However, it could be argued that a reason for the revolution was due to Nicholas II himself rather than the system he inherited. Nicholas had to manage Russia through a time of major social and economic change but many have suggested that this was a role he simply could not handle and he did not want to take on, but unfortunately for him, it was his job to bring Russia into the twentieth century. Nicholas was said ‘I never wanted to become one I know nothing of the business of ruling’. There was no doubt that Nicolas was not academically intelligent; he could speak 3 languages, an extremely quick learner, hardworking and extensively polite. However being an intellectual was clearly not the only characteristic he needed to possess to run a vast country with a population of 160 million. Nicholas did not appear strong and powerful mentally, like his predecessors; he was intolerant of anyone outside his office and had an inability to make decisions. He had no interest in politics and found daily work of monarch dull. To make matter worse he was an anti-sematic man in a country with millions Jews and insisted the state put restriction with their religion, education and culture. He also followed his father policy of Russiafication. At this time Russia was made up of a large amount national minority. This policy out emphasis on all things Russian, it became the first official language. This coursed dissatisfaction an extensive portion of the Russian people. Therefore it could be questioned that if he were strong personality wise and made better decision the revolution could have been avoided.
Other may contradict this and argue the repressive of the tsar instigated the revolution, as some may already know Nicholas often agreed with some of his represented to avoid any form of confrontation. A repressive and major influence of toward Nicholas was Pobedonostsev, Originally his childhood tutor and later the chief minister in the Russian government. Pobedonostsev was as the ‘the grand inquisitor’ because of his repressive attitude and an arch-conservative who had a deep distaste for all form of liberalism and democracy. He believed that autocracy was the only possible government for imperial Russia. As Pobedonostsev was such a big influence on Nicholas and behind many notions, one could argue that his impact prolonged social and political development in Russia leading to the revolution in 1905. Similarly Sergei Witte, minister of finance and chief minister had a very large imprint on Nicholas and Russia. Unlike Pobedonostsev Witte wanted change and tried to economically reform Russia. Witte invited foreign expert in to Russia to advice on industrial planning. Later he got substantial loans and investment from abroad and pumped the funds in to modernising Russia economy. One of his many achievements was the Trans-Siberian railways, this encouraged migration of worker, boosted exports and foreign trade. Despite this Wittes projects came at price. To pay for his modernisation, Witte did you things which made him unpopular with the peasants. He first heavily taxed the peasants, and because Russia could no longer afford to keep many workers unemployment rose significantly. He also depended too much on foreign loan which was only going to hurt the next generation. Wittes reforms led to many strikes and additional hatred toward the tsarist system. Therefore Wittes successes cause drawbacks for those who were most venerable leading to strike and protest and a on going downhill spiral, the redemption payments and taxes only deteriorated with the bad harvest in 1900 crippling the peasants and causing mass starvation thus giving them a reason to revolt.
In addition, too Russia’s already burgeoning problems, the foreign policy the Nicholas II inherited was flawed because of the size of the Russian empire. In 1904 Russia clashed with it far eastern neighbour, Japan. Russia declared war on Japan with 3 motives; the first to expand Russia, a second to acquire a ice-free port and finally to distract from the current domestic problems growing in Russia. The last point was supposedly pushed by Plehve, the internal minister he stated ‘we need a small victorious was to avert revolution’. Russians looked upon Japan as inferior nation and no match for themselves but unfortunately they were extraordinarily wrong. Russia greatly underestimated the strengths of Japan, the Japanese army were far better prepared. Russian lost Manchuria, Korea and Port Author to Japan. Unlike what Plehve had hoped the war had only underlined the inability of the foreign commanders and the lack of preparation. Russia were national humiliated by the supposedly inferior Japan. The incompetence of the government triggered social unrest which it had been designed to dampen. This was a vital feature in the build-up of tension that led to the revolution.
For many years prior to these events opposition was growing within Russia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. There were 2 main opposition groups in Nicholas II reign: Reformers (liberals) and revolutionaries within these opposition there sub-division. The liberal had been the major opposition group up till and after the 1905 revolution and was made up of the Kadets, octobrists and progressive bloc. They had been active in the zemstva and were mainly made up of the middle class. The Constitutional Democrats (Kadets) were the leading liberal party and they wanted Russia to develop a constitutional monarchy in which power of the tsar would be restricted by a democracy elected constitutional assembly. The kadets claimed this would settle the national outstanding social, political and economical problems. The kadets were the party of the liberal intelligentsia and contained land owners and the smaller industrial entrepreneurs. To contrast this, The Social Democrats had an entirely different aim. Their hope was to achieve revolution in Russia by following Karl Marx; he believed that that history was a continuous class struggle. This political group had a great appeal as it attracted the peasants which made up most of the country. These opposition group led to a revolution as there became an underlined hostility to the tsarist system, they had support and were willing to do something about it. Peasants grievances played a major role in the build up to particular opposition groups as they were the people socially and economically effected by the tsars ruling.
Another cause of grievances to the peasants, a substantial amount of the Russian population was made up of peasants. Despite this they had little rights. Under Alexander II reforms occurred such as the emancipation of the serfs but this came at a price. Although they were ‘free’ they still had to pay large mortgage which would take 50 years to pay of thus some were still paying when Nicholas I was in power. This helped escalate the poverty rate among the peasants. To intensify the problems as the population grew, less fertile land was available and in 1900 a bad harvest occurred, catastrophically directly affecting the peasants. Although this was not directly Nicholas fault, his inability to help raised frustration. The situation was worsened in 1902 when the country was hit with another economic problem, a worldwide economical slump approached; this meant that Russia was unable to sell its products and partake in efficient trade. So, the 1905 Revolution was caused by the grievances of the peasants because they were annoyed by the inabilities of their government, which led to dissatisfaction.
Bloody Sunday was the trigger cause for the 1905 revolution. On the 22nd January Father Gapon, an orthodox priest, attempted to lead a peaceful march of workers and their families to Winter Palace in St Petersburg. The intension of the march were simply present a petition to Nicholas in hope he would use his royal authority to relieve peasants of their desperate conditions. However the march did not go as pleased and instead the march instigated panic in to the police forces in the capital. The marches were fired on and charged by cavalry. Opponents of the tsar claim that the massacre was deliberate despite Nicolas II supposed absent. This instant gravely damaged the tsar image of a ‘little father’ of Russia. The hundreds dead immediately instigated a wide spread reaction; strikes occurred in major towns and cities and Terrorism against government official and landowner arose. Essentially this protest was sparked off by the grievances of the peasants as they were the group of marcher who originally went to St Petersburg.
In conclusion, Russia in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century was extremely unjust for those who were peasant or of a national minority. The lack of political reform angered most of society and Peasants lived in great grievances due poor working and living condition. This was the most important factor which led to the reform. However In hindsight the autocratic system was out of date and Nicholas incompetence to make changes and other factors added to the anger of the peasants.
by
keirarmsby (student)
