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

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

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II able to restore his authority from 1905-1914? The 1905 revolution came close to toppling Tsar Nicholas II and his autocratic regime; widespread strikes and uprisings catalysed by the events of Bloody Sunday, caused chaos. However, by 1914 autocracy was still ruling and appeared popular, given the extensive support the Tsar had for going to war in 1914. Whilst it is true that Nicholas did manage to restore his authority through economic, political and social improvements during this period, it was only partial and the underlying causes of the 1905 revolution had not been resolved. Opposition groups such as the Social Democrats and the Mensheviks had been driven underground, but remained. Russia was still severely undeveloped in comparison to western European countries and living conditions across Russia were poor, with widespread discontent amongst the working class and peasantry consequently remaining. During 1905-1914 Tsar Nicholas was able to restore political authority and stability, through a mixture of timely concessions and repression. In 1905, Nicholas reluctantly signed the October Manifesto, which promised, among other things to guarantee civil freedoms and to create a national assembly that would have the power to pass or reject laws, the Duma. ...read more.


Although the Tsar was able to restore some aspects of political authority via repression, it can be argued that Nicholas did not tackle the underlying problems and so only prevented an inevitable political crisis. Economically Russia continued to boom throughout the years leading up to the First World War. Coal production increased from 8million tonnes in 1890 to 90million tonnes in 1913. Coal along with other industries such as iron and agriculture grew rapidly. It can be argued that the modernisation of Russia and the rapid expansion of cities and urban areas, acted as a catalyst for the growth of opposition and revolutionary ideals due the increased density in population and poor working and conditions in cities, hostility to the Tsar grew. However, despite this growth, Russia was unable to go through substantial economic change; growth was from a low base and industrialisation was difficult due to the economy being largely state owned. This is partially Nicholas? fault due to his inability to politically modernise Russia, in such a way demonstrated by western European countries. ...read more.


Although social conditions in across Russia showed some signs of improvement, the reforms only scratched the rhino?s back; there was still widespread discontent and strikes. This attitude is shown in the Lena Goldfields Massacre 1912, where over 2,500 miners went on strike due to low wages and poor working conditions, troops opened fire killing over 150 miners. News of the massacre provoked nationwide strikes and protest meetings totalling more than 300,000 participants, with 700 political strikes during the month of April, and 1,000 strikes on 1 May in the St. Petersburg area alone. Stolypin sought to create a strong conservative peasantry who would support the current regime, therefore returning authority to the Tsar. This was called Stolypin?s ?wager on the strong?. He made it possible for ex-serfs to buy themselves out of the peasant commune and for small strips to be consolidated into capitalist farms, aided by loans from the Peasant Land Bank. About two million households (about one-eighth of the total) took advantage of these arrangements before 1916, many moving into the less populated Siberia and Central Asia. In the towns and cities, government reforms were improving working conditions and education, however they were only scratching the surface of the problems facing the working class. ...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 ...

    Witte voiced his concerns to Tsar Nicholas II that Russia was on the verge of a disastrous revolution which would 'sweep away a thousand years of history', and so offered the ultimatum of 'reform or bloodshed'. Witte told Nicholas II that 'repression could only be a temporary solution', however the

  2. Why was the Tsar able to survive Revolution in 1905 with his powers intact?

    This shows that the two classes were not really united and could be easily broken, which would happen with the concessions stated in the October Manifesto. This also shows that the Liberals were eager to accept any concession, creating doubts as to how much change the Liberals really wanted.

  1. To What Extent Was the Government of Nicholas I Nothing More Than A Repressive ...

    clearly struck down the entire Polish nation for demanding its own identity. The principles that Nicholas I governed by were those of "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality" principles that were coined by his Minister of Education, Count Uvarov. It was these principles that set the tone of Nicholas' regime, and reinforced the feeling of repression under the Tsar in Russia.

  2. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    The government wanted industrial growth, peace in the nation thus strengthening the country and army however they faced opposition from radical political groups such as the SR and the Marxists and more moderate political groups such as the liberals, this opposition was known as russification.

  1. "Kaiser Wilhelm II used to the full his authority as Kaiser of the German ...

    This was mainly due to his failure to gain a natural majority in the Reichstag, resulting in the 1895 Subversion Bill being rejected. However, he was willing to remain a figurehead Chancellor, whilst Wilhelm appointed other ministers to work towards his goal.

  2. How well equipped was Tsar Nicholas II to deal with the problems that faced ...

    The socialist revolutionaries were the party with the most potential support since their support base was the peasants. They wanted the removal of the Tsar and for it to be replaced by 'peasant socialism'. This was the idea that peasants would own the land and work it collectively.

  1. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    The previous assassination of Alexander II made the Tsarist regime appear vulnerable, resulting in new martyrs for a radical cause appear, ultimately resulting in political opposition throughout Tsar Nicholas II's reign. The impact of trying to modernise undoubtedly led to political unrest, in which a reactionary Tsar (Nicholas II)

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

    In the short term however, the daunting fact of the massive increase of the Russian population was cushioned slightly by agriculture because partially more efficient because of the peasants using new land, crops and methods which increase crop yields by 50%[24].

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