How Stable Was Russia 1906-1914?

Many historians argue The Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861, to be a key turning point within Russian history. It drastically altered Russia’s economic, political and social stipulation. One could propose the argument that this event lead to the fall of communism in 1990, further more suggesting the extent to which this event affected Russia. Hence this is ‘perhaps the most defining moment in Russian history, with its impact being seen many years after the event itself’. Although historians identify short term effects of this event, the significance to which this event

Russia struggled to provide food for its populations. Citizens took control into their own hands, Ludovic Naudeau wrote in October 1917, “One morning recently I was awakened by the cries of my neighbor in the next room. His boots had been stolen. The same day the manager of a newspaper office told me that he had been robbed six of pairs of pantaloons, … “Four hundred thefts every night!” he cried; that is the average for the last two weeks,”(One Aspect of Bolshevist Liberty). Russia could not even uphold itself because the economy was not successful compared to other countries. This led people to desire a change in the government; therefore this led to the Russian Revolution. People went to different maters to get what they wanted such as stealing since they were not getting the aid that they needed and they needed financial support. This caused them to protest against their government because many people from the lower class could not take care of their families. This cause led to a greater impact compared to Tsarist weak authority.

The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.

This demonstrates that since the stress of waging war was tremendous, it should be no surprise that the first war could be a primary cause of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, the major powers of Europe hurt Russia in World War I; yet, by 1917, all the combatants horrifically suffered from the strains of war economically, proving this to be a long-term cause. This was, to a great extent, considerable because the military defeats and social strains of World War I had created a crisis in Imperial Russia. Before, Russia had some military accomplishments and they were on their way to being successful. Nevertheless, their triumphs were not long-standing; hence, Russia was not able to be victorious due to the fact that Russia decreased in economy because of the limitations in Russia. Similarly, restraints included the shortage of food and the huge problems with getting the obligatory materials for the army during World War I, which shows that this was momentous. Along with Russia being defeated and having a scarcity of supplies, Russia also showed economic oppression due to the pressure in jobs workers faced.

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

The Stability of Russia in 1914 In 1914 Russia's stability was questionable; the Tsar's regime had been under considerable strain due to the unsuccessful uprising in 1905. The Tsar still had the support of the army, which helped to put down many attempts at revolution. However, there was still brewing resentments about the harsh conditions of the Tsar's government that threatened to explode at any time.

In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.

The Russian Revolution began in 1917 and lasted until late 1930’s, the revolution was very brutal with total death of 3 million people and 7 million people were arrested (Document 12). The revolution broke out when Nicholas II comes to power because Bloody Sunday leads to Duma, then he steps down and the Duma sets up a provisional government thus sparking the want for domination and the revolution kicks off (Book). By the end of the revolution Russia was definitely weakened in some aspects but strengthened as a nation. Therefore, the Russian people were better off after the Russian Revolution because they benefited from a better economy, government, and living conditions.

Whilst St Petersburg was growing and thriving around him, it seemed as though the Tsar turned his back on the requirements that come with large crowds of people such as, resources, food supplies, housing, etcetera. Due to his closed mindedness the overpopulation of factories, shortages of income and lack of basic necessities became a huge issue. The people stuck in this great poverty began to lose faith in the Tsar and once again sought for a new source of power. Another factor that adds to this cause is the fact that when the Russian society came up with the idea of a government, to help guide the Tsar towards helping his people and modernizing his laws and mindset, he refused to let the people have a say. Nicholas ultimately took away all power from what little government they did set up, called a ‘duma,’ when he set the ‘Fundamental Laws.’ These laws meant that he would overrule all of the duma’s decisions or suggestions. For example, the first law stated, “To the emperor of all the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power.” Then in 1907, the Tsar changed to voting laws to make sure that revolutionaries could not be elected. This meant that all the elected candidates were politicians that were great followers of Nicholas, meaning he got what he wanted. Consequently leaving no way of communication between Nicholas and the lower class of Russia, causing the tragic conditions to continue. As the poor became progressively poorer, malnourished and uncared for the Tsars inaction and lack of sympathy caused a radical

Over the period from 1855 to 1964, Russia saw various reforms and policies under the Tsars and the Communist leaders that had great impacts on its economy and society both positive and negative. Lenin definitely implanted polices that changed society and the economy for example with war communism. However whether his policies had the greatest impact is debatable and in this essay I will be assessing the view whether Lenin had the greatest impact on Russia’s economy and society than any other ruler between the period from 1855-1964.

This led to instability in the government and resulted in people seeing reformist groups as an easy way to create change. And therefore people resulted in violence and uprisings put pressure on the Tsar creating a tense revolutionary ready Russia.

In October 1905 he published the October Manifesto, accepting the creation of a legislative parliament or duma, which pleased the liberals. However, then in April 1906, he published the fundamental laws which stated that he still had overall control over Russia. Also, throughout the years 1905-1917 there were a number of dumas, all set up and subsequently dissolved by the Tsar when he believed they were getting to powerful. Also, in early 1917 236 of the duma's 422 deputies formed the 'Progressive Bloc' along with other supporters of the Tsar, such as the Kadets, Octobrists, Nationalists. The Bloc tried to persuade the Tsar to make concessions in order to retain his power but typically he was unwilling to listen. Listening to the Bloc at this point could have saved Nicholas and therefore the rule of Tsarism but his inability to trust his ministers and take their advice meant he his supporters quickly became opposers, weakening his rule at this crucial time.

Russia was a country rich in raw materials that had been undisturbed by modern extraction and refining techniques until then, however, the majority of the countries resource rich areas were nowhere near any railways, with the bulk of the heavy materials such as steel, iron, coal and copper being in the Urals, almost 1,000km away from the nearest railway system in 1860. Oil, another key ingredient in industrialisation was almost 1,500km away to the south, in the Caucasus area3. This lack of transportation in a period when steam powered machines were producing the goods and steam powered trains were delivering them and leading the industrialisation in other countries like Britain, the USA and a future foe in Germany is an indicator of the distance that Russia was behind its rivals under the leadership of the Tsar. So the Tsar’s Russia was largely an agrarian one, but even in the agricultural sector Russia was lagging far behind the rest of the West in terms of the methods employed by farmers, little fertiliser was used and the labour saving machines used in countries with enormous agricultural output like the US were nowhere near as widespread in Russia. The weaknesses of the Tsar’s management of the agricultural sector were highlighted in 1891 when famine hit. Due to the heavy tax on consumer goods, peasants had been forced to sell more of their

It is clear that a lot of people did not want to put up with the constant down spiralling because of the autocracy, many people decided to rise against the situation. These people were split between the reformers and a smaller group of revolutionaries. The reformers, or Liberals, wanted to modernise Russia gradually.They wanted free elections, more education for the people and no censorship. The revolutionaries, on the other hand, wanted to throw out the whole tsarist system and build a different one.Revolutionaries were the ones waiting for the perfect moment to strike the match since the autocratic regime had caused a long term fatigue in the society - the long term situation let them was highly in favour of this group in terms of revolution, only a slight push to the angered people was needed to proceed.