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

Assess the View that Nicholas II survived the Revolution of 1905 mainly because of the divisions of his opponents.

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐By Daniel Harrington Candidate No: 5093 15.10 Assess the View that Nicholas II survived the Revolution of 1905 mainly because of the divisions of his opponents. Before the events of the 1905 revolution Russia was a very turbulent place. The peasants who formed over 80% of the population were the victims of a famine on a biblical scale and wanted to own the land and not have to pay redemption payments. The Liberals who wanted to have a constitutional government to share and limit the Tsar?s power. The workers who wanted to reduce the working day and have better working conditions. So with these three main groups all wanted reform, something was going to have to change. [1] Illegal political parties were arising to share their discontent with Russia and their Tsar and create a framework for ideas of revolution, with demands and strikes. The social revolutionaries and democrats had existed from 1901, yet public support was achieved in 1905 when living was hard, and the belief of god and the Tsar had been slowly lost. These parties were illegal, yet the Tsar (Nicholas II) could not satisfy the people in order to prove these parties unnecessary. All these political opponents were a symptom of the lack of attention the Tsar applied to Mother Russia. How strong actions needed to be taken and the hunger of the people needed to be satisfied at any scale possible. The participation of these parties resulted in strikes and a build-up of the Russia changing, general strike. Conclusively, the build of political parties and the failure to heed their needs allowed the citizens of Russia to demand and express themselves more, eventually leading to the activity of revolution and strike. [2] The major problem for the Tsar was his autocratic rule and lack of will to give anyone else any sort of power. The Tsar dismantled any Duma who didn?t do what he told them. ...read more.


They have made up their minds to gather at the Winter Palace tomorrow at 2 p.m. to lay their needs before thee. Do not fear anything. Stand tomorrow before the party and accept our humblest petition. I, the representative of the workingmen, and my comrades, guarantee the inviolability of thy person?. Following that an extract from the petition sent to the Tsar from George Gapon ?We workers, our children, our wives and our old, helpless parents have come, Lord, to seek truth and protection from you. We are impoverished and oppressed, unbearable work is imposed on us, we are despised and not recognized as human beings. We are treated as slaves, who must bear their fate and be silent. We have suffered terrible things, but we are pressed ever deeper into the abyss of poverty, ignorance and lack of rights?. [4] Over 150,000 people signed the petition and on 22nd January, 1905, Gapon led a large procession of workers to the Winter Palace in order to present the petition to Nicholas II. When the procession of workers reached the Winter Palace it was attacked by the police and the Cossacks. Over 100 workers were killed and some 300 wounded. The incident, known as b****y Sunday, signalled the start of the 1905 Revolution. [4] A dairy extract from the Tsar writing on the 22nd January, 1905 ?A painful day. There have been serious disorders in St. Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded. God, how painful and sad?. [4] ?There are some striking similarities between the situations in 1905 and 1917. In both cases, popular unrest arose partly out of military failure, and liberal and proletarian objectives coincided. Nicholas survived in 1905 because the army remained basically loyal, allowing him the option of repression. ...read more.


Beryl Williams writes that the Kadets “talked of universal suffrage, and some even called for a republic and votes for women. The Kadets had much popular support, with a radical programme and over 350 local branches by 1906”. [8] In conclusion the split in opposition to Tsar was important, but was not the major factor. The army supported the Tsar, so there was someone to defend him unlike in 1917 when the army leaders turned against the Tsar. The opposition was divided heavily not just the Left of Russian politics but even the centre parties were divided about the Tsar’s future. The fact was, this mass strike that became a revolt was caused not by a political party unlike in 1917 but a priest who stood against the Tsar, one man versus the dynasty of Russia. The Army’s support was also crucial in the Tsar crushing the revolt and the workers council, but really the opposition had little impact on the fighting that occurred it was more about workers’ rights than anything else whilst in 1917 the Tsar had become head of the army and had given himself a much larger responsibility, and since he had failed in the eyes of the people it became impossible for him to remain in charge. Reference List Source 1 [1] http://socyberty.com/history/the-causes-of-the-1905-russian-revolution/ Source 2 [2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/3679853/Why-Was-There-a-Revolution-in-Russia-in-1905 Source 3 [3] The Russian Revolution 1899-1919, Richard Pipes , Published in 1990 Source 4 [4] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSsunday.htm Source 5 [5] Modern History, By Philip Nichols, Hermione Baines, Richard Davies, Andrew Hall & Mark Seymour Source 6 [6] http://usvetspace.com/essay/15207/how-did-the-tsar-survive-the-1905-revolution/ Source 7 [7] Russian Revolution Daniel Field by, Professor of History, Emeritus, Syracuse University, Stephen P. Frank, Associate Professor of History, UCLA, Abbott Gleason, Barnaby Conrad and Mary Critchï¬eld Keeney Professor of History, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, Patricia Herlihy, Professor of History, Emerita; Professor of International Relations (Research), Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, Ronald Grigor Suny Professor of Political Science and History, University of Chicago Source 8[8] History Today, Volume 55 May 2005, Russia 1905 by Beryl Williams ________________ | Page ________________ ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 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 AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution.

    it would have been difficult for the peasants to know how to act, even if they had wanted to make an impact on events in the capital. This was a problem, incidentally, which in 1917 limited the effectiveness of all groups, peasant or not, outside the revolutionary hearth of Petrograd.

  2. Stalins Russia, 1924-53 revision guide

    He lost his position as Commissar for War. * Zinoviev and Kamenev did agree with Trotsky about economic matters. He wanted an end to NEP, and end to the food supplies being controlled by the peasants and moves to collectivisation. * Zinoviev and Kamenev thought rapid industrialisation could be achieved if the production of food was more efficient.

  1. How did Tsar survive the 1905 revolution?

    This was a key reason as to why the Tsar was able to overcome the revolution as the Duma's were infact a backward step towards democracy and a disguise to cover the continuation of autocracy in Russia.

  2. How far do you agree that the Russo Japanese war was the biggest cause ...

    This small movement resulted in a variety of consequences. Firstly, Grand Duke Sergei was assassinated. This was followed by the Potemkin mutiny. The Potemkin was a Russian battleship and it was the first time the army had rebelled against the Tsar.

  1. How important was the Bolshevik threat to Tsardom during the reign of Nicholas II?

    he will reject tomorrow, is incapable of steering the ship of state into a quiet harbour. His outstanding failing is his sad lack of will power.? (Witte S 1912) (Farmer A 2000) p 27 Despite a visit to Great Britain before his accession, where he observed the House of Commons

  2. 'Stalin's leadership was the most significant reason for Soviet victory over Germany in the ...

    But many were too close. In contrast, 3500 new factories were built and by the end of 1943 productivity increased by 68% compared to the pre-war capacity. Also the industrial production increased by 200% since 1928; although the aim was quantity, not quality. However, there was also other leadership than Stalin. There was Soviet leadership.

  1. Assess the view that Nicholas II survived the revolution of 1905 mainly because of ...

    Marples goes on to argue that ?The revolution collapsed ultimately because the government?s concessions divided the liberals, who were unsure of what they were fighting for?[3] This is evidence of the disorganisation of the opponents meaning that the Tsar was in a good position to use this to his advantage

  2. How important was the Bolshevik threat to Tsardom in the reign of Nicholas II

    transport links, ?The early rapid gains in production were due mainly to the fact that Russia was starting from a very limited base? (Laver, J. 2002). The downside to this industrial growth was that very few proletariat workers directly benefited from industrial expansion and those that did become ?urbanized? lived

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