1. “Alexander III was a political reactionary but an economic moderniser” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

2. De-construct the question!!!!!!!!! Refer to pages 60 and 61 of your study skills booklet. Topic: Imperial Russia – Alexander III Dates: Late 1800’s. Precisely 1881 – 1895 Example: Alexander III Key concepts:Political Reactionary Economic Moderniser Command words: To what extent….. Examine the merits of a particular view or argument and weigh this against an alternative view or argument, finally reaching a conclusion (page 60 – Study Skills)

3. Now begin to plan out your essay. What are you going to write. Introduction: Show that you understand what the question is asking! Alexander III came to the throne in the midst of a bloody assassination. The murder of his father, Alexander II only served to convince Alexander III that any political reform was dangerous and not in the interests of Russia. However, he was also aware that Russian needed to industrialise, to become competitive in order meet the demands of a 20 th century modern economy. Therefore Alexander III was faced with the dilemma of modernising Russia but maintaining a politically repressive regime and preserve the Tsarist autocracy.

4. After the introduction What evidence is there that AIII was a political reactionary? All information is from the text! 1.Immediately rounded up those involved in his father’s assasination. Arrests and executions.  General opinion to the ‘crack down’ was positive. Generally people were horrified at the assassination. Violent and ‘terrorism’. 2.Issued the Manifesto of Unshakable Autocracy – some ministers resigned in protest. E.g. Loris Melikov 3.New ministers appointed were conservative and loyal to the tsar

5. Political Reactionary – Evidence to support that he was! 4.The Okhrana – secret police given powers to arrest suspects without trial. – Reacting to threat! 5.Issued statutes:  Preservation of political order and social tranquility  Police surveillance So what does that mean?  Exceptional measures to repress any sedition. Powers to arrest, interrogate, imprison, exile, conduct searches, have a spy network, torture and execution. Supposed to be temporary (really??? What was he planning later???)but stayed until 1917!

6. Political Reactionary – Evidence to support that he was. 6.Initiated pogroms against Jews. – 1881. One of the terrorists was actually a jewess! Anti- Semitism always under the surface throughout Europe! 7.Appointment of “Land Captains”  Under the control of the Minister of the interior  L. Captains came from the nobility – back to a semi – serfdom!  They could enforce government orders  Over – ride elections  Overturn decisions of local courts  Remove village elders

7. Political Reactionary – Evidence to support that he was! AND SO………………..really stirred up resentment, bitterness and dissatisfaction 8.Zemstvas – made up of 57% nobility! Zemstvas no longer political – social and community work!

8. Political Reactionary – evidence to support that he was! Judicial = Law and order! Judges, lawyers, police!!! That is what judicial means! 9.Government had the right to;  Dismiss judges  Closed court sessions – no observers, no reporters  Jurors from upper classes – needed education and property to be a juror  Land Captains could over rule decisions.

9. Political Reactionary – evidence to support that he was! 10.Intellectual/Schools/Universities  Schools under close supervision  Government controlled the curriculum  Government approved chancellors, deans  Academic qualifications not as impt as moral, religious and political values  Student meetings banned.  Schools/education controlled by the church  Priests paid by the govt. They read out the decrees and manifestos!

10. Political Reactionary – evidence to support that he was! 11. Russification!  Unite a country – a language, a culture, a people and a TSAR!  This affected 40 million or so non-’russians’ – 60% of the population.  CONSEQUENCES: Resentment, bitterness, anger towards the Tsarist system.  Uprisings = harsh repression of ethnic peoples

11. Political Reactionary – evidence that he was! 12. Anti-Semitism strengthened and supported  Pogroms encouraged  May Laws – further restrictions for the Jews  Excluded from professional positions – law, medicine, education  Not allowed to have the same voting rights as Russians Consequences: Jewish revolutionaries – Leon Trotsky, Zinoviev. A creation of the zionist movement!!!!

12. Economic Moderniser? - Evidence?? What evidence is there that he was an economic modernizer? 1.1881 – easier for peasants to rent state land 2.Remaining serfs 1881 – emancipated – WHY???? – How does this help modernise Russia????

13. Economic Modernizer? – Evidence? 3.Peasant’s Land Bank – helps peasants to purchase their own land. CHALLENGES!  Lack of capital  Lack of middle class – limited ability for investment, skills, expertise  Economy is full of debt  Size of Russia – weak infrastructure

14. Economic Moderniser? – Evidence? Vyshnegradsky – initially successful  Needed a budget surplus  Tariffs on imports – protects local industries  Massive increase in exports – grain to raise capital  To raise capital to pay off foreign loans  Increase of indirect taxation – rising prices BUT

15. Economic Moderniser? - Really where is the evidence Social cost!  Peasants on the edge of starvation  Inflation due to rising prices  Grain sales overseas left little for the winter  1891 – 1892 Famine Vysh! GONE! Enter: Sergei Witte

16. Economic Moderniser - Evidence Sergei! What a hero? Was he? What did he do for Russia? Stabilised the currency Encouraged foreign investment Developed heavy industry – coal, iron and steel production Established new industries – oil and chemical Electrical power output – great BUT

17. Economic Moderniser - evidence Only 5% was for domestic lighting! The other 95% for industries! Textile industry improved Cities grew – Moscow, Kiev, St Petersburg. Impressive economic growth – industrial workers grew substantially

18. Economic Modernizer – Evidence? RAILWAYS:  Stimulated economy  Revenue from passengers and freight  Opened Russian interior – easier for transporting grain and raw materials  Trans – Siberian Railway – BUT High cost of death of workers

19. Economic Moderniser - Evidence BUT  Witte – a significant individual in the Tsar’s ministry was conservative. Believed the ‘state’ should run the modernisation! The autocratic system would modernise Russia for Russians! Well……How modern is that thinking??

20. Economic Moderniser - Evidence AGRICULTURE!  Compared to Europe – still an agricultural economy. Yes made very impressive progress, but still backward.  Huge grain exports – but still inefficient farming methods.  Cycles of famines and lack of reliable food supplies.  Differing views: Peasants were slightly better off – but in reality still very poor and low standard of living.

21. Economic Moderniser – Evidence?? What could have been done differently??

22. Conclusion A III reacted harshly to his father’s assassination and with the guidance and advice from conservative ministers like Ignatiev, Tolstoy and his tutor Pobedonostev, AIII throughout his reign repressed opposition movements with strength and uncompromising conviction in his authority. His reaction to political reform was to reject it. He enhanced the arms of government to ensure that opposition movements would not take hold in Russia. However under Vysh. then Witte AIII recognised that for Russia to be a great power he needed to modernise the economy. It could be argued that Russia made huge progress in developing industries and opening up trade and financial ties with Europe. However, by modernising the economy, he did so at a social cost that eventually led to the downfall of the Tsarist system of government.

23. Conclusion No doubt that the tone of his reign was to politically repress – but was this just a ‘stop-gap’ a temporary way of dealing with the problem of violent opposition – if economically modern, then people’s living conditions would improve and opposition would be limited. He brought some peace and stability to Russia but beneath the surface there was growing resentment and hostile reactions to his policies.