How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why did the Tsarist regime survive the 1905 revolution? First of all to understand how the Tsarist regime survived in 1905 it is necessary to answer the question what happened in 1905. Then it is possible to see how the Tsar combated these problems. In the years before 1905 there was increasing social turmoil caused by rapid industrialisation: There was no legal way of expressing political views (no Parliament), there was a discontented and oppressed working class, and a desperate and poverty stricken peasantry. The middle classes were discontent because of the absence of a political voice for the vast population. The peasants were poor because they owned no land for themselves and of poor harvests and heavy taxing by the Tsar to pay for industrialisation. The working classes had to work in very poor working conditions, for very long hours and for very little pay. Therefore most sectors of Russian society were in opposition to the state. Only the gentry, the state-dependant industrialists and the army supported the regime. It is not surprising, therefore, that three illegal, political parties stemmed from the situation. One such party was the Social Democrats (1895), which followed the teachings of Marx, believing in a proletarian revolution. In 1903 the Social Democrats split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks believing in a small well organised
What caused the 1905 revolution?
In 1905 was a vast but backward country. Compared to Britain, Russia's industry were undeveloped, also its people were poor and uneducated. It was ruled by A Tsar who had complete power over the country. In Britain it is a totally a different story, most of the people were well off, not rich and not poor. Also the industry was the driving force of the country. The vast majority of the country population (80%) were Peasants who lived in poverty, living and working conditions were dreadful for most Peasants. Famine and starvation was very common and in some regions the life expectancy of Peasants was 40 years of age. Although this may be true, there were also some prosperous Peasants, they were called Kulaks. Kulak's would have jobs like Landlord or Farmer. Although many Peasants were loyal to their Tsar, not all were. Many were discontented with about the land owned by the Aristocracy, the church and the Tsar. They wanted more land of their own to farm 80% of the population were Peasants. The Tsar believed that God had placed him in that position, at first he made many promises to his people that he will be loyal and do what is best for them, as he knew what was right for everybody. He ended up making many mistakes; firstly he kept on interfering in every little thing with the government, secondly he personally answered letters from peasants. He even wrote out the
Was the October Revolution inevitable
Was the October Revolution inevitable? By Linsey Misik The events leading up to the October revolution help give us insight into what the reasons for it were and why it was successful. However to understand whether or not the revolution was inevitable we need to focus on the influence of the political activists. Other key pressures on Russia were the cultural and social climates at the time which closely link to Alexander II reforms in the nineteenth century. Another important factor was Russia's domestic policies at the time and the economic failures; highlighted with the wars Russia had pursued with disastrous effects. This will provide us with an in depth knowledge of the time before the revolution involving many of the historian's viewpoints who have researched this time in Russian history. Other arguments involve the dichotomy of historical controversies that relate to this time period is the idea that Russia's new found economic growth before 1914 could have modernised industrial society without the bad affects of WWI or the opposition that states that the Tsar system was too inflexible and corrupt. The interesting and varied opinions to the build up of the revolution will give us an opportunity to take a closer look at this time. Tsar-Martyr Nicholas IIRussia's October Revolution occurred on October 25, 1917 (November 7, N.S.) therefore it is necessary to look
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917
After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 After the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Russia was exhausted. Elections were held in Russia on November 25, to elect a constituent assembly. The Social Revolutionary Party obtained the number of votes received by the Bolshevik party. Many of the Social Revolutionaries were in favor of establishing, through a democracy elections, a governing body which would rule accordion to people wishes. When the assembly meet in Petrograd on January 18, 1918, trouble broke out because of the recent elections. Than in March the Treaty of Brest / Litovsk was signed between Germany and Russia. With the outcome of the treaty, Russia lost more than one quarter of its agricultural land. About a third of the nation's population, almost all of her coal mines, more than half of her industries and a large part of the nation income. A long and bloody Civil War occurred in Russia from 1918 to 1921. Many world powers such as Britain, France and the United States opposed Lenin's promise to withdrawal from the War World I. The Civil War in general was a fight to remain in power. It was also fought by the Bolsheviks to overthrow the current political, economic system and to establish communism. By 1921 the Bolshevik's had left the economy and people in a state of disaster. The Soviet Union only widened the gap between themselves and the west due to war
Sources A and B give different figures for the amount of Russian soldiers killed in the First World War. How can this be explained?
