Alexander II Interpretations Flashcards
1
Q
Alexander II and the Nature of Government - Liberal or Autocratic
Liberal Arguments:
A
- Sympathisers of the ‘liberal’ viewpoint of Alexander II believe that the Zemstvos did good work with education and were expanded into the cities in 1870 onwards
- Censorship relaxation, educational, military and legal reforms point to the liberalising of the Russian state
- Alexander II had approved the Loris Melikov proposal for a national zemstva shortly before his assassination
- The reactionary era was down to a number of external factors like assassination
2
Q
Alexander II and the Nature of Government - Liberal or Autocratic
Autocratic Arguments:
A
- Many historians point to the fact that he never wavered from autocracy to prove that he was not ‘liberal’ no major changes to central government
- The Zemstvos provide a significant area of debate within this, many believe that Alexander II had to introduce them to efficiently administer the Emancipation Edict but immediately regretted it as liberal members became critical of his regime
- Those who support the ‘autocratic’ viewpoint believe that the Zemstvos were dominated by the nobility and were used as a away of avoiding any meaningful democracy
- Shuvalov Era and repression after 1865
- Tolstoy and Pobedonostsev became very influential in education and conservative attitudes of Alexander III
3
Q
Alexander II and the Nature of Government - Assassination - Inevitable or Not
Inevitable arguments:
A
- One argument is that it was inevitable based on his reforms. The Zemstva created the populist movement that once frustrated in 1874 turned to terror. Four assassination attempts make his death extremely likely
- Dissatisfaction with his reforms from both conservative and radical elements meant that assassination was likely
- Repression such as the Trial of Fifty and attacks on the more educated elements of society by the Shuvalov Era made him a strong target of dislike
4
Q
Alexander II and the Nature of Government - Assassination - Inevitable or Not
Not Inevitable arguments:
A
- Others suggest that it was based more on circumstance, the Trial of 50 imprisoned many Populists and Narodniks did have some successes in the countryside which meant that they many not have had to revert to terror and assassination
- Alexander II was about to introduce the Loris Melikov proposal shortly before his assassination, which would have satisfied many radial demands
- The People’s Will were determined but represented a very small minority of opposition in Russia at that point
5
Q
Alexander II and Economy and Society - Liberator or No Improvements
Liberator argument:
A
- Emancipation an major reform that changed the lives of 80 million serfs and made them free peasants
- The Great Reforms of 1861-1865 showed further improvements, local Zemstvos, relaxation of censorship, military reforms improving peasants training in the army and educational improvements
6
Q
Alexander II and Economy and Society - Liberator or No Improvements
No Improvements argument:
A
- Emancipation was ineffective as peasants were hit with heavy redemption dues and poor quality land with long term distribution frustrations
- The reforms barely affected the peasants who could not vote in the Zemstva elections and could not access education
- The reform era came to an end in 1865 with a longer era of repression, particularly of peasant populist groups
7
Q
Alexander II and Economy and Society - Economic Success or Failure
Economic Success argument:
A
- The Free Trade Era was a success as it brought in foreign expertise like the Nobel Brothers and JJ Hughes
- Big improvements in railway track and new industrial centres like Yusovo
- Began the process to industrialisation which was so neglected under Nicholas I, laying the groundwork for the great spurt
8
Q
Alexander II and Economy and Society - Economic Success or Failure
Economic Failure argument:
A
- The Free Trade Era ended with the collapse of the rouble after the Russo-Turkish war
- Comparative to Western Europe Russia was still significantly behind
- Over-reliance on foreign expertise made no impact in creating an industrial middle class/entrepreneurial society
- Damage done to the peasant economy was heavy after emancipation and food supplies to the cities were always reasonably short
- Land passports and repression made a weak workforce
9
Q
Alexander II and War and Revolution - Emancipation due to Crimea or Not
Due to Crimea arguments:
A
- The war revealed a weakness inn the way Nicholas I ruled, maintenance of serfdom ad autocracy did not seem to fit with modern warfare
- The army was recruited from serfs that were not trained to the same standard as the British and French and with an inclination to revolt, probably not as committed as they could have been
- Soldiers had been poorly supplied, a reflection of the slowness of industrialisation and inefficiency of the economy
10
Q
Alexander II and War and Revolution - Emancipation due to Crimea or Not
Not Due to Crimea arguments:
A
- There was moral pressure to abolish serfdom and growing peasant unrest could be dated back to the 1770s
- There had been much demand from politicians and entrepreneurs for more labour on projects such as railway routes
- Population growth meant that farming system designed for subsistence and not surplus could not work, and famines were becoming more frequent
11
Q
Alexander II and War and Revolution - Military Success or Failure
Military Success arguments:
A
- Wider conscription and reduction in periods of service were radical changes
- The economic costs of supporting an inefficient standing army were reduced
- Agricultural efficiency was improved with peasants freer to work the land
- Soldiers were better trained and in the long-run there was an improvement in literacy
12
Q
Alexander II and War and Revolution - Military Success or Failure
Military Failure arguments:
A
- New training regimes were compromised by the poor education of recruits, eventually addressed with the establishment of military schools
- The ‘reformed army’ struggled to defeat the Turks in 1877-1878 and were badly defeated by the Japanese in 1904-1905
- The reforms were slow to come about as some nobles were only convinced of the need for modernisation when the ‘modern’ Prussian Army made substantial gains between 1866-1871
13
Q
Alexander II and the Empire - Responsible in Dealing with the Minorities or Neglectful
Responsible arguments:
A
- Alexander II tried to work with the Polish authorities, Wielopolski particularly in coming to a satisfactory solution to land-ownership post Emancipation, and it was the extremist rebels that caused the escalation
- After crushing the Revolt it was the Polish nobility, and not the peasants, who were the most disadvantaged
- The Polish rebellion did begin the Russification process, proving Alexander very concerned to maintain order across the empire
- Other hints of ‘separatism’ post 1864 were not ignored - an official commission was set up in 1876 to investigate separatist activity in Ukraine
- The Tsar acted liberally in allowing the Diet of Finland which afforded him an excellent reputation in the province and also significant loyalty
- He also treated the Baltic Germans with respect and allowed more Jewish freedoms
- There was significant expansion into Asia
14
Q
Alexander II and the Empire - Responsible in Dealing with the Minorities or Neglectful
Neglectful arguments:
A
- The Baltic Germans (Estonians and Latvians) did rise in their nationalism, and there was publication of Estonian literature. The newspaper Sakala published by K.R Jakobson campaigned for social and economic equality between all Estonians. It did express loyalty to the Tsar, however set a precedent for other publications
- Jews were still treated with a strong decree of contempt
- Clear policies on the expansion into Central Asia were not forthcoming
- Aspirations for further influence on the Eastern Question were quashed by internal diplomacy
