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

Why did the Tsar survive the revolution of 1905, but not that of 1917?

Extracts from this document...


Why did the Tsar survive the revolution of 1905, but not that of 1917? Clear similarities contrasted with crucial differences between the 1905 and 1917 revolutions evidently illustrate the reason as to how and why the Russian monarchy failed after 1917. There were several key factors which helped demonstrate the relationship and difference between the two revolutions. These were the Russo-Japanese war (1904-1905) compared with the disastrous First World War (1914); The Bloody Sunday strike (1905) and the Putilov (1917)- along with several riots and demonstrations; forms of government such as the Soviets and Committees and finally; lacked leadership or to that fact, the up rise of leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky. So regarding the fact that the 1905 and 1917 revolutions were so similar- both years being involved in a war and both having great civil hostility, how come one fizzled while the other erupted disastrously? In 1900 Russia was going through many structural problems which anticipated the letdown of the Tsar's Empire i.e. - revolution. Peasants living in poverty made up the majority of the populations, and had very poor living conditions. Industrial workers suffered low pay, long working hours and poor factory conditions. Nicholas was an incompetent autocrat which was disapproved by the vast majority of Russia's population; most of all, Russia was a very backward country, lacking good roads, railways and economical boost due to uneducated people. ...read more.


He also controlled the movement f revolutionaries by issuing internal passports to citizens who travelled around within Russia. Stolypin completely banned articles issued in newspapers which criticized the Tsar and his government. These acts of repression had some advantages and disadvantages. They reduced the amount of assassinations of government official, and decreased the population of revolutionaries (they began to leave Russia). However, this also made the Tsar more unpopular and large groups such as the Bolsheviks were revived and became more organised in the sense that they began to use more effective anti-Tsarist propaganda. Despite his harshness, Stolypin did give the peasants what they wanted, and that was land. He created Kulaks, which were a large number of mediocre land-owning peasants who supported the Tsar. He allowed them to buy land from village communes, leant money to increase the size of their farms and encouraged Nicholas to offer some of his land in Siberia, where peasants could move and set up their own farms. The only success was that these reforms made many kulaks, which occupied a larger percentage of the peasant population. Other than this, the reforms were very poorly handled with for the workers in the cities, and none of the peasants got what they were promised. This led to his assassination in 1911. Nicholas was now in trouble. The conditions for another revolution began to accumulate once again, even before the First World War, which merely accelerated the revolution. ...read more.


Thus, on March 14th, Tsar Nicholas was forced to resign and formally abdicated the thrown. Hence, it is established that the reasons why Tsarist rule ended in Russia in 1917 were: � The influence of Rasputin � The collapse of the Army � Strikes and Food Shortages It is therefore concluded that the 1917 revolutions were inevitable considering Nicholas' deliberate violation of the 1905 promises and the failure of land reforms, industrial unrest, government repression and the revival of revolutionary parties. It was inevitable that the government was just unfit to deal with the crisis- whether it was through force or concessions.1905 bringing itself to the end of a humiliating war, while the 1917 revolution finding itself in the middle of a catastrophic war; 1905 had a military prepared to fight and support the Tsar, whereas the 1917 had no will power to defend the Tsar or itself. World War one, was by far, the worse economical impact Russia had to go through and thus abolishing the Tsar's useless and inept control over Russia. 1 Quoted from the petition presented by the people led by Priest Father Gapon. 2 Quoted in The Revolution of 1905, A. Ascher 3 p.g 301- notes from "Mastering Modern World History" 4 quote from an essay found on www.courseworkbank.com 5 quoted in Nicholas II, Dominic Lieven 6 p.g 64 "Russia in Revolution Reina Hashash IB1-2 ...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. What were the causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917?

    Nevertheless, the people had had enough of the royal family and anyway, Michael did not want to be the Tsar in the first place.

  2. The Factors which Lead to the Abdication of Tsar Nicholas in March 1917

    There were also major problems with the army at this time. Soldiers' morale was very low, mainly because most of them were only there through conscription. They also had a dreadfully low life expectancy due to the huge number of fatalities in the war.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    There is a difference between being well educated and being intelligent. One can be intelligent but not well educated, like Tsar Nicholas II. These two sources agree that Tsar Nicholas II was not stupid. Sources C and D disagree about whether the Tsar cared about his duties to Russia or not.

  2. How and why did the tsar nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?

    He was preventing the country from developing unlike other countries, and put them under serious threat. Indeed, if it wasn't for certain individuals, nothing would have changed at all. Sergie Witte Minister of Finance played a particularly important role in putting a stop to Russia's backwardness; along with Stoylpin.

  1. Stalin Man or Monster

    one of the greatest leader in Russia's history and therefore focused less on showing the public that he can be as good as Lenin was, but showing the public that Trotsky cannot. He informed Trotsky of the wrong date to Lenin's funeral and therefore Trotsky never showed which made him look bad.

  2. How secure was Nicholas II as Tsar in 1914? Nicholas II was Tsar for ...

    He was therefore able to pass many land reforms, which in turn help Nicholas' popularity. Therefore the Dumas helped Nicholas in the short term. However the Dumas also cause long-term problems with the Tsar that deeply affected his security. His continuous dissolving of the Dumas angered members and made people

  1. How did the tsar survive the 1905 revolution?

    the abolishment of certain laws and a change in many issues revolving around the Tsar. On October 22 1905 the movement culminated in a march of thousands of industrial workers, men, women and children led by a priest and a union leader in the name of Father Gapon.

  2. The Russian Revolution 1917

    In addition, the opposition parties also had their chances to exploit many of these circumstances, and never took that chance like the Bolsheviks did. Without these 3 factors, the abundance of luck would have meant nothing. Some people believe that it was in fact the intelligence and good decision-making of

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