Assess Individual In Influencing Key Developments Essay Example

eliminate serfdom would lead to calamitous consequences [4]. Additionally, it is important to consider that this era was affected by various opposition groups, none of which were able to achieve any substantial changes.

Peasant revolts lacked unity and were suppressed swiftly. Despite the efforts of intellectuals who had traveled abroad to spread liberal western ideas, they were largely ineffective due to the strict control of the Nicholas system. The ‘Superfluous men’ were wary of the Tsar's suspicion, so they mainly wrote about their experiences but did not initiate any significant reform. One notable opposition member against Russia’s pan-Slavism was Chaadayev, who published his ‘First Philosophical Letter’ in support of westernization in 1836. However, the government declared him insane, illustrating his lack of influence, except for getting himself arrested in 1849.

During Nicholas I's reign, his fear of revolution hindered Russia's economic progress as he believed that industrialization would cause instability and a desire for reform. He seemed successful in this approach until his decision to raise taxes on alcohol in the 1850s coincided with a ‘swing towards westernism’. This led to widespread riots and boycotts in 1859 as peasants were unable to consume vodka as they pleased. Had the taxes not been increased, it is possible that this mutinous feeling towards the end of his reign may have been avoided.

The next stage of Russia's development is referred to as the 'Great Reforms', which were introduced under Alexander II. Notably, the Emancipation of the Serfs occurred in 1861.

Alexander, unlike his father the Tsar, appeared to support reform in Russia, although his motivations were not purely moral. The Great Debate of slavophiles versus westernisers had gradually gained support in

Russia, through various channels including university lectures, journalism and literature, which helped to garner public support. In the 1850s and 60s, key decision makers in the government, who had been exposed to this debate, spearheaded Alexander II’s reforms. The timing and form of the reforms depended on how particular politicians assessed the problems faced by Russia, according to historian David Christian. Thus, it appears that politicians had more sway than expected in what had previously been an autocratic state.

During his reign, Alexander II implemented several reforms in Russia, including the introduction of elective government through the zemstva in 1864. However, voting was limited to the wealthy at first and later extended to towns and cities by 1870. Additionally, trial by jury was instituted under his government. Although these decisions were not solely made by Alexander II, he played a crucial role in shaping the reform direction and earned the nickname 'the Tsar Liberator.' The emancipation of the serfs had many contributing factors, including the impact of the Crimean War.

The Russian army's humiliating defeat by the British and French exposed the country's backwardness and the army's weakness. The generals focused more on appearances than training. In 1855, Dmitrii Miliutin presented Alexander II with a memorandum arguing that abolishing serfdom was necessary for army reform. It was evident that as long as serfdom remained, the economy and Russian agriculture would stagnate. Many Russians accepted that reform was unavoidable to progress the nation. Serfdom was used to explain all of Russia's current shortcomings, such as military incompetence, food shortages, overpopulation, civil disorder, and industrial backwardness. The Tsar was influenced by these arguments and announced in 1856 that it

was better to begin destroying serfdom from above than to wait for it to destroy itself from below. For the next five years, he worked on drafting the emancipation.Despite the possibility that the serfs would have been emancipated regardless of who was in charge due to public demand and economic necessity, he played a crucial role in shaping Russia during this time as he ultimately determined the country's governance. However, following Alexander II's assassination, Russia underwent a period of rapid industrialization and complete repression.

With his conservative mindset, Alexander III immediately countered his father's reforms and implemented total oppression across the nation. His actions had a significant long-term impact on his own dynasty as he ordered the execution of Alexander Ulyanov, Lenin's older brother, during his attempt to eliminate extremist groups. This event is said to have ultimately led to Lenin's murder of Nicholas II and his family when the Bolsheviks took power in 1917. Two individuals who greatly influenced Russia's history were Vyshnegradsky and Witte, both finance ministers tasked with modernizing the economy to maintain Russia's status as a Great Power. Vyshnegradsky charged foreign loans to finance Russian economic progress, enabling the economy to flourish and laying a strong foundation for Witte's aggressive industrialization agenda as the first finance minister fully committed to it.

Witte played a significant role in the nation's development by boosting the production of coal, iron and oil, constructing the trans-Siberian railway, reducing unemployment, and strengthening Russia militarily. (+quotes) This highlights how individuals can have a considerable impact on a society's future. However, Witte's policies such as imposing heavy taxes on the already burdened peasantry also led to social unrest which ultimately

triggered the 1905 revolution. Despite the revolution being caused by resentment towards Russia's social, economic and political situation, the spark- Bloody Sunday -was not due to any particular individual. Therefore, it seems that Tsar Nicholas II had very little influence over the 1905 revolution.

As a result of widespread famine, poor living and working conditions in towns, and growing opposition to autocracy, public unrest in Russia became extreme. The impact of the Russo-Japanese war was significant, as historian Peter Neville argues that "the news that Port Arthur had fallen proved to be just the catalyst...Russian society needed." The war exposed Russia's weakness and undermined support for the Tsar's regime, leading to more unrest against the government. The 1905 revolution was a direct result of this unrest and forced the Tsar to take action, resulting in the creation of the October Manifesto and the first Duma. The First World War further weakened the regime, as Nicholas II and his government failed to govern competently and made irresponsible decisions, such as leaving the Tsarina in charge during his absence. This left the public with no one but the Tsar to blame, ultimately leading to his downfall.

Although Nicholas II's weak leadership contributed to the regime's downfall, the Petrograd demonstrations and military defection that led to his abdication were inevitable, regardless of who was in power. While the Tsar's lack of willpower and shortcomings were unfortunate, his predecessors should also accept some responsibility for the outcome.