‘The 1905 revolution changed little for the Tsar or the Russian people’ – How far do you agree with this statement? The Revolution of 1905 was the first time the Tsar had faced open opposition from so many groups in Russian society at the same time. It involved peasant disturbances, strikes, naval mutinies, nationalist uprisings and assassinations. This essay aims to examine how significant the 1905 revolution was in bringing reform to the Tsar and the Russian public. In January 1905, there was a revolutionary tide in Russia.
To what extent had Stolypin solved Russia’s political and economic problems by 1914? Stolypin was appointed as the Chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1906 until 1911 in which time he made several major policies in order to develop Russia‘s political and economic state, to a large extent solving these problems. However not all these policies actually had a large or positive impact on Russia, which suggests that to a limited extent Stolypin had solved Russia’s political and economic problems. To a large extent Stolypin had solved Russia’s political problems by 1914. The main one being the political support for the Tsar, which, arguably due to Stolypin’s reign, had increased largely by 1914 from 1905; this suggests that Stolypin improved the level of support and trust from the Russian population after their 1905 Revolution.
Essay Notes How far were the economic problems responsible for Stalin’s decision to replace the New Economic Policy in 1928 with the First Five Year Plan? Introduction –The question is focused on the economic policies pursued by the government in the 1920s and the reasons behind the dramatic changes in 1928. Were the reasons purely economic or must other factors be taken into account? Development • Why did Stalin stop supporting the NEP and start supporting rapid industrialisation? • Did the NEP really fail or did it suit Stalin to make it look as though it had?
“Political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution.” How far do you agree with this statement? When analysing how Russia stabilised itself after he 1905 revolution, we have to consider the main factors: political repression and reform. The statement “political repression was the most important factor in bringing stability to Russia after the 1905 revolution” it’s suggesting that one is more important than the other. I’m going to analyse to what extent both factors helped in stabilising the country and how they did so. Looking at repression, the problems they dealt with and how they solved them: the terrorist attacks and harsh punishments, reform groups and the black hundreds and finally the revolutionary ideas and closing of newspapers and trade unions.
The division among its opponents were both responsible and not responsible for the survival of the Tsarist rule in the years 1881 to 1905. Each party had played its part in the survival, both good and bad, whether they agreed in the aims fort supporting the Tsar or opposing against the Tsar. One of the parties to play a part in the survival were the Liberals, their aims being they wanted more power in the parliament and also wanting more political freedom. However the division between them of Octobrists and Kadets changed some of their aims, the Octobrists wanted more preservation of the Russian state while the Kadets wanted more change. Their split was due to the October Manifesto by the Tsar Nicholas II, when he said he was willing to share his political power, which to a group in the Liberals they saw as a breakthrough, becoming known as the Octobrists, believing that it would help in the constitutional development.
Jonathan Fenby argues that the revolution of 1912 brought great opportunity for the prospect of a turning point but the regimes that came directly after “lacked the tools with which to bring about the scale of change required”. The fall of the Qing impacted on a social, political and economic level, not always in a positive fashion but great decisive change nonetheless. Qing China was a time of great political and social repression. However there was some attempt within the Qing period to reform, for instance in the year 1905 the degree system was transformed, ending a thousand-year tradition. Examples like this and the introduction of provincial assemblies in 1909 indicates that social and political reform was happening under the Qing.
Examining the impact of wars on the issue of who ruled Russia, its ideological basis, its level of democracy and the level of repression that accompanied it, it seems fair to say that the First World War indeed had the most significant impact, though rivaled closely by the Russian Civil War in particular. Firstly, the effect of wars on who ruled Russia is a fairly distinct matter, given that only some had any direct influence on this issue. Most notably, only the First World War resulted in an actual change in the hands of power. This can be seen firstly with the abdication of Nicholas II as a result of the protests over the war following his decision to command the army in the war and leaving Tsarina Alexandria to rule, allowing discontent to proliferate and ultimately ending his and the tsars’ hold on power. Then the Provisional Government, having only held power for a matter of months, was swept aside by the Bolsheviks, again as a direct consequence of the Provisional Government’s precarious and undefined stance over the escalating crisis of the First World War, as well as the skilled way in which the Bolsheviks harnessed this frustration to gain support from naval bases and ultimately seize power.
During the beginning of the 1900s, there were plenty of revolutions and violence that took place. The Chinese revolution in 1911 and Russian Revolution in 1917 shared similar goals, they wanted to end the power of their current leader and establish a new one. For Russia, it was Tsar Nicholas II and for China it was the Qing Dynasty, Russia wanting a functioning communist government and Chinese revolutionaries wanted a democratic government. The first outcome is different in that China relied on agriculture to maintain its economy and Russia relied on industry to fuel its economy. The second outcome of the revolutions was that the countries were dramatically changed, two great powers were stopped and communist leaders eventually took over in the two countries.
This tension can be recognised in the Moroccan Crisis in the years 1905 – 06 were Germany’s movements towards expanding were blocked by the Act of Algeciras. With the Germans only allies, Austria-Hungary, they were feeling encircled by the other great powers in the triple entente. Similarly to Geiss, Mombauer argues that this “blueprint for world power” was an expression of the Germans “striving for European hegemony”. European power meant having the power to take control of the other European powers, which they put pressure on by a naval bill in 1900 and 1906 which increased the navy by building 38 battleships
There can be no ignoring the effect that World War I had on Russia, with the crippling affects of a major war and the resulting breakdown of infrastructure within the Russian Empire. From 1903 when the Bolsheviks were formed a rising threat had emerged to Tsardom, The Marxist intellectual Vladimir Lenin was emerging as an influential light in the revolutionary movement. His earlier pamphlet entitled ‘What is to be done?’ outlined his need for more organisation, discipline, and leadership within the socialist parties. His idea of having a tight-knit exclusive organisation of professional revolutionaries showed he had the coherent theories to be a real threat to Tsarism. According to Alan Wood, Lenin described the 1905 revolution as a ‘dress rehearsal’.