From the May 2024 IBDP HL History Paper 3 exam
Compare and contrast the reasons for the growth of opposition groups during the reigns of
Alexander II and Alexander III.
From the IBO markscheme:
The question requires that candidates give an account of the similar and different reasons for the
growth of opposition in both reigns. During the reign of Alexander II reasons were varied. There
were peasant protests at the limited impact of emancipation (redemption dues and the Mirs). Liberals
felt the Zemstva and Duma had limited powers and wanted a National Assembly. More radical
groups up to 1861 were able to function more freely with more trade unions being formed and the
emergence of Narodnya Volyna. In contrast Alexander III’s repressive policies were a factor in the
growth of more radical groups and even Liberals were unhappy at the appointment of Land Captains
and the reduced powers of the Zemstva. Russification and anti- semitic policies also led to more
nationalist opposition in Poland and Finland as well as the emergence of the Jewish Bund. Arguably
in both cases opposition grew because of the determination of both Tsars to maintain autocratic
power. In contrast, some may point out that Alexander II was about to enact reforms (Loris Melikov)
when he was assassinated. Candidates’ opinions and conclusions will be clearly stated and
supported with appropriate evidence.
Sample student essay under test conditions
Transcript:
The reigns of Alexander II, from 1855 to 1881, and Alexander III, from 1881 to 1894, both witnessed significant growth in opposition but diverged in important ways. Alexander II's reforms, such as the emancipation of the serfs and the creation of the Zemstva, were intended to modernize Russia, but their limited scope often alienated the very groups they were designed to appease. In contrast, Alexander III's repressive policies, including centralized control and Russification, intensified dissatisfaction and radicalized opposition. Both Tsars were deeply committed to preserving autocracy, but their contrasting methods shaped the specific nature of opposition during their reigns. Historians such as Orlando Figes and Geoffrey Hosking have emphasized how both rulers inadvertently contributed to opposition growth, underscoring the interplay between economic grievances, political demands, and social unrest in driving resistance to autocratic rule.
Economic discontent among the peasantry was a central cause of opposition under both Alexander II and Alexander III, though the sources of grievances and consequences differed. Alexander II's emancipation of the serfs in 1861 was a landmark reform, freeing 23 million people from serfdom. However, the terms of emancipation disappointed many. While the serfs were granted personal freedom, they were required to pay redemption payments for nearly half a century in exchange for often inadequate and poor-quality land. Furthermore, the communal land management system enforced by the Mir stifled economic mobility and innovation, leaving many peasants trapped in poverty. Over 1,000 recorded peasant uprisings in the year following emancipation highlighted the widespread dissatisfaction with the reform. Orlando Figes has argued that the emancipation created a "psychological burden" on the peasantry, as their expectations of land and freedom clashed with the economic realities of the reform’s limitations. This view demonstrates how opposition under Alexander II grew not from the absence of reform but from its inability to fulfill the expectations it generated. Under Alexander III, peasant discontent persisted but stemmed more from neglect than broken promises. Alexander III prioritized industrialization and military strength over addressing rural poverty, imposing heavy taxes on the peasantry to fund state-led initiatives. The famine of 1891, exacerbated by government mismanagement, led to widespread suffering and further alienated rural communities from the regime. Unlike his father, Alexander III offered no grievances, relying instead on coercive measures to maintain control. Richard Pipes has described Alexander III's policies as indicative of "callous disregard" for rural suffering, which only deepened the peasantry's hostility toward the regime. The contrasting approaches of the two Tsars—Alexander II's partial reforms and Alexander III's neglect—highlight different pathways to the same outcome: widespread dissatisfaction and peasant unrest.
