• 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 saved by making concessions in the 1905 revolution?

Extracts from this document...


To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 revolution? The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions. 'With the Russian Empire teetering on the brink of collapse, the Tsarist regime responded to the crisis with its usual incompetence and obstinacy' - Orlando Figes. Nicholas II made promises of political reform, and once these concessions were given; the revolution was essentially doomed to failure -leaving the Tsarist regime shaken but not brought down. The 1905 Revolution was sparked by an event named 'Bloody Sunday'. Father Gapon had led a strike at the Putilov engineering works in St Petersburg, where the people marched to the Winter palace to present a petition about wages and working conditions - the problems which had originated from Nicholas II's adoption of urbanisation. The peaceful demonstration was fired upon and 200 were killed, with another 800 injured. 'Father Gapon was to present a Humble and Loyal Address to the Tsar begging him to improve the conditions of the workers' - Orlando Figes. This shows how none of their demands were anti Tsarist - they did not ask for the removal of the Tsar, they asked for reform concerning basic rights. The firings were unexpected - 'The workers put their faith in the Tsar receiving them; they saw him as a man of God, and knew their cause was just'. ...read more.


This meant that the peasants ceased in their opposition as they lacked coherence and leadership, and were contented with the promise of an end to redemption payments. This created the opportunity for Tsar Nicholas to claw back his power by appealing to different parts of the party whilst planning to go back on his concessions. Within the opposition groups there was also a lack of unity. The various opposition groups, such as the peasants, the mutinies in the armed forces, and the nationalist independence movements, 'all followed their own separate rhythms and failed to combine politically' - Orlando Figes. This meant that it was easy for the Tsar to attack pockets of opposition which threatened the Tsarist regime. This can be compared to the success of the 1917 revolution, because in the later revolution, the Duma and the Soviet performed the role of coordination. The strikes which were organised by the opposition groups often had little impact because they were like impulsive outbursts of anger with no real direction or planning behind them. 'The workers' demands were often not even formulated until after the strike had begun'. This shows that people had no real sense of what they were fighting for and that oppositional ideas were not widespread throughout all the groups. Stolypin also attempted agrarian reform to buy off the working class and make them happier with their land, by creating a rich class of peasants named 'kulaks'. ...read more.


Not everybody wanted rid of the Tsar; for example, the middle class supported the Tsar and were not present at Bloody Sunday. Furthermore, the church and army still supported the Tsar, and there was no alternative person to succeed the Tsar. 1905 opened up many paths and possibilities, for example, a more democratic government through an elected Duma and political parties, and expansion of civil rights - alternatives to autocratic rule. 1905 was a genuine, but an uncompleted revolution. To conclude, the Tsar was strengthened by the revolution. The ego and power of the Tsarist regime had been dented by the embarrassing loss in the Russo-Japanese War. The revolution, and the Tsarist regime's success in preventing it, overshadowed the war, and broadcasted their strengths (namely the loyalty of their military despite rash of mutinies), which in turn helped to strengthen the Tsar's power and stabilize the regime. Despite the concessions the Tsar made in the form of the October Manifesto, it was the fact the revolution actually failed that saved Tsar Nicholas his crown. The revolution was largely uncoordinated and the protests were incoherent meaning they lacked clear purpose and powerful leadership - many of the protests were more short outbreaks of rage only sufficient to force small concessions, rather than the downfall of the Tsarist regime. It could be argued that the Tsar didn't save himself; he simply delayed his downfall and abdication in unknown anticipation of the 1917 revolution. ?? ?? ?? ?? Sasha Groves ...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. How did Tsar survive the 1905 revolution?

    One of the most significant reasons why Nicholas II survived the revolution being the lack of leadership, experience and unity of the protestors at the time the revolution took place, the liberals had backed out of the workers by leaving them to be crushed by government troops.

  2. To What Extent Were the Reforms of Alexander II Intended to Preserve and Strengthen ...

    was, and these reforms go to show that Alexander really did want to reform Russia and it's archaic social system. The military reforms also got morale up amongst the country and increased patriotism towards the Tsar and the state, this was furthered by Russian success against Turkey in the war of 1878.

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

    meant that protestors were unorganised with no clear sense of direction, showed that it seemed relatively easy for the Tsar to survive 1905. On top of this, mutinies that occurred in the armed services, like Prince Potemkin, did not spread and loyal troops returned to destroy the Soviets, enabling the Tsar to maintain his power.

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

    Thousands of pieces of paper were collected which was impossible to sort through and organise. To transform the Civil Service would have been a long, tedious and expensive process for the Tsar, which wouldn't have been helped by the fact that Russia's sheer size worked against him, since to organise

  1. Free essay

    What Were the Causes of the 1905 Revolution? Why did the Revolution Fail to ...

    He was ill-equipped and unprepared for such a position and found it extremely pressurised business obtaining his father's hard work in returning autocracy to its original, humble state. When Nicholas first took the throne, it appeared that Russia was in a state of tranquility and peace However, beneath the veneer

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

    continued to undermine the Tsars authority, shown in the assassinations of government ministers, such as Stolypin in 1911. Similarly, the Tsar remained politically incompetent and unfit to govern Russia effectively, show in his inability to deal with the Duma. Many saw that Nicholas had betrayed the people with the introduction

  1. Why did the 1905 revolution fail to overthrow the Tsarist regime?

    Government officials were assassinated by Social Revolutionaries but like as previously mentioned the Army with the help of the Okhrana intimidated the peasants into submission. Through this then, Nicholas dispersed another opposition group and this time a large one, the submission of the peasants was a major step in continuing

  2. Assess the View that Nicholas II survived the Revolution of 1905 mainly because of ...

    The Tsar now faced an empire with workers who wanted more rights, more money and less time at work. They weren?t unreasonable demands but with the lack of industrial growth and modern industry unlike Germany and Britain, beyond the means of the Russian state.

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