• 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. 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.

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

    This was also the time when Soviets emerged, seizing control of essential services, power, hospitals and food distribution in the cities. Strikes continued after 1905 also, illustrating the importance of this increased organisation. Government repression may explain why strike action, peaking in 1905-06, declined steadily over the next 6 years.

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

    and that the development of a literate middle class was inevitable with industrialisation; but all these factors played a major role in the organisation of the revolution, whether or not it was planned for 1905 and convey the substantial degree of social unhappiness that allowed new political theories to prosper.

  2. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    Russia's defeat in the 1854 Crimean war created the need for economic reforms. Russia was severely behind the other Great Powers, such as Britain and France. Although Alexander II and III had tried to tackle this, the effect of the reforms, such as railway construction and foreign loans, affected Tsar Nicholas II.

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    on revolutionaries and silencing opposition to the government, while Alexander III was a tyrant, he was more competent than his son but taught him the value that Tsars had a "divine right" to rule that was becoming outdated. He also had Konstantin Pobedonostsev, his former tutor become tutor to Nicholas;

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

    so sort to appease the workers by introducing social reforms, in the hope of gaining the support of the workers. The reforms did show some signs of effectiveness and literacy rates and conditions did improve however, these reforms only ?scratched the rhino?s back? and consequently opposition continued to grow, culminating in the 1917 revolution.

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