Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?
Why did Nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution The Russian revolution of 1905 (hereafter referred to as "the revolution") was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions, and that once the concessions were given; the revolution was doomed to failure. The opposition was disorganized and not united in its objectives, and that generally the people of Russia still revered the Tsar, despite his faults. A notable feature of the revolution is how little a part the revolutionaries actually played. Hardly any of them 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 Trotsky, none of the revolutionaries actually played a significant part, which has led historians to doubt the notion of 1905 as a revolution. One of the most significant reasons why Nicholas II survived the revolution being the lack of leadership, organisation and unity at the time the revolution took place. Despite the failure of Russia in the war against Japan, the Tsarist regime survived the revolution remarkable unscathed. There are a number of reasons for this. A significant reason is that since Nicholas II had enough manpower by way of his military to deal with the revolution, he could crush pockets of resistance wherever there was opposition to the Tsarist regime. The end of a collective
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS NICHOLAS II THE CASUE OF THE 1905 REVOLUTION
TO WHAT EXTENT WAS NICHOLAS II THE CAUSE OF THE 1905 REVOLUTION? Nicholas II faced many problems at the beginning of his reign which were magnified because of his incomplete training in becoming tsar. The main problems facing him were that the zemstvas wanted more power and a growth in opposition. He rejected the first "problem" and as such, a number of political parties, both moderate and violent came into being. The 1905 revolution had two catalysts which were Bloody Sunday and the fact that Nicholas II only offered the liberals a consultative assembly when they wanted a legislative assembly as well. Both of the catalysts were Nicholas II's fault as he didn't take the opportunity to appease a sector of opposition and because Bloody Sunday was the result of his mismanagement. Bloody Sunday also tarnished the Protector like image which the peasants held of the Tsar. Nicholas's inability to lead was only part of the causes of the 1905 revolution. A small piece of a bigger picture. Nicholas' ultraconservative nationalism led him to oppose all progressive reform and to impose 'Russification' on ethnic minorities, instilling powerful discontent throughout the Empire. His disastrous war with Japan in 1904-1905 weakened the regime's authority, and during 1905 Russia was overrun with immense waves of unrest. Unable to control the growing chaos, Nicholas was finally forced to
How and why did the tsar nicholas II survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why did the Tsar Nicholas II Survive the 1905 Revolution? There were many various factors which contributed to Tsar Nicholas II surviving the 1905 Revolution. One could say these worked together to achieve the Tsar's survival, however perhaps the most influential of these was the loyalty of the Russian army during the period. Without the reliance he had upon the Army, it could be questioned as to whether The Tsar would have survived the revolution. The procession of workers whom marched to the Winter Palace led by Georgi Gapon where by 100 workers were killed and some 300 hundred wounded, is labelled Bloody Sunday. This was the beginning of a series of events, fighting for better wages and factory conditions which is now known as the 1905 Revolution. The Tsar was left in a state whereby his every move had to be made with utter focus and thought. The government mishandled many situations and this was one of them. The deaths and injuries were down to the police panicking and not being strong enough to defend appropriately. From this it led to continuous strikes, terrorism and peasant uprising. This was felt all over Russia so far as to the complaint from a sailor Vakulenchuk, captain of battleship Potemkin who was shot dead after releasing his feelings of distraught of the conditions of which he worked. Furthermore, it created mutiny upon the ship, following in another
The 1905 Revolution occurred because of the ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas II. Discuss
Joanna Vickers L66 October 2004 The 1905 Revolution occurred because of the ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas II. Discuss. The 1905 Revolution in Russia occurred because of a variety of long and short term causes, which led to the Tsar to lose the support of his people. These causes comprised of the economic hardship in Russia, the refusal of the government to broaden their representation, the military failure, and the mishandling of the 1905 crisis, "Bloody Sunday." However, the underlying factor in all of these causes is the ineptitude of Tsar Nicholas II, as he held supreme autocratic power, and so would have been able to avoid revolution by permitting reforms. Therefore, although there were many other issues which provoked the idea of revolution, it was the Tsar's mishandling of the problems, especially Bloody Sunday, which were the final thrust to send Russia into revolution. One of Russia's grievances was the economic hardship caused by the industrial slump in the years leading up to 1905. Russian society was 80% peasantry, and its agricultural system was backwards and inefficient. The peasants were dissatisfied with the government because they strongly resented land repayments, and they wanted to a much greater amount of land. The social consequence of this was that, although many peasants still loved the Tsar, they opposed his government. At the end of the 19th
Why did Nicholas II survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917?
