How far do you agree that the 1905 Revolution was a result of dire living and working conditions in the cities? In 1905 a series of unplanned but widespread protests gripped Russia as workers, peasants and the armed forces revolted against the oppressive and autocratic regime of Tsar Nicholas II. A growing industrialised workforce had become increasingly exposed to poverty and hardship in the cities and it is clear that dire living and working conditions played an important role in the explosion of civil unrest that swept the country. However, this essay will argue that the roots of the revolution can be traced back to the 1861 Emancipation edict and the failure of successive Tsar’s to solve the problem of peasant ‘land hunger’. Poor harvests, famine, a lack of freedom and repressive policies meant that Russia was a country that was teetering on the brink of revolution long before dissatisfied factory workers marched on the Winter Palace in St Petersburg.
Each groups strategy was very different, the liberals went on strike, while the SR's took a more violent approach. The power each group had individually was not enough to threaten the Tsar, however these differences in aims and beliefs within the 3 main groups meant that they could not combine the groups and work together to bring down the tsar. They were unable to unite their cause and were weaker because of it. Furthermore, there was discontent within the political groups. In 1903 the SD's could no longer function as a single group and split into the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.
The reactionary reign of Alexander III led to a tightening of government control and the persecution of minority groups, such as Jews, within the Empire. Another long-term cause of the 1905 Revolution was the worsening conditions of both peasants and urban workers. The famines in 1897, 1898 and 1901 had led to shortage and distress in the countryside. Living and working conditions in Russia’s industrial towns were no better. Workers worked in poorly ventilated factories for long hours and little pay.
To what extent did the reforms of Alexander II modernise Russia between 1861 and 1881? Russia was extremely backwards and the need for reform was evident well before the reign of Alexander II. Alexander implemented a number of reforms such as emancipation, military, economy and judicial reforms. Russia did change as a consequence of his reforms. However, they never lead to the considerable improvements he expected as they were somewhat incomplete and many were not satisfied with them.
A bewildered Nicholas beseeched his brother-in-law Grand Duke Alexander, "What am I going to do? What is going to happen to me, to all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar, I have never wanted to become one, and I know nothing of the business of ruling." Though his hesitance about ruling, Nicholas II was a strong believer in the autocratic power of the Tsar and opposed democratic reforms. When Nicholas took the throne, he had some experience in Government under his belt, but due to his father's untimely death he had not fully been elevated into the higher tiers of the Russian Government.
Alexander was hopelessly out of touch with the emerging realities of a modern Russia. For example, agriculture was exploited as a source of export earnings; this helped cause a series of famines, especially in 1891. This made him hugely unpopular as he took grain from the people in an attempt to make money and improve the economy. Due to his slow intelligence and lack of experience, Alexander forgot the fundamental rule of keeping his people happy and instead chose to supress them. He did not realise that, following Alexander II’s emancipation of the serfs in 1861, he could not return to a state of rigid autocracy when the serfs had already had some freedom.
From the start there was economic instability because of the cost of World War One and there was widespread disillusion within the German people. The public did not support the Weimar, and the administrative branch of the government, including the Judiciary, also teachers did not back it up either. Mass unemployment, damages to the infrastructure also from World War One, and the demand for reparation payments put lots of pressure on the inexperienced democracy. Not only in Germany, but all over Europe, fundamental and anti-democratic movements gained support. 2.
Why did Nicholas II loose power in 1917 but not 1905 Nicholas II lost power in 1917 because of many reasons. The main reason was the army which was under complete control of the tsar started to rebel against the Tsar by not carrying out his orders. On the 25th of February Cossack troops refused to fire on demonstrators. Also the elite Pavlosky life guards also refused to carry out their orders. This was the first sing to the Tsar to show that he has lost his authority and that the government authority had begun to break down.
This led to an increase in strikes. Secondly, the peasants lacking of land; rapidly developing a new a class of hostile landless labourers, also discontent existed in middle classes due to the growth in professional middle class, who wanted a greater role in national government. Therefore looking at these scenarios it seems the depth of frustration of the people about their situation and their disaffection with Russian society and monarchy was another cause of the 1917 revolution. The Tsar’s reaction to social discontent prior to the revolution was indecisive and his relenting attitude towards his autocracy further alienated the growing opposition groups. In 1915 when the moderates in the Duma joined together to form ‘The progressive Bloc’, compromising over two-third of the Duma member.
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.