The opposition in Russia opposed to Tsar Nicholas II autocratic style of before 1905 can be categorised into two main groups: Revolutionaries and Reformers (liberals). In turn the revolutionaries can be further divided into three distinct groups: Populists, Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries.
It has long been debated how much of a danger they posed to the tsardom, before 1905, which is what I shall be discussing.
The Populists, who dated back to the 1870s, regarded that Russia’s future was in the hands of the Peasants. They consequently believed that the Peasants must take the front seat in the reform of Russia, and the first step was the removal of the tsar. However the leaders of the populists all had middle and upper class backgrounds. …show more content…
Who were not to be underestimated as some had spectacular successes (the murder of a tsar and over 2000 political figures). However successful this was I think it had a very limited impact on the regime and did nothing to prevent the tsardom from continuing. Some people may argue against this and say the murder of a tsar is a huge threat to the regime, but I would disagree, as it is much like when Hercules cut one head of the hydra, two heads replaced it and were even more deadly. I think this analogy fits the tsar well as when a liberal minded tsar was killed, he was replaced with a very autocratic one who simply made matters worse. Furthermore the murder of over 2000 political figures did not have the desired effect on the peasants of uniting them against the regime, which made these murders merely random acts of brutality. The leaders of the socialist movements were all comprised of upper or middle class intellectuals who found it very hard to reach out across the class divide and influence the workers whose way of life was drastically different to there own. To add to this the SRs, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were but no means mass membership organisations each had around 40,000 members apiece which reflected a tiny proportion of the whole population. Another reason they posed limited threat to the tsar is only around 21 per cent of Russians were literate so propaganda was of very limited value. This coupled with the fact that Russia is a vast country and the peasants were scattered thinly through out meant influencing and educating them was a near impossible feat as travelling took a long time and peasants were unlikely to trust them anyway. So to sum it up in a sentence the threat before 1905 was very limited and had little effect on the continuation of the
It has long been debated how much of a danger they posed to the tsardom, before 1905, which is what I shall be discussing.
The Populists, who dated back to the 1870s, regarded that Russia’s future was in the hands of the Peasants. They consequently believed that the Peasants must take the front seat in the reform of Russia, and the first step was the removal of the tsar. However the leaders of the populists all had middle and upper class backgrounds. …show more content…
Who were not to be underestimated as some had spectacular successes (the murder of a tsar and over 2000 political figures). However successful this was I think it had a very limited impact on the regime and did nothing to prevent the tsardom from continuing. Some people may argue against this and say the murder of a tsar is a huge threat to the regime, but I would disagree, as it is much like when Hercules cut one head of the hydra, two heads replaced it and were even more deadly. I think this analogy fits the tsar well as when a liberal minded tsar was killed, he was replaced with a very autocratic one who simply made matters worse. Furthermore the murder of over 2000 political figures did not have the desired effect on the peasants of uniting them against the regime, which made these murders merely random acts of brutality. The leaders of the socialist movements were all comprised of upper or middle class intellectuals who found it very hard to reach out across the class divide and influence the workers whose way of life was drastically different to there own. To add to this the SRs, Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were but no means mass membership organisations each had around 40,000 members apiece which reflected a tiny proportion of the whole population. Another reason they posed limited threat to the tsar is only around 21 per cent of Russians were literate so propaganda was of very limited value. This coupled with the fact that Russia is a vast country and the peasants were scattered thinly through out meant influencing and educating them was a near impossible feat as travelling took a long time and peasants were unlikely to trust them anyway. So to sum it up in a sentence the threat before 1905 was very limited and had little effect on the continuation of the