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.
This also meant that the land was not used to it full potential, all these factors lead to the famines and causing peasants to up rise using violence against government officials. This was on the verge of the revolution. The deep resentment from the peasantry towards the Tsar increased after the war as lots of money had being invested in the war and Russia had lost. Moreover, Sergei Witte had tried to improve the economy of Russia but it was to make sure that the Russian social order stayed the same. Due to industrialisation, factories were built which lead to rapid growth of population in the towns and cities for example from 98 million in 1885 to 125 million in 1905.
How Accurate is it to Say that the Growth of Reformist Groups in the Years from 1881 was the Main Cause for the 1905 Revolution? Following Alexander II’s assassination in 1881, Russia was faced with their worst nightmare which was faced with their worst nightmare which was a truly repressive Tsar, Alexander III. His unpopularity was caused by his extremely backwards ideology that left the Russian population dissatisfied without their ‘Tsar Liberator.’ Alexander III found himself battling with millions of people who wanted their previous freedom restored and autocracy destroyed. I personally feel that the main cause for the 1905 revolution was Alexander III himself in the long term. Alexander was hopelessly out of touch with the emerging realities of a modern Russia.
This meant that the working and living conditions of the people couldn’t be helped as there was no money to send to the places that needed it. Again, with this humiliation and a knock on the economy of Russia, the people of Russia were losing assurance on the Tsar himself and believed that a change was
Assess the causes for the creation of the duma in 1905 During the late 19th century and the early 20th century, the nation of Russia was undergoing a period of turmoil, change, poverty and revolt. The current Tsar, Nicholas II, was a leader put in charge at the wrong time, and coupled with a few bad choices, was falling out of favour with his people. He was losing his grip on the Russian leadership and drastic change was needed to make the people happy, thus the Duma was created. The Duma was an elected parliament for Russia, with the power to make laws, and due to this Nicholas II could no longer be called an autocrat. This allowed freedom of speech in Russia, letting all males in Russia the right to vote.
Why did the 1905 revolution fail? Revolution: A fundamental change in power or organisational structure which takes place over a short period of time. The 1905 revolution is Russia, was not largely successful. Historians attribute this to four main factors; Concessions, repressions, the weakness of those who were trying to rebel, and the skepticism and debate over whether there truly was a revolution in 1905. The absence of a real leader, any political overthrow and a change from autocracy to democracy is the key reasons i believe that there was not in fact a revolution, however a cluster of spontaneous uprisings, at unplanned instances for the most part.
Nicholas II was faced with various issues during his reign from 1894-1917. His ineffectual personality was partly to blame for his ineffectual ruling. He was not able to listen to the needs of his public, and so violent uprisings such as Bloody Sunday occurred. His response was to initiate the October Manifest and the instigation of the Russian Duma, but neither of these pleased the public and so the February revolution of 1917 occurred, which ultimately created the fall of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy.
Why did the 1905 revolution fail? The 1905 revolution failed for a variety of reasons many of which are to do with the revolutionaries themselves such as a lack of leadership and that they were divided in their aims. One of the reasons that the 1905 revolution failed is that the revolutionaries had no leadership; this meant that they were unorganized and therefore attacks and industrial action were randomly taking place according to other strikes. Therefore the threat from each individual strike was much less of a threat to the Tsarist regime than they would have been had the industrial action been coordinated so that they happened at the same time; this allowed the Tsar and the army to be able to eliminate the individual threats much easier than had there been widespread attacks. Therefore the Russian revolution of 1905 failed because the revolutionaries were to easy to defend against as their attack were not in synchronization meaning the army only had to stop one group at a time meaning the revolutionaries suffered heavier casualties than they would have done.
This paper argues that the October Revolution and rise in support for the Bolsheviks would not have been possible had it not been for the failure of the provisional government to establish itself as a stable regime in addition to the party’s use of violence. The provisional government failed to achieve stability in 1917 because of Lenin’s April Theses, the consequences of the July Days, its ineffectiveness in tackling social and economic issues and the Kornilov Affair.