To what extents can the events of 1905 in Russia be considered a revolution.

Authors Avatar
To what extents can the events of 1905 in Russia be considered a Revolution

The Russo-Japanese War accelerated the rise of political movements among all classes and the major nationalities, including propertied Russians. By early 1904, Russian liberals active in zemstvos, assemblies of nobles, and the professions had formed an organization called the Union of Liberation. In the same year, they joined with Finns, Poles, Georgians, Armenians, and with Russian members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party to form an antiautocratic alliance. They later promoted the broad, professional Union of Unions. In early 1905, Father Georgii Gapon, a Russian Orthodox priest who headed a police-sponsored workers' association, led a huge, peaceful march in St. Petersburg to present a petition to the tsar. Nervous troops responded with gunfire, killing several hundred people, and thus the Revolution of 1905 began. Called "Bloody Sunday," this event, along with the failures incurred in the war with Japan, prompted opposition groups to instigate more strikes, agrarian disorders, army mutinies, and terrorist acts and to form a workers' council, or soviet, in St. Petersburg. Armed uprisings occurred in Moscow, the Urals, Latvia, and parts of Poland. Activists from the zemstvos and the Union of Unions formed the Constitutional Democratic Party, whose members were known as Kadets.

Some upper-class and propertied activists were fearful of these disorders and were willing to compromise. In late 1905, Nicholas, under pressure from Witte, issued the so-called October Manifesto, giving Russia a constitution and proclaiming basic civil liberties for all citizens. The constitution envisioned a ministerial government responsible to the tsar, not to the proposed national Duma--a state assembly to be elected on a broad, but not wholly equitable, franchise. Those who accepted this arrangement formed a center-right political party, the Octobrists. The Kadets held out for a ministerial government and equal, universal suffrage. Because of their political principles and continued armed uprisings, Russia's leftist parties were in a quandary over whether or not to participate in the Duma elections. At the same time, rightists, who had been perpetrating anti-Jewish pogroms, actively opposed the reforms. Several monarchist and protofascist groups wishing to subvert the new order also arose. Nevertheless, the regime continued to function, eventually restoring order in the cities, the countryside, and the army. In the process, several thousand officials were murdered by terrorists, and an equal number of terrorists were executed by the government. Because the government was successful in restoring order and in securing a loan from France before the Duma met, Nicholas was in a strong position and therefore able to dismiss Witte, who had been serving as Russia's chief minister.

The First Duma, which was elected in 1906, was dominated by the Kadets and their allies, with the mainly nonparty radical leftists slightly weaker than the Octobrists and the nonparty centerrightists combined. The Kadets and the government were deadlocked over the adoption of a constitution and peasant reform, leading to the dissolution of the Duma and the scheduling of new elections. In spite of an upsurge of leftist terror, radical leftist parties participated in the election and, together with the nonparty left, gained a plurality of seats, followed by a loose coalition of Kadets and of Poles and other nationalities in the political center. The impasse continued, however, when the Second Duma met in 1907.

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905

Introduction

Causes of 1905 Revolution

Course of 1905 Revolution

Results of 1905 Revolution

INTRODUCTION

Up to the end of the 19th century, Russia was an autocratic country. It was ruled by an autocratic Czar. He ruled as he liked. His will was the sole source of law, of taxation and justice. He controlled the army and all the officials. Through his special position on the Holy Synod, he controlled even religious affairs. His autocratic rule was supported by the privileged nobles, who possessed land and serfs, and held all the chief offices in the Czar's administration.

The mass of people were serfs. Serfs were 'slaves'. They worked on the estates of the nobles. They could be punished in any form by the nobles. They could even be sold as chattels by the nobles. Besides the serfs, there was a very small middle class in the towns. They were discontented with the backwardness of Russia.

The main theme of the Russian history in the 19th century is that the non-noble classes asked for an improvement in their wretched and poor conditions of life. When the Czarist government failed to do so, they revolted for the first time in 1905 and then for the second time in 1917, by which Czardom was finally overthrown.

CAUSES OF THE 1905 REVOLUTION

Reign of Alexander II

Reign of Alexander III

Reign of Nicholas II

Immediate cause of revolution

The causes of the 1905 Revolution went far back into Russian history. It was the product of more than a century of discontent and the discontent grew more rapidly after 1861.

A. THE REIGN OF CZAR ALEXANDER II ( 1855-1881 ) AND WIDESPREAD DISCONTENT AMONG THE RUSSIANS

Czar Alexander II began his reign in 1855 when Russia was defeated by Britain, France and Piedmont in the Crimean War. He thought that the chief reason for Russian defeat was her backward economic and social system -- most of the labour force were serfs who were ignorant and superstitious. In order to strengthen the dynasty, he decided to carry out a number of reforms to modernize the archaic institutions of Russia.

( 1 ) The Reforms of Alexander II

(i) Emancipation of the serfs (1861):

According to the Emancipation Edict of March 3,1861, the serfs were not only freed but granted a certain portion of the noble's estates. The nobles who lost their estates were to be compensated by the government. To the government, the peasants were to pay an annual sum for 49 years, at the end of which time the land was to be their property. In the meantime, the land was not the private property of the peasants, but was to be kept by the village communities. The village communities would allot a share of the village land to each peasant; in return, each peasant was compelled to repay the annual sum to the government.
Join now!


These arrangements proved very unsatisfactory to the peasants. Firstly, their share of the village land was often insufficient to keep them above the level of grinding poverty. (It has been estimated that only 1/3 of the total area of agricultural land was given to the village communities; while more than 1/3 was kept by the state and the Imperial family, and 1/4 was till kept by the nobles.) Secondly, their annual sums to the government were often heavier than the dues (or rents) they had formerly paid to the nobles. Thirdly, the land of the village communities was ...

This is a preview of the whole essay