Why did Nicholas II survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917? When Father Gapon and his followers marched peacefully on the Winter Palace on 22nd January in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday due to the extreme reaction leading to the massacre of the protestors, it sparked the revolution of 1905, consisting of workers' strikes and protests in addition to terrorising the wealthy and important upper classes. As well as being a response to Bloody Sunday, the 1905 revolution was a result of pent up dissatisfaction with the autocracy in Russia and with the vast social inequality. However, in spite of the unrest within the country, the tsar managed to retain power after this revolution. In 1917, when the people revolted again, he was not so lucky, and the autocracy fell. There are many reasons why the Tsar was able to survive the 1905 revolution, not least of which was the benefit of good ministers to advise him well. Stolypin tried to have a moderating influence on the Tsar and to help him make concessions to the people which would promise to improve their lives enough that the revolution would die down. However, by 1917 both Stolypin and Witte were dead, and the Tsarina Alexandra was in charge of the running of the country due to the Tsar's absence to the front to fight with the army. During the time in which he was away, Alexandra replaced many of
Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917?
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
To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 revolution?
To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 revolution? The Russian Revolution of 1905 was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions. 'With the Russian Empire teetering on the brink of collapse, the Tsarist regime responded to the crisis with its usual incompetence and obstinacy' - Orlando Figes. Nicholas II made promises of political reform, and once these concessions were given; the revolution was essentially doomed to failure -leaving the Tsarist regime shaken but not brought down. The 1905 Revolution was sparked by an event named 'Bloody Sunday'. Father Gapon had led a strike at the Putilov engineering works in St Petersburg, where the people marched to the Winter palace to present a petition about wages and working conditions - the problems which had originated from Nicholas II's adoption of urbanisation. The peaceful demonstration was fired upon and 200 were killed, with another 800 injured. 'Father Gapon was to present a Humble and Loyal Address to the Tsar begging him to improve the conditions of the workers' - Orlando Figes. This shows how none of their demands were anti Tsarist - they did not ask for the removal of the Tsar, they asked for reform concerning basic rights. The firings were unexpected - 'The workers put their faith in the Tsar receiving them; they saw him as a man of God, and knew their cause
Assess the View that Nicholas II survived the Revolution of 1905 mainly because of the divisions of his opponents.
By Daniel Harrington Candidate No: 5093 5.10 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
Why did the reforms introduced by Nicholas II after the 1905 Revolutions not prevent a revolution in Russia in February 1917?
Why did the reforms introduced by Nicholas II after the 1905 Revolutions not prevent a revolution in Russia in February 1917? After the 1905 Revolution, even though Tsar Nicholas II introduced the October Manifesto on the advice of Sergei Witte, he did so half-heartedly and without sincerity. In the manifesto, he pledged civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to form political parties. He also promised a duma with universal male suffrage. What followed, however, was a reversal of attitude. The secret police remained at large, freedom of speech was still heavily regulated and the duma had a very limited franchise (the socialists did not even participate). Further, Nicholas II introduced the Fundamental Laws which confirmed his autocratic powers and put him above the Dumas. All laws that the Dumas wished to pass had to go through the Tsar and thus the power of the Dumas was severely limited as well. The Dumas became just a hollow shell as the Tsar exercised his power of veto excessively and dissolved Dumas at will. The Dumas were a farce with no real political power which angered the liberal and reformist parties in particular. Reforming ministers such as Sergei Witte were distrusted by the Tsar with Nicholas II reported to have said, "Curse the Dumas, it is all Witte's doing", although these were the very concessions that had helped
Why did Tzar Nicholas II abdicate in 1917 and not in 1905?
Why did Tzar Nicholas II abdicate in 1917 and not in 1905? The Tzar abdicated following the revolution of 1917 but he did not abdicate after the 1905 revolution. There were a number of key factors which made this happen, in this essay I will be looking into the similarities and the differences. During both revolutions the people went on strike over poor working conditions and poor pay, but there were differences and these were the factors that determined the survival and the fall of the Tzar. Russia had many difficulties for a ruler. The size of Russia is incredible, 17,075,400 square kilometers of land, however there was only one railway across the country so much of the country was unreachable and passing a message on was very difficult. In addition Tsar Nicholas was a weak and unpopular ruler, having been passed down his status as absolute monarch and not having to work for it. His popularity was worsened by the fact that his family lived in great wealth and yet there was terrible poverty across most of the population. February 1904, a war broke out between Russia and Japan which became known as the Russo-Japanese war. This war was over a town called Manchuria situated in Northern China. Manchuria was home to the only dock on the eastern coast which did not freeze during the winter months. This made it tactically important to Russia's navy. Russia badly lost this war
