| Introductory Essays xvi
elites who traditionally had been political al-
lies to Russia’s tsars. Though the regime of
Alexander III worked to suppress internal
discontent for the regime, the period 1881–
1894 also saw Russia wrestle with the begin-
nings of industrialization and the influence
this socioeconomic force had on the people
and the regime in Russia.
With the assistance of a string of trusted
finance ministers—Nicholas Bunge (1881–
1887), Ivan Vyshnegradsky (1887–1892),
and Sergei Witte (1892–1903)—Russia es-
tablished limitations on workdays for chil-
dren ages 12 to 15. They also worked to
ensure that in the textile industry children
and women did not work night shifts. Fi-
nally, the regime worked to ensure that
workers received regular pay without exces-
sive fines from their employers. While these
accomplishments were significant, they
could not overcome the festering discontent
among peasants and the proletariat class
within Russia. As the regime of Alexander
III passed to his son Nicholas II in 1894, the
social, economic, and political conditions in
Russia continued to evolve, yet the position
of the tsar and their ideas about governance
and rule remained fixated on an outdated
concept of divine right.
Tsar Nicholas II
Traditionally, Nicholas II, the last Russian
tsar, has been characterized as a strong fam-
ily man and a ruler tied to outdated tradi-
tions, which served him poorly in the
tumultuous years 1905 and 1917. Though he
strove to maintain the power and control of
his father, Nicholas had to contend with a
host of social, political, and economic
changes that shook Russian society to its
very core. Unable to make the hard decisions
necessary to navigate the increasingly cha-
otic political environment in Russia, Nicho-
las would be forced to abdicate his throne,
which was the first step in the sweeping
changes that Russians had to endure between
1917 and 1921.
As a way to characterize the little real
change between the regimes of Alexander III
and Nicholas II, one only needs to acknowl-
edge that Nicholas II retained his father’s
Temporary Regulations despite the rapidly
changing social and political landscape of
Russia as industrialization took hold. In ad-
dition to the political pressures that rose
from the more activist proletariat class,
Nicholas II also had to manage Russia within
the community of nations as The Hague
evolved to be an international conduit for in-
ternational relations. Furthermore, one can-
not discount the trials and tribulations of the
Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905), which
ceased with the Treaty of Portsmouth in Au-
gust 1905, as the tsar and his government
confronted the forces that would ultimately
blossom into the 1905 revolution. Although
Nicholas II had international issues that af-
fected the regime, the forces that culminated
in the politically charged events of 1905
stemmed largely from domestic issues.
The rise of increased political pressure on
the regime actually started in 1891–1892,
when the Russian people endured an incred-
ible famine that affected roughly 20 million
people, of whom approximately 400,000
died. This catastrophic event led to the re-
birth of political activism by liberals under
Alexander III. Though the powers of the
Temporary Regulations served as a tamper
to widespread political opposition to the re-
gime, by the turn of the century political
actors such as Peter Struve, an accom-
plished economist, formed the Union of
Liberation, with its own journal, Liberation
as a mouthpiece to voice concern over so-
cial, economic, and political policies of
Nicholas II. By 1905, this “liberal” political
organization had metamorphosed into the
Previous Page Next Page