Depth study debates Flashcards
Alexander II - How liberal was the Russian government from 1855-1181? (Support - it wasn’t)
- creation of the Zemtsva - 40% were peasants and did good work in education/public health
- so effective that they were set as the precedent
- education was more open: unis given more autonomy and texts from abroad
Alexander II - How liberal was the Russian government from 1855-1181? (Against - it wasn’t)
- Zemstva was inevitable due to emancipation, and Alexander II regretted it as members started to question ‘administrative monopoly of officialdom’ and were critical of the regime
- Zemtsva only had administrative powers and was dominated by the nobility
- similarly, emancipation favoured the same nobility (kept him in power)
- Tolstoy reversed education reforms
Alexander II - To what extent did reforms made by Alexander II improve the status of Russian peasants? (Support - large extent)
- all privately owned serfs were free - could own property and could marry whoever they pleased
- nobles had to hand over land to the peasants
Alexander II - To what extent did reforms made by Alexander II improve the status of Russian peasants? (Against - small extent)
- redemption payments - took 49 years to fully pay
- the powers of the Mir remained (eg: ensured substinence farming so lack of an incentive)
- peasants were allocated poorer quality land and had Poll tax
- separate legal system
Alexander II - How far were Alexander II’s reforms due to the Crimean war? (Support - they were)
- war revealed weaknesses in the way Nichola I had ruled -> serfdom went against modern warfare
- showed need for modernisation and proved catching up to the industrial West as crucial
Alexander II - How far were Alexander II’s reforms due to the Crimean war? (Against - they weren’t)
- reasons for reforms were linked to Russia before the Crimean war, eg pressure to abolish serfdom, growing peasant unrest and population growth
- Alexander II made reforms out of a necessity to retain autocracy
Alexander II - How far were issues relating to the empire and minorities neglected by Alexander II? (Support - they were)
- Polish Revolt happened as a result of a lank of reforms (against hope) and conscription of Poles
-> reforms after seen as a stepping stone towards more Russification - decrees to stop the publishing and import of Ukrainian books
Alexander II - How far were issues relating to the empire and minorities neglected by Alexander II? (Against - they weren’t)
- introduction of Zemstva to take over the running of local affairs
- liberal policy towards the Baltic Germans
- Jews were allowed to live outside the Pale of Settlement
- reforms towards the poles before the uprising included more agency for Warsaw uni and more Polish autonomy and afterwards reforms benefitted the peasants instead of the nobility
Provisional government - To what extent was the PG doomed to fail from the start? (Support - large extent)
- lack of legitimacy from the beginning due to not being elected
- disagreements between PG and the Soviet on how to handle the war
- creation of the 8 principles allowed the proliferation of protest groups
- Bolsheviks only gained influence following the Kornilov affair (not a huge threat throughout)
Provisional government - To what extent was the PG doomed to fail from the start? (Against - small extent)
- successful in achieving its main aim of preparing for the elections to a new constituent assembly
- initially was ‘popularly accepted’
- it wasn’t the failings of the PG that led to the Oct revolution but the determination of the Bolshevik seizure of power
Provisional government - Why is the PG often viewed as the one reluctant to carry out reform? (Support - it is)
- government could’ve carried out economic and social reforms to maintain their power (unrest due to such issues and reforms weren’t enough to appease the workers and the peasants)
- weak attempt to unite the PG and the Soviet
- land distribution issues, continued involvement with the war and clamping down on workers’ governments showed how the PG was unwilling to make appropriate changes
Provisional government - Why is the PG often viewed as the one reluctant to carry out reform? (Against - it’s not)
- they did carry out reforms such as the 8 principles
- not intended to make lasting reforms but as principles that would aid future political change
- lack of social and economic reforms was justified as they were occupied with the war issue
- meant to be an interim government and were reluctant to make big reforms due to their lack of legitimacy
Provisional government - How far was WW1 responsible for the fall of the PG? (Support - it was)
- if Russia had pulled out of the war then maybe the PG would’ve succeeded
- the war was costly in terms of the impact on land, labor and capital - but the PG had a sense of duty to continue it
- limited support from the Allies
- the war being a priority meant that other issues were ignored which led to unrest
Provisional government - How far was WW1 responsible for the fall of the PG? (Against - it wasn’t)
- the PG was doomed to fail regardless of the war
- people saw the PG as a variation of the tsarist regimes, which was already in danger of disintegrating before WW1
- workers had organised and campaigned for economic and social change before the war and support gained momentum at least a decade before
- Kerensky’s leadership was suspect - he wasn’t trusted by workers and peasants
Provisional government - To what extent did opposition from the national minorities lead to the fall of the PG? (Support - large extent)
- aim was to maintain the cohesiveness of the state, so focused on urban political, social and economic issues in Petrograd and Moscow
-> this was a mistake as minorities became frustrated (slow to create an Assembly which caused resentment), were spurred on by the successes of the workers, took advantage of the 8 principles - organised their own forms of provincial government, like the Central Rada in Ukraine and the Sejm in Finland
- large population of peasants in Georgia, Ukraine and Estonia, so not acting on land issues was naive
Provisional government - To what extent did opposition from the national minorities lead to the fall of the PG? (Against - small extent)
- demands for self rule in the Transcaucasia were met
