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

How far do you agree that the Russo Japanese war was the biggest cause of the 1905 Revolution in Russia?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐How far do you agree that the Russo Japanese war was the biggest cause of the 1905 Revolution in Russia? Tsar Nicholas II had always desired imperial expansion to the Far East; so naturally Russia clashed with Japan over shared interests in China and Korea. This resulted in the Russo Japanese war to break out. The 1905 Revolution was a different matter; however, they are both connected to each other. The 1905 Revolution was initiated from a peaceful protest by the Surfs but soon transformed into something much bigger. Although the Russo Japanese war played a significant part there was also a variety of other contributing factors; including the great famine, Nicholas II and Bloody Sunday. Firstly, how significant was the Russo Japanese war? In August 1904 Tsar Nicholas II declared war over the Japanese as they refused to let him have Korea under the soviet sphere of influence. Russia was naturally seen as the superior military power of the two but they failed to utilise this. Russia needed Port Arthur as a war water port for military and maritime trade all year round. Vladivostok was only operational in the summer months so the Russians relied heavily on Port Arthur. Yet, in January 1905 the Russians were forced to surrender Port Arthur to the Japanese. However, the greatest humiliation came at the battle of Tsushima in May 1905. ...read more.

Middle

Many Russians began to doubt the current political system and wonder if they would benefit without a Tsar. However, some key left wing figures including Trotsky believed that in some ways it was not Nicholas? fault and that ?Nicholas inherited from his ancestors not only a giant empire, but also a revolution. And they did not bequeath him one quality which would have made him capable of governing and empire?.. Or even a country.? It is clear that Nicholas II rule of even lack of rule compelled many Russians to take matters into their own hands; although some people believed that the revolution was imminent regardless of the ruler it does not redirect attention from the poor decisions made by Nicholas and the disregard for this people. Another important factor which caused the 1905 Revolution is The Great famine of 1891and subsequent famines in 1898 and 1901. In the Volga region in 1891 the winter frosts arrived very early, then the crops where further damaged by the dusty winds in early spring and a very dry long summer which began in April. In 1891 each peasant only managed to salvage 0.1 pud (1.6kg) compared to a normal of 15 pud (240kg) of rye. By autumn, 17 provinces were threatened by the famine which equated to around 36 million people. Almost inevitably a cholera and typhus epidemic struck killing half a million people by the end of 1892. ...read more.

Conclusion

An armed uprising occurred in Moscow on December the 7th and several thousand workers were involved. Yet, they surrendered on 18th of December as the city was destroyed and civilian casualties in the thousands. As we can see, Bloody Sunday was extremely key to the 1905 revolution and can be referred to as the spark that lit the fire. The people finally realised that they could make an impact as shown during the Great Famine. Although the government did manage to extinguish the opposition the people had made enough of an impact for the Tsar to rethink many previously disregarded ideas; and so overall it was a success and more significant than the Russo Japanese war. In conclusion both the Great Famine and Nicholas? suitability for the role of Tsar were very significant in the grand scheme. Along with these the Russo Japanese war was also essential in sparking Bloody Sunday which ultimately was the main cause for the 1905 Russian Revolution. The war was not the most significant factor as although it showed Russia?s weakness it did not directly cause the Revolution, however, Bloody Sunday did do this as it proved to the people that they could stand up against the government. Although both Nicholas II and the Famine were influential they both contributed to the mentality of the people and not directly the revolution. Overall it was a combination of factors which led to the uprising and Bloody Sunday was the last of these consequently lit the fire. ...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. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    Millions died, especially in the countryside. * A key debate amongst historians is whether the advances could have been achieved in a more humane way, or was Stalin right that the only way to modernise the Soviet Union was by force and terror? Soviet production compared (figures from Culpin/Henig: Modern Europe 1870-1945 and other sources)

  2. How far was the Russian Japanese war of 1905 the cause of the 1905 ...

    and Plehve (who was in favour of it) and the incompetence of Tsar, the whole country blamed the government for this war. The Russians felt humiliation and resentment at their loss. The inefficiency of the army and naval forces was exposed which made the idea of revolution seem more favourable.

  1. 'In the context of the period 1715-1815 to what extent were economic factors the ...

    There is clear discrepancy in views about the strength and popularity of French government in the eighteenth century.

  2. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    In order to modernise, Nicholas II would have needed to give people unity and freedom to replace the middle class and industrialise, and to do this, he had to give the people power. However, his role as an autocrat, and his indifference to the world around him, meant he was

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

    The Tsar could not work with the people in the 1st or 2nd Duma because there were too many people who opposed him with hostile demands, with the Duma mostly dominated by the Left who didn't want to work with the Tsar.

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

    Revisionists' critics may argue that Nicholas II himself was not directly involved in ordering the police to open fire and thus not to blame; however it was the culture of suppression resulting from his reactionary policies that created the atmosphere of tension and consequent use of violence by his authorities highlighting his responsibility, and explaining the contempt held for him.

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    Alexander II began to crack down on the revolutionaries with violent force resulting in further discontent. This culminated with his assassination by the Narodnaya Volya (People's Will) movement in 1881 and the ascension of Alexander III to the throne. Having seen what happened to his father when he tried to

  2. Russian failure during the Russo-Japanese war was the principal catalyst for Revolution in Russia ...

    Long term political factors could also be said to have fuelled the 1905 Revolution, and in my opinion were more significant in having been a catalyst for Revolution than the Russo-Japanese war. To begin, many had been dissatisfied with the political condition in Russia for many years.

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