The Revolution of 1905, showed the first challenge to the autocratic leadership of the Tsar. Yet, it was not controlled or managed, and it had no single cause or aim, but the unfortunate result of a peaceful petition gone wrong. (Strikes occurred throughout the country involving about 400,000 people; peasants attacked the homes of their landlords; the Grand Duke Sergei, the tsar's uncle, was assassinated in February; the transport system all but ground to a halt.). Neither the military, nor the newly formed and radical political parties were behind it, in fact, the military remained loyal to the Tsar for the majority of the Revolution (in between short spurts of mutiny which amounted to nothing, despite dissatisfaction with the result of the Russo-Japanese war) and carried out the orders of Tsar, which consisted of the use of force.
Source A and B both show that military force was used before the Revolution and the Tsar had no problem in using it. An eyewitness in Source A claims that the military ‘rode right into the crowd, slashing their swords like madmen’ but claims it to be an unprovoked attack whereas Source B gives a similar sequence of events but where the troops ‘had to open fire’ agreeing over the fact that violence was used, but the motives behind each differ.
It is unsurprising therefore to hear in Source C that ‘what finally brought the troubles to an end was the use of force’ and we can now understand that Nicholas II would have had no problem with this. Perhaps the most significant and terrifying use of violence, excluding Bloody Sunday, was the use of troops to put down the St Petersburg Soviet and to crush those on strike in Moscow. Loyal troops were also sent into the countryside to restore law and order, which would have no doubt deterred them from their actions.
But, Nicholas II did try, at first to subdue the rioting with peaceful methods. He re-appointed Witte as Prime Minister who advised him to make concessions, which he did with the October Manifesto. This allowed freedom of speech, freedom of the press, political parties became legal and an elected assembly was established (the Duma) although this did not have the desired effects. The political parties became divided as most saw the manifesto as promising but the most radical parties wanted to see a complete collapse of autocracy, but, hardly anything changed as the Tsar still held the initiative on budget, foreign policy and any laws that the Duma passed he could reject without opposition. Therefore he still had ultimate control and opposition was divided with regard to the Tsar.
But, this split the opposition - the Liberals or were happy to accept this - leaving the more extreme opponents of the Tsar to fight on alone. Splitting the opposition helped the Tsar restore order and regain control of his country.
The tsar also brought in Stolypin, who, although he did not use force, he might as well have done. Thousands of people were executed at his request (any troublemakers)- the hangman's noose became known as Stolypin's Necktie - in an attempt to restore order throughout the country. Many people were shocked at how quickly events had occurred, and were frightened of what might happen if the Tsar was got rid of.
He redeemed himself by trying to create a wealthier working class, where the Peasant Land Bank was given more land. Peasants could leave the Mir or commune and work on their own, and Redemption Payments were cancelled. Government land in Siberia was given to peasants who moved there. This satisfied peasants for the moment and was a non-violent method of calming the riots.
Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that although an undesirable and terrifying alternative, the force used by Nicholas II and his troops, proved to be a more effective solution to the rioting than the October Manifesto and Stolypin’s repression. It actually resulted in the end of the Revolution. But this just leaves the question; to what extent did tsarism survive? The October Manifesto allowed the creation of an elected assembly, a small step towards democracy and reducing the influence of autocracy in Russia. Yet, although it seemed that autocracy was changing, in practice the Tsar’s position and influence did not change that much. The Duma was introduced to bring an element of democracy to the Russian Government by allowing decisions to be made by an elected body of representatives but in reality this was not as effective as the Tsar had the power to reject or pass any bills he wanted, therefore undermining the Duma and having ultimate control of bills passed.
