Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Russia (1855-1924) Key historical debates and supporting historiography -…
Russia (1855-1924) Key historical debates and supporting historiography
Alexander II and his reforms (1855-1881)
Alexander's motivations for emancipation and reform
Preserve the autocracy
Alfred Rieber suggests that the emancipation and reforms were motivated solely by military considerations. Rieber believes that the reforms were linked to the desire to strengthen and protect the autocratic state by developing a strong and efficient army.
Crankshaw: “The Emancipation had to be, he knew, but he did not like it"
Genuine desire for modernisation (Tsar liberator)
Boris Chicherin: "Alexander set out to remodel completely the enormous state which had been entrusted to his care".
J. Stephen Graham: “Since he was a child, Alexander believed that ownership of serfs was contrary to the teachings of the Bible and spoke of this idea to his father”
Consequences of Emancipation
Positive
Terrence Emmons: "the greatest single piece of state-directed engineering in modern European History before the 20th Century"
John Westwood: “with the possible exception of Khrushchev, no other Russian ruler did so much to reduce the suffering of the Russian people”
Negative
John Grenville: "A cruel joke"
John Westwood: "Alexander did little for the serfs"
Edward Crankshaw: "Too much, too soon"
Overall failure as a leader
Edward Crankshaw: “There was no hard centre to the reign. There was no discernible pattern. In the end everything turned sour.”
Hugh Seton-Watson judged the tsar a failure for seeking an unrealistic compromise between autocracy and liberal development
Harry Hearder states “his reign which started in high hope ended in futile tragedy
Lenin's Russia (1917-1924)
Reasons for a Bolshevik Victory in the Civil War
Reliance of the Soviet state on terror and coercion
Evan Mawdsley: "Any form of socialism claiming absolute control over a society is bound to lead to totalitarian excesses"
Sheila Fitzpatrick has expressed the view that the coercion of peasants in the Civil War was necessary for the development of War Communism
War Communism and NEP
Martin Sixsmith: "As his hold on power became more fragile, Lenin abandoned his promises... the rhetoric of liberation gave way to what became known as War Communism, harsh, enslaving, repressive"
David Christian: "A government claiming to represent the people now found itself on the verge of being overthrown by that same working class".
Alexander III and Nicholas II (1881-1905, 1905-1917)
Extent of industrial and economic modernisation
Hugh Seton Watson describes Witte as "one of the outstanding statemen of the 20th Century"
Alexander III 'The Great Reactionary'
Land Captains
Richard Charque: "no single act of government in the reign of Alexander II stirred the Russian peasant to more bitter resentment"
Charques and E.A. Lutsky both suggest that this new position created a state of ‘semi-serfdom’ in the countryside, backtracking on Alexander II’s main reform, the Emancipation, as it reinstated the dominance of the nobility and removed some of the peasants autonomy
Extent of opposition
Not much opposition
David Saunders has emphasized the stability of this period and has said “instead of asking why Tsarism collapsed, the question should have been, why was it so successful and why did it last so long?”
A lot of opposition
WWI and its effect on Russia (1914-1917)
WWI as the main cause for the February 1917 Revolution (Could Tsarism have survived if not for WWI?)
Tsar's incomeptence
Donald Treadgold/recent historians agree that the system wouldn't have lasted without some changes. Highlights tsar's reluctance to compromise
WWI
Causes and Effects of 1905 Revolution (1905-1914)
Why was Nicholas able to continue ruling after 1905?
Loyalty of the army retained
Rebels lacked unity, direction and leadership
Concessions granted to liberals and peasants, thus dividing the opposition.
Success of Stolypin's reforms
Mc Cauley: these reforms made life easier for the peasants, but didn't go far enough to create a prosperous kulak class that Stolypin wanted
Richard Charques states, this [Cossacks firing on protestors] “did more than perhaps anything else during the whole of the reign to undermine the allegiance of the common people to the throne"
Causes and Effects of both 1917 Revolutions (1917)
Reasons for the failure of Dual Power
Who brought about the October Revolution
The people
Stephen Smith points out the importance of the lower ranks of the Bolsheviks, claiming the revolution was a popular uprising harnessed by Trotsky and Lenin but not propelled by them. Sheila Fitzpatrick agrees
Trotsky/Lenin
Richard Pipes interprets that Lenin was the main driving factor behind the October Revolution, but recognises that Trotsky was essential as an organiser