• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess the view that Nicholas II survived the revolution of 1905 mainly because of the division of his opponents

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐Assess the view that Nicholas II survived the revolution of 1905 mainly because of the division of his opponents Geoffrey Hosking stated that ?Every segment of Russian society had serious grievances but those segments could not work together?[1]. This is correct in that from the beginning there were even disagreements within particular parties; different groups had different agendas and therefore they were relatively split. An example where there was a clash of objectives within the parties is the Social Democratic Party; an extreme Marxist group looking for an overthrow of the Tsar by the urban proletariat, which, following a dispute over future direction of the group, split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1903. This is evidence of there being division amongst the parties themselves, let alone the opposition as a whole. It was clear to see those different groups and their representatives in the various political parties in society all wanted separate things; evidence of this is shown in the events of 1905. Marples supports Hosking?s statement by arguing further that ?there was no unity of purpose among the groups that took to the streets in St Petersburg?[2] ? Marples is accentuating the fact that there was not any common ground amongst the parties and therefore there was no hope of them cooperating. ...read more.

Middle

It was evident that the groups seeking change were a diverse and very loose coalition, if united at all; they were all behaving differently, in different parts of Russia and this accentuates the division further. The urban workers, who had increased, due to the loan from France, were unsatisfied with the duma; it did not implement changes that they so desperately wanted. They were looking to improve working conditions and receive higher pay; so in order to make an impact they went on strike in late December in Russia?s capital, led by Gapon, and soon enough it became a general strike, with 85% of the workforce getting involved by early January. The rebellion continued after the events of Bloody Sunday, causing even more strikes. Figes writes in support of the hypothesis stating that the opposition ?had all followed their own separate rhythms and failed to combine politically?[4]. This is showing the extent to which they lacked unified coordination. Evidence in support of this is shown is events of 1905. All the parties had different agendas and as a result disagreed more amongst themselves than with the tsar itself; notably the liberals, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks and the Social Revolutionaries. ...read more.

Conclusion

Later on in 1905 the unrest amongst Labour strengthened and a small strike in Moscow called by the railway workers spread to different areas of Russia with many other workers joining it. During these months in 1905 it is evident that there was no unification when it came to rebellions; they are happening all over Russia at different times and therefore it is made easier to stop by the Tsar as a large amalgamated group would have. Furthermore, Abraham Ascher highlights the incoordination of the groups and points out that ?the liberals, the workers, the peasants, and the national minorities never coordinated their campaigns against the government.?[7] This is further stressing the point that everyone was expecting a different outcome from the revolution. ________________ [1] Geoffrey Hosking Russia and the Russians from earliest times to 2001 [2] D.R Marples Lenin?s Russia 1917-21 [3] D.R Marples Lenin?s Russia 1917-21 [4] Figes A People?s Tragedy [5] Geoffrey Hosking Russia and the Russians from earliest times to 2001 [6] Geoffrey Hosking Russia and the Russians from earliest times to 2001 [7] Abraham Ascher The Revolution of 1905 Russia in Disarray ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    comparison to countries such as Britain, who by 1875 had over 27,000km of railway. This shows that despite being more than 70x the size of Britain, Russia's communications were still undeveloped for its enormous size, resulting in difficulties for Tsar Nicholas II when trying to industrialise Russia since it becomes

  2. To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 ...

    towards a constitutional government and a move away from the stout principal of autocracy - this gave hope to much of the opposition and calmed the resentment stemming from Bloody Sunday. However, in reality, 'the Manifesto was a tactical manoeuvre, its sole purpose to buy time; there was no sign that it came from the heart' - Orlando Figes.

  1. Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?

    The immediate response to this was a drop in the number of land seizures across Russia Russia. And following the year 1905 the number of peasant households becoming independent increased to a peak of 579,409 in 1909, although this number is still small when put into scale with the 12 million peasant households.

  2. Why was there a revolution in Russia in 1905?

    the Mensheviks. Russia's dismal performance only further alienated all classes from the Tsar, whose image as the "father" of Russia was quickly becoming ruined. Whilst the war isn't as significant a cause for the revolution as social unrest and resentment for the autocracy was, it acted in stimulating these problems.

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    He was also the Procurator of the Russian Orthodox Church; the Church had significant influence in the governance of Russia and was opposed to significant reform. It also opposed the Jews and the Tsar's before Nicholas had taken precedence in persecuting the Jews.

  2. "The 1905 Revolution transformed the autocracy". Assess the validity of this view of Russia ...

    Obviously his main goal was the preservation of the autocracy, and these reforms would have gone a long way to achieve this. It can also be argued that the 1905 revolution transformed the autocracy in social terms. After the 1905 Revolution, strikes became more organised - after the failure of

  1. To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II able to restore his authority from 1905-1914?

    In 1912, over 2,500 miners went on strike at the Lena Goldfields; Russian troops opened fire and killed 150 men. Similarly to Bloody Sunday, the massacre acted as a catalyst, sparking strikes across the country. The people saw this as a lack of sympathy from the Tsar.

  2. Assess the View that Nicholas II survived the Revolution of 1905 mainly because of ...

    Even revolutionaries like Trotsky wrote about the Tsar as a leader, in 1932 Trotsky wrote that ?His ancestors did not pass on to him one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire.? Nicholas believed wholeheartedly in autocracy.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work