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

Was 1905 a Revolution?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Was 1905 a Revolution? "These days we call anything a revolution..."1 To decide whether or not any event is a revolution I must first set some parameters to define my personal idea of what a revolution is. I believe a revolution to be a radical change of anything, not just political. I believe this as from history labelling the Renaissance as a revolution, yet it lacked political change. In my opinion hindsight is very important to whether or not something is a revolution. I think you can only decide if something was revolutionary if you can see its consequences. I do not think revolutionary thought is essential to whether or not an event is a revolution. To discover whether or not 1905 was a revolution I will have to study what happened, what people wanted to happen and the outcome. Any revolution has to be precipitated by political, social or economic problems. All of these were present in 1905. General unrest had been felt throughout Russia for years socially, politically and economically. 1904 saw workers working eleven-hour days and the rise in prices of essential goods forced a twenty- percent drop in wages creating strong social unrest in the proletariat working classes. Consequently, men were laid off sparking Father Gapon, a priest who predominately preached in the workers areas of St. Petersburg, to march on the Winter Palace. This peaceful protest ended in bloody massacre when the Tsar did not prevent the guards from firing on the crowd. ...read more.

Middle

They did also achieve a Duma allowing more control to the people and significant to the people as it looked as if everything was slowly changing. It is debatable whether or not they achieved enough through the manifesto and Working Class activists through the Mensheviks believed the Tsar was hoodwinking the working class. Others believed it was definitely the way forward such as the liberal Octobrists, taking their name from the manifesto. The middle class and the students represented the intelligentsia of Russia. They generally wanted more political freedoms, to voice liberal ideas and the students wanted university autonomy. They struck out by the use of Zemtvos and achieved even more voice when the radical union of union's was formed and their liberal views could be heard in the public eye. The students achieved university autonomy in August 1905 and the universities became very important centres of revolutionary thought. Lenin believed the bourgeois liberals to have "political naivety"5 and incapable of revolution but I believe that the group probably harboured the most realist and democratic solution of a constituent assembly. Maybe if they had of had the leadership of someone such as Lenin, a powerful and driving force, they may of achieved a carefully planned political revolution through gradual reform. They wanted to be like the international middle classes, they were "increasingly assimilating the culture of the rest of the world"6; unrest at the fact industry was modernising at a rate that did not allow for the social evolution of the country to keep up. ...read more.

Conclusion

In conclusion I believe 1905 was not a revolution. There was definite revolutionary thought present, yet the revolutionary acts of strikes and protests were fragmented and without co-ordination between classes. A revolution had to consequent in something solid and this was definitely not true in Russia where the Tsar gave false power to a people who all took the bait, but for the Menshevik Social Democrats, and fell into the Tsars trap until 1917. I will concede that in hindsight we can see 1905 was important in what has been called part of a 'perpetual revolution' and I believe that Lenin was right when he said 1905 was "the great dress rehearsal"8. 1905 allowed the revolutionary groups such as the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks to learn what to do in 1917 and what to avoid, people could gain experience from their parts played in 1905.1905 was just a preliminary for the real thing. In the future there had to be less fragmentation through the classes, as the liberal bourgeoisie were the key class that seemed to shy away from revolution and aiding the working class with their higher education. A throne would topple a with a lot more ease when pushed from one point rather than everyone pushing from different directions as people would counteract each other; this was what happened in 1905. 1 A PEOPLE'S TRADGEDY - Orlando Figes 2 LATE IMPERIAL RUSSIA 1890-1917 - John F. Hutchinson 3 LATE IMPERIAL RUSSIA 1890-1917 - John F. Hutchinson 4 THE PEASENT RIOTS essay - Leon Trotsky 5 REACTION AND REVOLUTIONS: RUSSIA 1881- 1924 - Michael Lynch 6 OPEN ADDRESS TO THE TSAR - Leo Tolstoy 7 Peter Struve, Marxist 8 QUOTE - Lenin Dave Bawden ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Stalin Man or Monster

    The simple fact that he is responsible for the death of millions can only show him as nothing but a monster. Q8 There is often a disagreement about Stalin and if he was really a man or a monster. Some people believe him to be a great politician, whilst others think he used terror to overshadow his bad political skills.

  2. Stalin man or monster

    He also attacked the crimes committed by Stalin's closest associates. One may ask that why did Khrushchev make these speeches? There is a strong possibility that Khrushchev did it for propaganda, to try and prove that he is better then Stalin and to establish to the Russians that he had

  1. To what extent was the storming of the Bastille the most significant event of ...

    the people, and also more significantly on what it meant to the peasant population and thus the French masses. The significance is rooted in the seemingly far-reaching results; specifically it reflected the King's loss of control over Paris, where a Commune to run the city was set up by electors and placed Lafayette as commander of the National Guard.

  2. Assess the idea that is the ideologies, which emerge from the French revolution, rather ...

    One of the new rules declared, the law no longer recognises religious vows or any other engagement contrary to natural rights and the constitution. "By 1793 they were so comprehensive that an outrage priest coined a new word to describe them: vandalism, evoking the anti-Christian depredations of ancient barbarians".(2001 Doyle).

  1. Find out the real cause of the French Revolution

    Ascending the throne at age twenty, Louis XVI was not prepared and was poorly educated. Being weak and quiet, his greatest fault was thinking that all advices given to him were good and he was always ready to follow them.

  2. Tsar's Russia & revolution, Hitler's rise to power revison notes.

    * The allies retreated and there was no hope for the whites. * Communists controlled main cities and communications (and railways) * Strict Laws of War Communism helped obtain supplies * Trotsky was a good leader. Tsar and his family were killed - important symbol for whites.

  1. Purges and Hysteria in the Soviet Union

    And Stalin responded with anger. In Party Congress elections, Kirov received more votes than did Stalin. Stalin lost his title as Secretary General and retained the title of Secretary. The friendship between Stalin and Kirov continued, at least in appearance, while the extent of any increase in Stalin seeing Kirov as a rival remains unknown.

  2. Running head: IMPERIAL MANIFESTO ON POLAND

    He was the younger brother of Alexandar I and after Alexandar's death he succeeded the throne and became the next Tsar of Russia. Unlike his brother, he did not want to rule with an intellectual and spiritual mind. As noted, "he saw his role simply as one paternal autocrat ruling his people by whatever means were necessary."

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