The 1905 Revolution was quintessentially an economic revolution; the people were demanding better working conditions from a Tsar who they believed was unaware of their real plight. The people who marched on Bloody Sunday, led by Father Gapon did not want a wholesale change to the leadership; they merely wanted the autocracy to act to appease the pain of their people. It was that fateful day however, which saw the start of a slippery slope for the Romanov Dynasty, the Tsar had turned from the “Little Father” of Russia to “Bloody Nicholas”. This event was the trigger for the 1905 Revolution and can be interpreted as the trigger for the fall of the Tsardom.
The 1905 Revolution gave birth to many of the ideas of the February 1917 revolution, for the first time the people had genuinely challenged the autocracy and had gained reforms, it seemed that the autocracy was weak and open to manipulation. The 1905 Revolution can be pointed to as the event, which created many of the institutions that frustrated the people and led to the February Revolution of 1917. The major cause for frustration was the Duma, which had originally promised so much but was in the end just a rubber stamp for the Tsar. The people had revolted in 1905 for economic reasons but with the emergence of more radical socialists and more freedom of the press the people were able to make the real link between political incompetence and the economic hardships they faced. The 1905 Revolution provided the basis for change; the Tsar could have taken the opportunity to grant the people a representative assembly, it was however in his nature to preserve the autocracy, the change occurred in the people, they no longer wanted to live under a man described as ‘not fit to run a village post office’, the people forced the agenda and forced the revolution.
The February 1917 Revolution did not happen because of a single event like the 1905 Revolution, the cumulative effect of years of neglect of its people, decades of poor economic policy and a willing to enter into conflicts in which it had no real interest brought about the destruction of the Tsardom. The autocracy had, for a time, been committed to a policy of social reform; Alexander II was named the ‘Tsar Liberator’ for emancipating the serfs, however, despite this he was not swayed into sharing power and was assassinated by terrorists in 1981. Nicholas II was the grandson of the great reformer and was definitely not going to make the same mistake of giving into pressure from proletariat. Nicholas II ruled over a time in which he enacted a policy of Repression with small reform. Nicholas II inherited a string of economic problems from the emancipation of the serfs and the ‘great spurt’, Nicholas and his ministers did little to relieve the pressure on the agrarian land ownership problem and the overcrowding and poor conditions in the cities. The February 1917 revolution grew mass support from the urban proletariat because they had been particularly hard hit by the policies of the autocracy, it was this mass element of society, which had grown since 1905 and with it grew the lust for change. The war was a particularly major factor in the emergence of the revolution and its leaders, obviously socialists were dead against the war but at first a wave of nationalism swept the country as the first months went well for Russia. However, as the war dragged on the people of St. Petersburg, in particular, felt the full affects of food shortages, the victories dried up as well as the Russian army had equipment shortages and desertion was rife. The systematic neglect of its peoples and the apparent inability to take the countries needs into account ensured that the Revolution was close at hand.
The February 1917 Revolution gave a platform for the Russian people to have a government in which their views were respected. The 1905 revolution obviously was a factor in the inaction of a revolution in February 1917 but the inevitability of the event can really be seen at the continuation of a Total War, which drained the Russian people and their tolerance for a government, which showed no respect for its peoples.
