1905 marked the culmination of the process that began in 1856. Discuss.

The introduction of further reforms, including those which affected the military, education and society, as well as the relaxation of censorship would be seen by Marxist theorists as another event in the process leading up to the revolution in 1905. For the growth of formidable opposition to occur, education needs to be a readily available resource. Alexander’s education reforms allowed children of all classes the right to education and a direct consequence of this was the exposure to political indoctrination via contemporary literature. The open criticism of the autocracy by political writers and intellectuals led to a radical growth in opposition which was previously unseen in Russia. The numerous assassination attempts made on Alexander’s life were the result of the increasing unrest of the Russian proletariat and the finally successful attempt in 1881 resulted in a great loss for the working class as Alexander III’s rule pushed Russia back into Conservatism. While Marxist theorists argue that the growth of opposition was an event in the process which had begun in 1856 and ended with the revolution in 1905, it could be argued that Russia was due for an upheaval and the emancipation of the serfs only served to make this happen sooner, rather than later.

The ruling under Alexander III pushed Russia into an almost political recession as he saw what Liberalist ideas had done to his father. He was wary of following his father’s footsteps and decided, instead, to reintroduce Conservative policies, as was Russification. The policy of Russification attempted to create a single ‘Russian’ nationality out of the multi-national Russian Empire for the greater good of it and was employed by Pobedonostev after 1881 as a vehicle for his Conservative ideology.  The fact that the “Great Russians” only made up 44% of the population is important to note as it highlights just why Russification had no hope in ever succeeding in the long term. It resulted in mass protest amongst the many other nationalities in Russia at that time and only served to fuel opposition to the Tsarist regime. Russification resulted in the loss of the Christians due to their triumphs over the Turks in Armenia, a new Russian minority in the Baltic Provinces due to the increase in ethnic Latvians and Estonians, the assassination of Bobrikov (a governor-general appointed by Nicholas II in 1898) and mass protest in Finland and the overwhelming opposition to Russification in none other than Russian Poland. It is safe to say that the policy of Russification was a definite faux-pas on the Tsarist government’s part and did more damage to Russia than good. This implementation of Russification and other Conservative ideology was greatly responsible for the huge growth of opposition the autocratic government saw in Russia after 1881.

The ‘Safeguard System’, implemented at the same time Russification was, gave the police and the governor-generals almost unrivalled power. With the scare of assassination still apparent, the powers given to the police and governor-generals consisted of having the authority to arrest and detain suspected extremists, fine the local press and even shut the press down should they prove to be too outspoken. The control of the state by the Ohkrana served as another way for Alexander III to gain more control over Russia – control that had been compromised during his father’s reign. The almost instantaneous growth in control over Russia under Alexander III’s rule was hugely contrasting to his father’s ruling and gave the proletariat another reason to revolt; yet another link to the revolution of 1905.

While Alexander II seemed to make a conscious effort to move away from Russia’s previous methods of governing, Alexander III preferred the old ways of governing Russia and decided against further reforming. The theory of progression states that one thing must lead to another and so-forth until a chain has been produced which directly links the beginning to the end. If that were the case for Russia, Nicholas’ decision to enter a war with Japan in 1904, when they clearly weren’t ready, led directly to their defeat in 1904, then to massive outrage and a surging growth in opposition and finally to the revolt in 1905. Their underestimation of their opposition (Japan) and their overestimation of their military’s abilities, like in the Crimean War, resulted in another humiliating defeat. It’s understandable, therefore, that the surge of opposition was directly linked to Russia’s poor performance in their Wars. This clearly shows a process leading from Nicholas’ decision to forgo reforming in favour of more conservative methods to the eventual revolution in 1905. While the link is apparent, the inevitability of the revolution isn’t clear from the beginning of the process.

War is often said to be the catalyst of change. It is clear to see in this ‘process’ that it was all started by the Russian defeat in the Crimean War. It is also clear to see that the Revolution took place shortly after their second war defeat in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904. Port Arthur, belonging to China and long sought after by Japan, had been relinquished of Japanese rule and given back to the Chinese by persuasion of the Russian government, aided by France and Germany. Two years later, Russia gained lease for Port Arthur and saw it a huge advantage for their naval needs – Japan saw it an added insult to injury. Russia didn’t believe the Japanese army could be all that effective as Japan was a ‘newly emergent country’ and still believed their army to be invincible. While the Japanese army knew a long war could not be fought by them and won, they knew a small localised could. This defeat by Japan came as a strong blow for the Russian populace as they were angered by their second consecutive humiliation. War being the catalyst of change, the growth in extremist ideas for Russia’s governing resulted in what would have been a huge revolution in 1905 – as it stands, 1905 served as a learning curve for the revolutionists and aided them with the finally successful revolution in 1917.

The inevitability of the revolution in 1905, while supported by Marxists theorists, Lenin and Trotsky, has not been so easily accepted by people such as Pavel Miliukov and Vasily O. Klyuchevsky. Both of these historians argue against the theory of inevitability and the former argues that the revolution was merely the cause of ‘freak’ events. The short/long term effects of the events which occurred between 1856-1905 were not interlinked in any way but were just coincidental. It can be said that, although there may be a clear process leading from the Crimean defeat in 1856 to the revolution in 1905, the inevitability of this process isn’t quite as clear cut. After a certain point in the process, however – the second war defeat Russia suffered – it would have become apparent that a revolution was on its way. The inevitability of it cannot have been determined until the surging growth in opposition and the huge uprising within the proletariat working classes. To call the revolution in 1905 a ‘culmination’ of a process is incorrect as the word ‘culmination’ is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “a final climactic stage”. It is clear that the revolution in 1905 simply served as a “dress rehearsal” for the revolution in 1917.

Ultimately, the events leading up to the revolution in 1905 could be seen as being independent of each other until a certain point at which the revolution could be forewarned. That is not to say that the revolution was inevitable, it wasn’t, but it cannot be denied that once the autocracy faced enough opposition without enough being done on their part, change was sure to follow – that it was in the form of a people’s revolution is irrelevant. To say that it was a ‘culmination’ of a process is also wrong due to the reasons stated previously. Therefore, while the revolution wasn’t inevitable to begin with, there was certainly a point in the ‘process’ which meant that a revolution was probable.

Bibliography:

”Bolshevism – the Road to Revolution” – Alan Woods

“Stalin” – Leon Trotsky

http://www.esuhistoryprof.com/alexander_ii_and_reform.htm

http://www.ssdec.nsw.edu.au/history/romanovs/opponents.html

 “Heinemann Advanced History - Russia 1848-1917” – Jonathan Bromley

 “Russia and the USSR, 1855-1964: Autocracy and Dictatorship” – Stephen J. Lee

http://www.russojapanesewar.com/intro.html

Webster's NewWorld Dictionary