the model answer). Question 4 is again broadly right, but I should have said that Russia had the infrastructure, but that compared to western Europe it was pretty basic. I should also have said that industry was labour, rather than capital intensive.
I'll go back and re-read those bits of my notes.

EDIT 2: I've amended my answers above in italics.

Friday 19 November 2010

20 Years Later

Hello,

At the outset I know that this blog will probably only be read by me and possibly those who know me (until they get bored). It's mainly intended as a diary. Whenever I get to the end of a project, I always think 'I wish I'd kept a diary of this or taken some pictures'. So, I thought I would do it with this.

I've decided to do an A Level in History, 20 years after when i should (indeed, 20 years after when I started it and quit about a month in). History was always my favourite lesson in school, despite some awful teaching (i.e. a teacher who was about 90 who couldn't remember dates or which king or queen did what, or even whether it was a king or a queen). We also had a teacher who was obsessed with medieval torture. It was a Catholic school, so this was somewhat to be expected.

Anyway, so I loved history at school and did my GCSE in it. I did great with my coursework and produced model answers in the exam....but I only ended up with a D. I can fully absolve myself of blame in this as straight after the exam, the teacher (the torture one) took us into the school hall and said that he had just rediscovered a letter that the exam board had sent him earlier in the year. Apparently, the way that he had told us to tackle the answers was in fact wrong. He apologised and we filed out. At the start of the course he had written 'FAIL' on the board and told us that was a word that we would come to know, so he was right about one thing.

Rather than having to resit, I managed to get on an A Level at a local 6th form. One of my teachers subsequently became a Lib Dem MP - which is ironic given what the Condems are doing to the arts and humanities. I always found him a supercilious knob (hence presumably his career choice) and quickly discovered that there was a hierarchy in the class that stretched from those who he had taught for the previous 5 years down to me and my friend who were newbies. He also poo-pood my suggested coursework topic on celtic art (he was probably right about this). The other teacher wasn't much better and had borderline autism or at least awful social skills. He would come in the room, lay out his things in a certain way and start the class. If you moved the stuff around while he was out, he would panic and lose his thread. I can't remember much of his classes apart from that.

I managed a month of this, did one essay on 19th C France (got an A, but think that this was done politically) and then decided to pack it in. I was offered a different teacher, but I made one of my (not infrequent) grand symbolic gestures and told them to stick it. Luckily I quickly found communication studies which led me to psychology which led me to sociology which led me eventually to a PhD and a job.

So why the A Level? As I said, I've always had an interest in historical things and some of the things I've written have had historical elements to them. I always get warm eyes at the end of the final episode of Simon Schama's History of Britain, which also must count for something. But, what led me back was wargaming. I got into playing Flames of War and stemming from this I started to read WW2 histories such as the Richard J Evans Trilogy on The Third Reich, and the Anthony Beevor books (ironically it was playing with toy soldiers as a child that probably got me interested in history). I thought initially that I would just develop an interest in an auto-didactical-type way, but then a Middle Class moment took over me and I thought 'no, I have to get a qualification out of it'. I looked around and found that ICS did a course that included topics that I had done at school: Russia leading to the Revolution and Europe between the wars.

I've paid my money and the course-pack has now arrived, so it's too late to go back. History awaits...