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

How did Tsar survive the 1905 revolution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How did Tsar survive the 1905 revolution? The Tsar did survive the 1905 revolution both literally and politically, and by the end of the attempted revolution Russia still remained an autocratic tsarist regime. In 1905 Nicholas II, the autocratic ruler of Russia faced a serious uprising against his rule as many Russians were prepared to take action to show how much they disapproved of the way the Tsar was running the country. The most significant cause of unrest in 1905 was the Russo-Japanese War in which Russia who were one the world's great powers was defeated by a smaller inferior country, Japan as the Japanese army and navy were better equipped and well prepared, whilst Russia had underestimated Japan's strength and failed to understand the enemy or the territory it was fighting in. The government was held responsible for Russia's defeat in the war which was a large trigger for the 1905 revolution. In addition Bloody Sunday shocked Russians and foreigners alike, Father Gapon led 200,000 workers to the Tsars winter palace to present a list of grievances begging him to use his royal authority to relive their desperate conditions. In response widespread Outbreak of disorder wept across Russia and general strike occurred as an immediate reaction to Bloody Sunday and terrorism against the government and Landlords organised by the SR's spread to the countryside. ...read more.

Middle

Giving power to the people would result in a revolution as so many groups opposed him, so by maintain his autocratic system the Tsar was able to some extent control the revolutionaries. Although a large majority of the population opposed Tsarist Regime, there were varying extremes of opposition, and Tsar worked cleverly to temporarily please the three main opposition classes, peasantry, industrial workers and reformist middle classes. With the Liberals satisfied the rioting peasants were next targeted in an attempt to reduce opposition to the Tsar, Peter Stolypin, Chief Minister in July 1906 argued that if peasants had a higher standard of living they would be less inclined to support the revolutionary groups. He promised to progressively reduce mortgage repayments and the abandon them altogether and the immediate response to this was a drop in the number of land seizures across Russia. Stolypin also encourage peasants to buy land from their local village which had owned it since the peasants were freed from serfdom in 1861. The government provided loans to help peasants purchase land and by 1914 over two million peasants had possession of their own and. Stolypin's measures meant that there was less unrest in the factories and the mines subsequently there were fewer strikes. .................Yet Stolypin's policy was "suppression before reform", and he granted the Okhrana powers to execute those who seemed so guilty no need for trial which led to phrase Stolypin's necktie, over 4,000 were executed and 4,000 sentenced to hard labour. ...read more.

Conclusion

It can be said that the Tsarist system survived the revolution for a number of different reasons; however the most significant reason is that of the nature of the concessions made in the October Manifesto had a huge impact on the survival of Nicholas II in the revolution. The Tsar gained support from the Liberals after the manifesto which helped the Tsar to restore this power. Although the terms of the Mainfesto were not fully implemented and the Tsar still ensured he had control over the running of the country, he compromised to a level which the peasants, industrial workers and liberals were content. The Tsar had enough military backing to deal with the revolution; he could destroy outbreaks of resistance wherever there was opposition to the Tsarist regime. The easing of the collective resistance was down to the two chief ministers of the Tsar, Sergi Witte and Peter Stolypin, Witte being responsible for the Dumas and Stolypin for the concessions for the peasants. The lack of leadership also played considerable role in assisting the Tsarist regime, as a large percentage of the protestors were unorganised and hence disunited leading back to the question of whether a revolution actually took place. But most importantly it was the power and authority that the Tsar had over his military and his ability to meet the demands and needs of those who opposed him the most that determines up the real reasoning of the survival of Tsar Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution. ...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. Why did Tsarism survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of March 1917

    This left his government vulnerable to attack, which is eventually what happened as the people believed the absent Tsar cared more about winning the war than the welfare of his country and its people. On 2nd March 1917 the Tsar was asked my members of the State Duma to abdicate the throne, which he agreed to.

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

    The Manifesto gave Russians the freedom of speech, conscience, association, and unwarranted arrest, and an elected Duma to represent them. 'There was a euphoric sense that Russia was now entering a new era of Western constitutionalism' - Orlando Figes. This shows how the October Manifesto was seen as a step

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    This further suggests that he was "wholly ignorant" - Olga, and did not care for what anybody else thought. Dominic Lieven described it as his "Imperial crown seemed to crush him to the ground", implying that the demands of being an autocrat ruined him.

  2. FRench revolution

    On June 17th the third estate took the title of national assembly, and was joined by individual clergy and nobles. The king spoke to the Estates on June 17th 1789. He promised civil liberties, an equal taxation system and that France would now have a constitution.

  1. 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.

  2. was bloody sunday the prime reason for the 1905 revolution

    Oppression in Tsarist Russia which was a key component of the 1905 revolution had been common place through out the reign of the tsars, and this was not helped by the limited nature of the reforms. The tsars also ruled with more reactionary reforms that further oppressed the people, special

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

    and forcing a complete return to autocracy. The loyalty of the army was crucial in allowing Nicholas to regain authority himself, having returned from the Russo-Japanese War, Nicholas temporarily established a military dictatorship and brutally put down strikes as well as crushing the St Petersburg Soviet. However, opposition groups still remained and throughout the period before 1914

  2. How significant was Piotr Stolypin in attempting to strengthen Tsarism between 1906 and 1911?

    also, all redemption payments were cancelled meaning the peasants had no ties to their commune; they were free to move. Another way Stolypin helped the peasants in the financial sense is by introducing the agricultural co-operative. This allowed peasants to congregate and share the cost of machinery and transport for livestock and crops to market.

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