Russia was not united in her attempt to change the government, the peasants, workers liberals, soldiers, students… did not work together to co-ordinate their agitation on the Tsar. The groups all had different motives and aims; the workers and soldiers wanted better working conditions while the peasants were only focused on gaining more land, had no comprehension of the world of politics and thus did not care about the running of the country. In contrast the educated liberal bourgeois understood that the current system was failing Russia. They could see how Russia lagged behind the rest of the world politically, economically and technologically; it was the liberals who made the monarchy feel uneasy.
In Source 2, Trotsky says that ‘the liberals backed away from the revolution exactly at the moment when it became clear that to shake tsarism would not be enough, it must be overthrown.’ Had the liberals remained consistent in their demand for change and united together with the workers then perhaps they would have succeeded in snatching the throne from the Tsar. The events of October 1905 add strength to this theory, it shows when they work together the tsarist regime can be shaken. In October a wave of strikes swept across Russia, the railway workers went on strike bringing Russia to a stand still, the liberals and workers unions proclaimed their full support and for once were united in their fight for change. This caught the attention of the government, it made them panic and eight days after the railway workers went on strike the Tsar signed the October Manifesto.
There were other reasons that the Tsar survived 1905 other than the deficiency of co-ordination among his opponents, one such reason is the October Manifesto. Witte realised that the liberals were a potential danger to the tsarist regime, so he proposed the October Manifesto as a way of ‘buying them off.’ If they were satisfied then the Tsar could easily control the peasants and workers. Source 1 states the points of the Manifesto, including; ‘fundamental civil freedoms will be granted’, ‘participation in the Duma will be granted’, and ‘no law can come into pass without its approval by the State Duma’. This was met with great joy from the people of Russia, workers went back to work and the liberals and middle class were placated. Despite this outward display towards democracy Nicolas III had little intention of letting Russia head towards a democratic system. Key quotes in the Manifesto show that the Tsar still intends to place limitations on it;
‘Participation in the Duma will be granted to those classes of the population which are at present deprived of voting powers’
The phrasing of this quote is very vague, it does not state specifically who will be allowed to participate, but instead leaves it more open to debate. Later the Manifesto states ‘We call on all true sons of Russia’ this immediately shows that despite Nicolas’s new ‘democratic’ ways he will still inforce racial restrictions.
Indeed six months later the Tsar issued The Fundamental Laws, although they did comply with the October Manifesto they emphasised strongly the extreme autocracy of the Tsar, toning down the power of the Duma and giving the Tsar control over all.
Nicolas III’s advisors helped protect his regime from 1905; they realised what needed to be done and how to save the monarchy. Witte’s timely intervention with the October Manifesto was a stroke of genius and some would say it saved the monarchy from collapse. It helped separate the workers and the liberals by giving the liberals hope for political change. Similar tactics were used to calm the peasants and armed forces; mortgage relief and promise of better conditions helped to buy time for the Tsar, by separating out the opposition he could effectively crush them with force.
Another key way the Tsar managed to maintain control over was through force and repression, although there were some mutinies in the navy they were isolated events that never coincided with land unrest. The vast majority of the army remained loyal to the Tsar thus meaning he had a significant advantage over his opponents.
The uprising in Moscow, December 1905, was easily crushed by the regime’s army, the poorly equipped workers were no match for the weaponry and organisation of Russia’s finest. In all more than 500 workers were killed.
Stolypin, who took over after Witte’s resignation stated ‘the Revolution must be suppressed’ he then went on to agree to the establishment of Field Courts-Martial, meaning that it was not necessary to investigate military tribunals, between 1905 and 1907 1144 people were executed by these courts. Stolypin also encouraged searches, arrests, silence of the press and the murder of Kadets. Thousands were killed or banished from Russia, such was his ruthlessness that’s the gallow’s noose became known as the ‘Stolypin neck tie’. His methods worked and by 1906 there was less outright speaking against the government, yet this didn’t mean people were happy with tsarism.
Some would say that at the time of the revolution there was no plausible replacement for the tsarist regime. It was a system that had worked for 300 years and for a country the size of Russia a proper replacement would have to be carefully devised in order for a take over to effectively work. The people behind the strikes and uprisings had no plans for taking over government; they were interested in themselves and improving their conditions, not politics. Even the liberals who understood the system and its problems more than most did not have a plan to take over the government. The major revolutionists, such as Lenin, who may have actually been able to take over the Tsar were not in Russia in 1905. They played no part in orchestrating the revolution so as Source 3 says ‘revolution occurred in spite, rather than because of them’ and the Tsar was saved from having to control them too.
Had Nicolas’s opponents united together and co-ordinated their agitation on the regime then Nicolas III would not have survived the 1905 revolution. He would not have been able to control organised, timed uprisings across Russia and indubitably the regime would have fallen. However, lack of organisation on their part was not the only factor that allowed him to remain in control. His advisors were crucial to his survival, Witte presented him with the October Manifesto – another key part in saving his regime. Without the October Manifesto the liberals may have organised the resistance against the Tsar and found a way of removing him from his throne. Stolypin’s policy of repression was also vital, it frightened many people out of protesting and the loyalty of the army ensured the Tsar remained in control. Finally the determination of the government to survive helped it to remain in charge, had the government been weak it would have likely collapsed in the first wave of strikes. The lack of co-ordination of the workers, peasants, liberals etc. did primarily save the Tsar, but these other factors contributed.
