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

Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917?

Extracts from this document...


Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917? By Lisa Atkinson The Tsar (Nicholas II) survived the 1905 revolution. However, the revolution in 1917 did remove him from power. When asking why Nicholas II survived 1905 there are numerous factors to examine. Both revolutions had extremely similar conditions. Levels of dissatisfaction, strikes and the country moving towards a wartime economy are all examples. It is also important to see small differences which gave the two events such contrasting outcomes and determined the survival and the fall of the Tsar. In February 1904 war broke out between Russia and Japan over a town called Manchuria situated in Northern China. After suffering a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, Russia expected severe peace terms. However, due to the negotiations presided over by President Roosevelt the terms were quite lenient. This allowed Nicholas to save face, pride and secure his position. In 1905, despite the appalling conditions that the workers in the agricultural and industrial sectors were suffering, there was still support and good will towards the Tsar. It is suggested that the people did not blame the Tsar, but his advisers for the state of the country. On the 22nd January 1905 peaceful demonstrations began, co-ordinated by the Union of Liberation, these demonstrations were an attempt to make the Tsar transform the Russian government. ...read more.


Russia attacked Austria-Hungary and even advanced a few miles. But the morale of the soldiers was down, for the first time there were mass desertions as they continued to mutiny. The Tsar was clearly not in control of the situation. When Nicholas II left to go to the warfront to support his generals, he left the Tsarina behind and people did not feel it as a good sign. Earlier the Tsar's cousin The Grand Duke Nicholas was in charge but now it was the Tsar himself. Any defeats under the Tsar would be identified with him and not the army. Nicholas' attitude in 1917 was very different. Perhaps wary of completely losing the power, which he still clung to, he refused to bow to any pressure this time. Also in February 1917, he was not in Petrograd but at the front, hundreds of miles south. Two quotes sum up his bewildering lack of concern at this time best. When authorities in Petrograd contacted Nicholas for help and guidance, he replied by telegram "I order that the disorders in the capital be stopped tomorrow. That is all." And when Rodzianko, President of the Duma, telegraphed him suggesting a compromise would have to be reached, Nicholas simply commented that he had received "some more rubbish from Rodzianko". There would be no compromise from Nicholas, and thus no compromise from the people. ...read more.


But the generations of untold millions of suffering serfs, peasants, workers and soldiers would not have agreed with him. In conclusion, the Tsarist regime was able to survived the 1905 revolution for a number of reasons, but the most prominent was the divided opposition, this allowed the army to crush the pockets of resistance. The lack of leadership played a considerable role in assisting the Tsarist regime, as the majority of the people were unorganised and divided. The groups' ideas had no real way of "converting" the people to their political beliefs. But above all, it was the power and authority that the Tsar had over his military and the sheer size of it actuality sums up the real reason of the survival of the Tsar in the 1905 revolution. However, he didn't manage to keep the good will of his supporters through the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The 1917 revolution was successful because the Tsar did not have the full backing of his army which meant that he was vulnerable. This happened because he had taken personal command of the army, so he was blamed for everything that went wrong in World War 1. This revolution actually had a established opposition in the shape of Stalin's communist party this meant no peaceful protest like in 1905, the protests were riots and with no backing from his army, who walked out on 12th March, the Tsar was helpless. The last reason it was successful was this revolution had and motivator and leader that man was Lenin. ...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. How and why did the tsar nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?

    innocent people, led perhaps more understanding citizens of the Tsar to turn against him. One key man to be mentioned is Peter Stolypin. His aim was to persuade peasants to become allies of the Tsar. He began his efforts in improving Russia's poor agricultural development.

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

    He also improved the communications of the country through developing the Trans-Siberian railway and he successfully persuaded France to give Russia a loan. This limited the power that the Dumas had over Nicholas making him much more secure at that time. However in many respects Witte's reforms hindered Nicholas' security.

  1. Explain how far Nicholas II was to blame for March 1917 revolution.

    As a result of this more peasants would support the Tsar. Unfortunately, he didn't have enough time to enforce this idea as he was assassinated by a revolutionary in the "Kiev Opera House", on September 14th 1911. This was very unfortunate as Stolypin was a bright man and new what was good for the Tsar.

  2. How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution?

    Nicholas can be personally blamed for all of the above which puts doubt into how he managed to survive the year 1905. It is a common thought that Nicholas was seen as an incompetent and ignorant ruler. "His character is the source of all our misfortunes.

  1. Tsar Nicholas II

    This was very unfair on the peasants but since the tsar could not help everybody since they all wanted different things the leadership failed and it wasn't the size that affected this matter. Since there were many different qualities of life of the people in Russia, not everybody had the

  2. How important was social suffering in causing the Revolution of 1905?

    By His actions Alexander III imposed social suffering on the people of Russia. In 1889 he abolished the Zemstvas. The peasants were alienated due to the redemption payments which were increasing along with taxes and prices.

  1. Why did Nicholas II survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917?

    That the Tsar, at the urging of his ministers, eventually made concessions to the people in 1905 was a large factor in his survival of the revolution. In the October Manifesto, the Tsar had promised the people a great deal of what they believed would make their lives better.

  2. How Significant Was Leon Trotsky's Role In the October/November Russian Revolution In 1917

    Analysis The events that lead to the overthrow of the Provisional Government were not spontaneous but carefully plotted and staged by a tightly organized conspiracy. The capture of the government was the archetypal model of revolution, carried out, with a show of mass participation, but hardly any mass involvement.13

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