Home / IB DP History / IBDP History HL Paper 3 -The Russian Revolution (1855–1924)- Exam-Style Questions
Compare and contrast the domestic policies of Alexander II and Alexander III. \([15]\)
Detailed solution
Both Alexander II and Alexander III aimed to preserve autocracy, Russian dominance and economic growth, but Alexander II was more reformist while Alexander III was more openly reactionary.
Alexander II’s reforms were partly intended to strengthen the monarchy. Emancipation of the serfs, the zemstva and town dumas were designed to reduce unrest and improve administration.
Alexander III sought to reverse liberalizing changes. The post of Land Commandant, stronger censorship and the Third Section reinforced tsarist authority.
Alexander II became more reactionary later in his reign but was considering constitutional reform by \(1881\). In contrast, Alexander III clearly opposed constitutional change.
Both promoted economic modernization through railways, factories and industrial growth. Alexander III was more successful with Witte’s help, as pig iron and coal output tripled and oil production rose substantially.
Evaluate the success of Stolypin’s economic and political policies after \(1905\). \([15]\)
Detailed solution
Stolypin achieved limited success because his policies maintained autocracy and encouraged economic development, but they failed to remove widespread discontent.
Political repression and the erosion of the Dumas ensured that autocracy retained ultimate authority. However, “Stolypin’s necktie” increased revolutionary opposition and reduced support for the tsar.
His economic measures encouraged industrialization, foreign investment, trade and railway development. The industrial workforce reached six million by \(1912\), although manufactured goods made up only \(6\%\) of exports.
Land reforms aimed to create a prosperous class of small farmers loyal to autocracy. Agricultural production and peasant land ownership increased.
Yet by \(1916\), only two million peasants owned land, agriculture remained backward and land hunger continued. Later unrest, including the Lena Goldfields strikes, suggests that Stolypin’s reforms were too limited and too late.