How did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution? Essay

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

Some may argue Tsar Nicholas weak leadership help contributes to the Russian Revolution but World War I was be the primary cause. Tsar Nicholas was not the best leader but that did not have a big enough impact to cause the Russia Revolution because his actions did not lead to as many problems that World War I had caused. World War I had a greater impact because it led to many problems within Russia that caused the citizens to be furious.

The workers began rioting for better conditions and the police could not contain the chaos. At this stage it seemed patent that the Tsar and his government would be overthrown by the revolutionary forces unless serious changes were made. Hence, the 1905 revolution may not have achieved its objective of other throwing the Tsar however did contribute as an affect of what later brought the Tsarist regime to a collapse.

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 power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613, however 1917 saw an abrupt end to the Romanov’s with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Demonstrations and strikes gripped the Russian people and with anti-governmental soldiers taking control, the Tsar had no alternative but to abdicate. Historians such as Michael Lynch1 and John Daborn2 state that in Russia’s great need of strength and power came a Tsar of weakness and limited outlook. However historians such as Ray Pearson believe that in aggressive opposition groups and with the help of the working class aimed to bring down the Tsardom at all costs.

In the period from 1906-1914 Russia had appeared to have stabilised due to the social reforms brought in by Stolypin. However this only really created the illusion of stability due to many underlying problems that led to the 1905 revolution not being dealt with, therefore Russia had stabilised very little in this period which in turn would lead to further unrest in the future.

In all major countries they’ll always go through some type of “revolution,” in order to sort everything out. There will always be a rise and fall in a country’s history and in 1917 it was Russia’s turn to revolt. When the current czar during the revolution said, “I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” (Doc 1) He wasn’t lying, everyone

Thirdly, the Tsar had the benefit of controlling the army and the secret police force, the Okhrana. The Tsar was the commander and chief of the Russian army, he had total control of it and they had been loyal to the Tsar for many years (Nicholas I had an input in creating the Okhrana). The army and the Okhrana were used very efficiently by the Tsars. If anybody opposed the Tsar with violent protests or demonstrations, the army would be called in and many of the protesters would be shot and trampled on by horses. As well as removing current threats to the Tsar, the armies input effected possible opponents, as they knew what their own fate would be if they also tried to oppose the ‘Dear father’. The Okhrana was also very effective, it was known for infiltrating opposition groups and dividing them even further. If an opposition group member was caught, they would be exiled to Siberia to die a cold and

Despite all the work Alexander II did toward reforming Russia, the “Era of Great Reforms” left one crucial aspect unaltered: the power of the emperor. The intentional neglect of this was what kept the reforms from realizing their true potential. This led to dissatisfaction, which encouraged repression, terror, and most importantly: revolution. The first was the Polish Rebellion, caused by the failure of Russian authorities to suppress Polish nationalism. Although the Poles failed, other minorities sprung up for their voice

The 1905 revolution can be considered as the pinnacle event that accelerated the downward spiral of Tsar Nicholas’s rule and Russia’s adherence to their “little father”. From this point onwards Nicholas was referred to by the people as not their “little father” but “Nicholas the Bloody”. "The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people." (The American consul in Odessa). This revolution was an uprising of people from all levels of society and was not an uprising organised by any group in particular. The Bolsheviks played a minimal role in the 1905 revolution as most of their leaders were living in exile and their impact and influence on the workers in that year was weak as well as having no Duma faction. This demonstrates that the Bolsheviks had a minor role in the pinnacle events that led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty but rather gained support after Nicholas’ abdication.

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus