The 1905 revolution was extremely different from the 1917 March revolution in both what was demanded from the Tsar and also due to the size and support the Tsar had. Although there was a revolution in October 1917, the March 1917 revolution in Russia was the one resulting in the Tsar’s abdication and ultimately the end of Tsarism. The reason for the Tsar surviving the 1905 revolution is because of a number of reasons. Firstly, he issued an ‘October Manifesto’ which granted the peoples wishes as it gave them more power. The manifesto offered free speech, the right to form political parties and it created a “democratic” elected house of parliament – called a Duma.
This money was important because the economy in Russia was poor at the time; bearing in mind there was a huge number of peasants and very few working class people at the time may suggest a reason for this. Russia's biggest produce was grain. This was the most important factor in my opinion, as without this money, Witte wouldn't have been able to implement any of his ideas. The second area was state sponsored development of heavy industry. Witte believed that heavy industry was the way forward, because he thought that light industry and agriculture could both benefit from this boost.
These rights included; the chance to own land, marry, trade, were given a quarter of old land free and the option to build their own businesses. Previous to this manifesto serfs had little to no freedom as they were legally owned by land owners. This would have been seen as normal and necessary for Russian society. The step of emancipating serfdom would have been seen as radical and going against the Slavophile ways of life. This shows that Alexander was ready to liberate Russia because even though it was risky, it helped to start the liberalisation process because it enabled ex-serfs to work in factories which would help boost the economy, let the gentry to earn their own money and would help advances in industry which in turn help Russia to compete with the western world.
How important was the October manifesto in ensuring the survival of Nicolas II up to the 23rd of April 1906? In the early months of 1905 a small revolution had started in Russia, it took place because of civil unrest across the country and anger towards the Tsar if Russia Nicolas the second. Some historians argue that the most important reason Nicolas the 2nd survived the revolution was because of the October manifesto that appeased some of the rebels. But i believe other factors where more important, for example the rebellion had no leadership and all parties had different aims, this is what i believe to be the most important reason. Also the Tsar still had the support of the Russian army and the navy which stopped any serious uprising.
This was mostly due to his policies of collectivisation which made economic sense and forced a lot of peasants to leave the land, which was a process needed in order to change an agricultural rural society to an urban and industrial one as well s the fact that his industrialisation plan increased massively the heavy industry in Russia; the production of raw materials such as iron, coal, steel and oil all increased successfully. There were other successes in his economic policy of rearmament, which also improved labour productivity and the transport in the country. However, it would be incorrect to say that all what Stalin did during this period was a success since he also presented various failures, for example not being able to boost the production of consumer goods as well as creating a huge man made famine. It was clear at the time that Russia needed a change, as Stalin said: ‘’ We are fifty or a hundred years behind the advanced countries. We must make good this
How accurate is it to say that the growth of reformist groups in the years from 1881 was the main cause of the 1905 Revolution? The 1905 Revolution was the start of political change in Russia, unlike other major European powers of the time, Russia was being ruled by an autocratic government and any effective reforms would have had to been by ‘change from above’. However, the Tsar Alexander III and his son, Nicholas II were firm conservatives and this ideal route would not have happened. Resentment to the lack of change created the growth of reformist governments and caused a Revolution which catalysed the much needed change in Russia. There were many factors that created a base for the reformist groups to flourish at that time in Russia which in turn created a Revolution.
Why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War? It was ‘not a matter of who was the stronger but, rather, who was less weak’[1]. These were the words of Victor Shklovskii in his book Sentimental Journey. This simplistic view fails to incorporate the many factors which contributed to the ‘Reds’ victory over the ‘Whites’ but it establishes the essence of the argument. Both the Bolsheviks and the opposition White forces were ravaged by internal weaknesses and hugely influenced by external conflict and conditions.
Another aim of Witte was to free the serfs. This was mainly to grow the workforce in cities and to please the lower classes who had been oppressed by the Tsarist system. He succeeded in freeing the serfs but somewhat failed in what happened after they were freed. They were not technically completely free as they could not leave their village without the permission of the village elders (mir), which was rare. This meant that the workforce couldn’t be fully harnessed.
For some peasants life did improve dramatically, Stolypin set up banks that would help peasants get loans and buy land. This was a huge improvement for peasants as they were getting more freedom, this may have been because they would murder their landlords. This lead to improvements in farming this therefore lead to an industrial boom and made Russia the world’s fourth largest producer of coal, pig iron and steel. Only 15% of peasants took up Stolypin’s idea though. As for the Dumas, they could not pass laws, could not appoint ministers and could not control finance.
His policies even though never perfect had always had a part that indicated his efforts to improve Russia’ s economy and productivity. Nonetheless, in time of the Civil War he had to embrace more ruthless methods to keep the Red Army supplied with food. This policy, even though successful in that particular matter was a catastrophe for all those who died of famine. It is hard to judge Lenin’ s policies on an overall level because they were very different and many of them rather ambiguous. Despite all that it is fair to say that Lenin was a successful leader without whom November revolution and hence the crucial change in Russia would not be possible.