Despite the violence and opposition to the Tsar in Russia in 1905, Nicholas survived the crisis and his authority was restored. Much of the credit for this lies with Sergi Witte, Nicholas Chief minister in 1905. He persuaded Tsar to make concessions to the Liberals in Russia to win their support. As a result the revolutionaries could be dealt with much harsher therefore reducing the impact of the revolution on the Tsarist Regime. Consequently on October 17, 1905 Nicholas issued the October Manifesto setting out political rights for the people of Russia and agreeing to the setting up of an elected parliament known as a Legislative Duma. In the October Manifesto Nicholas promised to introduce a range of civil rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and worship and the legalising of trade unions and along with the Duma which would share in the running of the country the Liberals appetite for reforms was satisfied, and they were keen to work with the Tsar in the Duma to bring about gradual change therefore these concessions made in the October Manifesto had a huge impact on the survival of Nicholas II in the revolution.
Regardless of the fact violent opposition had frightened the Tsar into making concessions in order to maintain his control, many of them were withdrawn in the years following 1905. Nicholas ensured that the Duma would have minimal authority and in May 1960 he issued a set of fundamental Laws which gave him complete control over the Duma. He alone could make laws in Russia and had the power to dissolve the Duma or change the laws by which it was elected whenever it suited him. 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. Giving power to the people would result in a revolution as so many groups opposed him, so by maintain his autocratic system the Tsar was able to some extent control the revolutionaries.
Although a large majority of the population opposed Tsarist Regime, there were varying extremes of opposition, and Tsar worked cleverly to temporarily please the three main opposition classes, peasantry, industrial workers and reformist middle classes. With the Liberals satisfied the rioting peasants were next targeted in an attempt to reduce opposition to the Tsar, Peter Stolypin, Chief Minister in July 1906 argued that if peasants had a higher standard of living they would be less inclined to support the revolutionary groups. He promised to progressively reduce mortgage repayments and the abandon them altogether and the immediate response to this was a drop in the number of land seizures across Russia. Stolypin also encourage peasants to buy land from their local village which had owned it since the peasants were freed from serfdom in 1861. The government provided loans to help peasants purchase land and by 1914 over two million peasants had possession of their own and. Stolypin’s measures meant that there was less unrest in the factories and the mines subsequently there were fewer strikes. .................Yet Stolypin’s policy was “suppression before reform”, and he granted the Okhrana powers to execute those who seemed so guilty no need for trial which led to phrase Stolypin’s necktie, over 4,000 were executed and 4,000 sentenced to hard labour. Peasants and workers lost their right to enter the Duma and the consequences were the 3rd and 4th Dumas were heavily dominated by right wing parties, as a result the Duma had little power and influence. His measures were extremely successful and reduced the estimated number of revolutionaries in Russia from 100,00 in 1905 to 10,00 in 1910.
Both the Liberals and Peasants, two of the main opposition groups to the Tsar had readily taken to the idea of concessions and had willingly accepted the government’s political and economic changes such as the October Manifesto proved that both these groups were never in favour of a revolution and their main priority was to better their own living conditions and they sought after reform rather than take radical action against the Tsar which was reflected in their peaceful protest on Bloody Sunday. ...................It could be argues that the “1905 revolution was setting the scene” for the 1917 revolution, and a noteworthy aspect of the revolution the fact the revolutionaries actually had no major impact and had a small role in the whole revolution. Only a few of them any were either in St Petersburg or Moscow. It could be said that the revolution happened in spite of rather than because, of them. With the exception of Lev Trotsky who was one of ringleaders in the siege of headquarters of the St Petersburg soviet, none of the revolutionaries actually played a significant part, which could be used to back up the idea that the events of 1905 coupe not in reality be classed as a revolution. One of the most significant reasons why Nicholas II survived the revolution being the lack of leadership, experience and unity of the protestors at the time the revolution took place, the liberals had backed out of the workers by leaving them to be crushed by government troops. Although there had been mutinies earlier in the year including the Potenkin incident in the summer of 1905 the troops who returned from the Far East at the end of the war proved loyal enough to be used against the strikers.
In conclusion even though Russia failed in the war against Japan, the Tsarist regime survived the revolution surprisingly unharmed. It can be said that the Tsarist system survived the revolution for a number of different reasons; however the most significant reason is that of the nature of the concessions made in the October Manifesto had a huge impact on the survival of Nicholas II in the revolution. The Tsar gained support from the Liberals after the manifesto which helped the Tsar to restore this power. Although the terms of the Mainfesto were not fully implemented and the Tsar still ensured he had control over the running of the country, he compromised to a level which the peasants, industrial workers and liberals were content. The Tsar had enough military backing to deal with the revolution; he could destroy outbreaks of resistance wherever there was opposition to the Tsarist regime. The easing of the collective resistance was down to the two chief ministers of the Tsar, Sergi Witte and Peter Stolypin, Witte being responsible for the Dumas and Stolypin for the concessions for the peasants. The lack of leadership also played considerable role in assisting the Tsarist regime, as a large percentage of the protestors were unorganised and hence disunited leading back to the question of whether a revolution actually took place. But most importantly it was the power and authority that the Tsar had over his military and his ability to meet the demands and needs of those who opposed him the most that determines up the real reasoning of the survival of Tsar Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution.