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

To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II able to restore his authority from 1905-1914?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II able to restore his authority from 1905-1914? The 1905 revolution came close to toppling Tsar Nicholas II and his autocratic regime; widespread strikes and uprisings catalysed by the events of b****y Sunday, caused chaos. However, by 1914 autocracy was still ruling and appeared popular, given the extensive support the Tsar had for going to war in 1914. Whilst it is true that Nicholas did manage to restore his authority through economic, political and social improvements during this period, it was only partial and the underlying causes of the 1905 revolution had not been resolved. Opposition groups such as the Social Democrats and the Mensheviks had been driven underground, but remained. Russia was still severely undeveloped in comparison to western European countries and living conditions across Russia were poor, with widespread discontent amongst the working class and peasantry consequently remaining. During 1905-1914 Tsar Nicholas was able to restore political authority and stability, through a mixture of timely concessions and repression. In 1905, Nicholas reluctantly signed the October Manifesto, which promised, among other things to guarantee civil freedoms and to create a national assembly that would have the power to pass or reject laws, the Duma. ...read more.


Although the Tsar was able to restore some aspects of political authority via repression, it can be argued that Nicholas did not tackle the underlying problems and so only prevented an inevitable political crisis. Economically Russia continued to boom throughout the years leading up to the First World War. Coal production increased from 8million tonnes in 1890 to 90million tonnes in 1913. Coal along with other industries such as iron and agriculture grew rapidly. It can be argued that the modernisation of Russia and the rapid expansion of cities and urban areas, acted as a catalyst for the growth of opposition and revolutionary ideals due the increased density in population and poor working and conditions in cities, hostility to the Tsar grew. However, despite this growth, Russia was unable to go through substantial economic change; growth was from a low base and industrialisation was difficult due to the economy being largely state owned. This is partially Nicholas? fault due to his inability to politically modernise Russia, in such a way demonstrated by western European countries. ...read more.


Although social conditions in across Russia showed some signs of improvement, the reforms only scratched the rhino?s back; there was still widespread discontent and strikes. This attitude is shown in the Lena Goldfields Massacre 1912, where over 2,500 miners went on strike due to low wages and poor working conditions, troops opened fire killing over 150 miners. News of the massacre provoked nationwide strikes and protest meetings totalling more than 300,000 participants, with 700 political strikes during the month of April, and 1,000 strikes on 1 May in the St. Petersburg area alone. Stolypin sought to create a strong conservative peasantry who would support the current regime, therefore returning authority to the Tsar. This was called Stolypin?s ?wager on the strong?. He made it possible for ex-serfs to buy themselves out of the peasant commune and for small strips to be consolidated into capitalist farms, aided by loans from the Peasant Land Bank. About two million households (about one-eighth of the total) took advantage of these arrangements before 1916, many moving into the less populated Siberia and Central Asia. In the towns and cities, government reforms were improving working conditions and education, however they were only scratching the surface of the problems facing the working class. ...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. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    put down the upheavals; but in doing so, instigated more violence and resentment which led to political groups who opposed the Tsar and the way he operated. In addition, Alexander III had repressed the people of Russia, and their discontent was channelled into violence which Nicholas had to contend with.

  2. To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 ...

    Witte voiced his concerns to Tsar Nicholas II that Russia was on the verge of a disastrous revolution which would 'sweep away a thousand years of history', and so offered the ultimatum of 'reform or bloodshed'. Witte told Nicholas II that 'repression could only be a temporary solution', however the

  1. To what extent were the actions of Tsar Nicholas II during the First World ...

    This led to a 300% increase in inflation. Discontent grew among the middle classes as they were forced to pay more in taxes, and also among workers as food prices quadrupled but wages only doubled. Living standards were decreasing across all strata of society.

  2. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    His reforms were designed so that personal freedom came at the price of safeguarding autocracy, holding on to power. The implications of this were not fully understood, Alexander II began a reform which frequently stopped and started, in fact making political and social tensions worse.

  1. How far was Russia Politically Stable from 1905-1914?

    The Tsar released the Fundamental Laws, claiming "no law could come into force without his approval." This counteracted the October Manifesto, meaning that the Duma couldn't be legislative, causing the deputies to feel cheated, which in turn would lead to internal political unrest.

  2. How well equipped was Tsar Nicholas II to deal with the problems that faced ...

    The socialist revolutionaries were the party with the most potential support since their support base was the peasants. They wanted the removal of the Tsar and for it to be replaced by 'peasant socialism'. This was the idea that peasants would own the land and work it collectively.

  1. Why was the Tsar able to survive Revolution in 1905 with his powers intact?

    This shows that the two classes were not really united and could be easily broken, which would happen with the concessions stated in the October Manifesto. This also shows that the Liberals were eager to accept any concession, creating doubts as to how much change the Liberals really wanted.

  2. How significant was Piotr Stolypin in attempting to strengthen Tsarism between 1906 and 1911?

    In the short term however, the daunting fact of the massive increase of the Russian population was cushioned slightly by agriculture because partially more efficient because of the peasants using new land, crops and methods which increase crop yields by 50%[24].

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