Liberal opposition during both reigns similarly reflected frustration at the autocracy’s resistance to political modernization, but the scope of this opposition varied based on each Tsar's policies. Alexander II's introduction of the Zemstva in 1864 marked a step toward local self-governance, as those councils were tasked with improving education, healthcare, and infrastructure. While the Zemstva were relatively successful in their internal objectives, their powers were sharply limited by central oversight, frustrating liberals who had hoped for more extensive political reform. The educated elite increasingly called for a National Assembly, believing that broader representation was essential for Russia's modernization. Geoffrey Hosking has argued that the Zemstva fostered a "constitutional consciousness" among liberals, raising expectations of gradual reform within the autocratic framework. However, Alexander II's refusal to expand the role of the Zemstva left liberals disillusioned, driving many to opposition as they realized the regime would not accommodate their aspirations. Alexander III rejected even the limited political reforms of his predecessor, curtailing the power of the Zemstva through the appointment of land captains in 1889. These officials, who exercised sweeping authority over rural areas, bypassed the Zemstva entirely, restoring central control at the expense of local autonomy. This policy alienated moderate liberals, many of whom had previously supported gradual reform. Richard Pipes contends that Alexander III's rejection of reform radicalized opposition, as the regime's refusal to permit constitutional progress left liberals with no alternative but to align themselves with more revolutionary factions. While Alexander II's reforms failed to meet liberal aspirations, Alexander III's outright hostility to reform unified and emboldened liberal opposition. The contrast between the two reigns illustrates how both partial reform and outright repression could foster dissatisfaction among political moderates.
Radical and nationalist opposition also flourished under both rulers, driven by their respective policies toward revolutionary groups and ethnic minorities. Alexander II's early reforms, including relaxed censorship and political modernization, created a climate in which revolutionary ideas could spread more freely. Groups like Narodnaya Volya capitalized on this environment, organizing against the regime's failure to enact deeper reforms. Alexander II's partial liberalization, however, came to a halt after the assassination attempt in 1866, prompting a turn toward more conservative policies. This shift failed to stifle radical opposition, culminating in Alexander II's assassination by Narodnaya Volya in 1881. Sheila Fitzpatrick has observed that the Tsar's reforms created a "window of opportunity" for revolutionary movements, as disillusioned intellectuals and workers increasingly embraced violence to achieve systemic change. This shows how Alexander II's uneven approach to reform inadvertently strengthened radical opposition by combining initial openness with eventual repression. In contrast, Alexander III's reign was marked by uncompromising repression, which drove radical and nationalist groups further underground while intensifying their resistance. Russification policies, which sought to suppress non-Russian languages and cultures, alienated ethnic minorities across the empire, particularly in Poland, Finland, and Ukraine. Jews, targeted by anti-Semitic policies and pogroms, formed groups like the Jewish Bund in response to their marginalization. Orlando Figes has argued that Alexander III's policies created a "multiethnic opposition" as diverse groups united in their shared resistance to Russification and state oppression. While Alexander II's partial liberalization allowed revolutionary and nationalist movements to organize, Alexander III's repressive measures radicalised these groups further, demonstrating how different approaches to control could produce similarly destabilizing effects.
In conclusion, the growth of opposition under both Alexander II and III was shaped by economic, political, and social demands and unrest. Both rulers, despite their contrasting methods, set the stage for the revolutionary upheavals that would ultimately dismantle the Romanov dynasty in the early 20th century.
My comments/grade:
This is really well-written, and I'm happy to see historians like Fitzpatrick referenced and terms like 'window of opportunity.' For the third straight time I'm giving you 11/15- you write like this you can get a 6 but I still think you confuse description and quotes for analysis. So whilst you clearly address the "compare and contrast" demands of the question within a well-structured essay with paragraphs organised around economic, political (liberal opposition), and radical/nationalist opposition, sections become overly descriptive, like the details of Narodnaya Volya and Russification, which could be more tightly focused on how they directly relate to opposition growth. The examiner will want to see a more evaluative conclusion; you summarise the main points but don't offer a clear comparative judgement about which Tsar's policies were more significant in fostering opposition. Mostly, I wanted to see the contrast element- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and raise you to 12/15, but that's more for the quality and amount of research and application you provided. Given the nature of the course, who really can trust what the examiner will ultimately give?
In terms of knowledge, you gave an impressive demonstration of extensive and accurate knowledge of both reigns, including specific reforms, opposition movements, and historians’ perspectives. You mentioned the Zemstva, Land Captains, the Marshall Emancipation, and the Jewish Bund, all of which are highly relevant and well-integrated. You also place events in their historical context, such as the aftermath of the assassination attempt on Alexander II in 1866, which led to a conservative shift in policy. I felt there was a consistent comparison throughout, as you manage to contrast Alexander II’s partial reforms and their unintended consequences with Alexander III’s outright repression and radicalisation of opposition. I'd encourage you to be more explicit. For example, you write about the peasant opposition under both rulers, giving their causes, but don't always emphasise the key differences- for example, consider Alexander II’s broken promises vs. Alexander III’s neglect.
Again, I like your references to historians like Orlando Figes, Geoffrey Hosking, and Sheila Fitzpatrick, which enhances its analytical depth. You tend to though name-drop still. You write how Hosking argues that the Zemstva raised liberal expectations. Then IMMEDIATELY you write "however...".Wait- shouldn't you at least EXPLAIN why Hosking immediately the point? What evidence does he provide? If you're going to immediately question him, why use him in the first place? Still, you do try to move beyond description to evaluate the consequences of both Tsars’ policies, such as how Alexander III’s repression radicalised opposition compared to Alexander II’s partial liberalisation.
SUDENT EXAMPLE I II Alexander II and Alexander III have both contributed significantly to rises in opposition, which would eventually culminate in the fall of the Romanov dynasty in 1917. In order to assess the reasons for the growth of opposition during their reigns, I will be focusing on their educational, religious, and economic policy changes throughout both of their reigns. These factors are significant to assess as they shape nations and public opinion.
Education was a significant factor in the growth of opposition during both of their reigns, although in Alexander II’s case, his educational reforms led directly to an increase in opposition. After coming to power, Alexander II introduced the University Statute in 1863. Although aimed at reform, it backfired. The reforms allowed universities more individual freedom in setting curriculums and accepting students, and they bolstered freedom of thought in educational settings. Due to these changes, the number of students attending university doubled from 1860 to 1870, from 4,000 to 8,000. These changes in policy surrounding education created a large group of critical, educated, free-thinking individuals concentrated in urban areas. This group of students caused the spread of ideas and bolstered the criticism of the Tsarist regime.
Those reforms, initially implemented in order to appease opposition, backfired by instead fueling opposition to the regime. Alexander III, having learned from his father’s mistakes, aimed his educational reforms at centralization rather than liberation. In 1884, he implemented his own university statute, which cracked down on universities through a state-controlled curriculum and higher university fees. These changes heightened discontent amongst the educated classes of Russia. The reforms of both Alexander II and III failed in their aim of diminishing opposition against their autocratic rule, despite distinctly different policies of liberation and control. This raises the question as to the exact nature of this opposition and whether or not it could have been suppressed through policy changes.
Both leaders altered policies surrounding religion during their reigns, which caused opposition to remain. Alexander II introduced reforms that allowed more religious freedoms for non-Orthodox Christians. This reform eased opposition from some religious groups, such as the Baltic Protestants and Muslim communities. Despite the success of this reform in halting the growth of opposition, there were groups such as the Old Believers, who were Orthodox Christians, that caused a slight increase in opposition due to their disagreement with these liberal reforms.
Similarly, Alexander III introduced his own religious reforms in 1881. These reforms, while sparking discontent among many non-Orthodox Christian religious minorities, were especially harsh on the Jewish minority within Russia. Many pogroms followed these reforms. This violence against the Jewish community caused them to form the Bund, a group that opposed the regime and its crackdown on their religious freedoms. Thus, the reforms implemented by both leaders, whilst aimed at preserving their power as Tsars, had perverse effects and spread discontent across Russia, which ultimately snowballed into organized groups of opposition.
Economic reform also formed a catalyst under both leaders. Alexander II’s reign was marked by the abolishment of serfdom, which sparked opposition not only from serfs who were forced to make redemption payments but also from the nobility who lost their livelihoods. This policy change allowed former serfs to migrate to urban areas and caused growth in cities, which heightened opposition through the spread of ideas amongst workers who were discontent with their conditions. Alexander III faced similar issues to his father due to the rapid industrialization facilitated by his minister Sergei Witte.
In conclusion, both leaders faced significant growth of opposition during their reigns. Despite their reforms and policies aimed at minimizing opposition against their rule, the reforms often caused the spread of ideas, leading to more opposition.