Question 1. Sources A and B give different figures for the amount of Russian soldiers killed in the First World War. How can this be explained? Leon Trotsky wrote source A for his book 'The history of the Russian Revolution' in 1932. It is a short paragraph from the book explaining how the Russian army lost more men than any other country in the war. Source B was written by John Traynor for his book 'Europe 1890-1990' in 1991. The source is a simple table displaying Russian casualties and total mobilised units in the First World War. When comparing the two sources you notice there is a difference of 800,000 casualties. Possible reasons for this is during the war the Russian army was badly organised. They may not have kept accurate figures of casualties rates, so Leon Trotsky's book's figures may have been completely wrong in the first place, but to be fair he did use the word 'approximately' and so admitting uncertainty over the number of casualties. Other reasons include another form of mis-recording which was the number of deserters and men taken prisoner were recorded as deaths and so obviously these men could not really be counted as casualties. Unknown to some, Trotsky was a Bolsheviks and may have decided to over estimate the figures written in his book, to try and justify why the Bolsheviks took over and also to show how badly the Tsar did in commanding his
Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917?
Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917? Nikita Turkin ATL "The immediate cause of the Revolution of 1917... [was]... the collapse of Russia's fragile political structure under the strains of a war of attrition." (Pipes) While war may have been the trigger which brought the feelings of a nation to a head in St. Petersburg, and finally started that a revolution in the bread queue, "the reasons for this comprehensive collapse of the structures of the old regime were, however, rooted deeply in the history of the Russian sate." (Waldron) Liberals, have said that social unrest and mass disturbance were direct products of war, the truth lies closer with the Revisionists, who, while not over exaggerating the role of either revolutionary parties or over- simplifying the 'people's wishes' like the Soviets, stipulate that February was a culmination of socio- economic preconditions and political precipitants. Even if we discard the Soviet Marxist viewpoint that the recurring trade cycle in the world of economics changes completely the political systems and social hierarchies of countries, it is valid to say that economics plays a part in a country's affairs. Revisionists point that it is the personally damaging experiences of the Russian peasants and workers that influenced their decision to cause social unrest and political mayhem, but it is with "uncanny foresight" that P. Durnovo
Do you agree with the view that Stalin successfully removed ‘treachery’ and ‘counter-revolution’ in the USSR in the 1930’s?
Do you agree with the view that Stalin successfully removed 'treachery' and 'counter-revolution' in the USSR in the 1930's? The use of terror became a central part of the soviet regime during the 1930's with the launching of the great terror against prominent party members. A series of show trials were held which saw former leaders of the regime accused and then executed. The purges went beyond former leaders who had fallen out with Stalin, and were extended to include army personnel and middle-ranking party officials. In fact, anyone who found himself or herself labelled as an 'enemy of the people' be them peasants, factory workers, class enemies, even the secret police themselves became a victim of the great purges. Throughout this time, millions were forced into labour camps, executed, tortured, put on trial, died of diseases and starvation or simply 'disappeared'. The justification of all the death and terror that took place was that all these people had committed the crime of being an enemy of the state and were trying to overthrow the revolution. Theses purges definitely removed something from Russia, but whether it was 'treachery' and 'counter-revolution or whether it was removed successfully is a totally different question/matter. The 1930's saw the introduction of a new economic plan to modernise Russia and make it more powerful and influential. Stalin initiated
How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution?
How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution? According to Marxist theory there needs to be a total change of power in order for a revolution to take place, this puts the phrase '1905 revolution' into serious doubt. It is evident that there are many factors that appear to be leading towards revolution however it is debatable weather these factors were strong enough to be called a revolution itself. Survival of this period was attained certainly in the short term, however we must ask how influential the '1905 revolution' was in the eventual downfall of the tsar in 1917. Before we can fully understand how and why Nicholas survived 1095 it is important to recognise the conditions of Russia leading up to this period and how they were caused. Unrest had been evident in Russia for a long period of time; it can be dated as far back as to the assassination of Alexander 2nd in 1979 or even further. At a time where Russia needed to move forward in order to 'keep up' with the world powers, Russia focused on a scheme of reaction and russificatioin beginning in 1881, which was maintained by Nicholas when he came into power in 1894. Opposition groups such as the Liberals had been forming due to the unrest within the country. A slump in the economy prior to 1905 following the economic spurt of the 1890's caused great unrest within the cities, the peasants were unhappy
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
Assess the extent to which the political incompetence of Nicholas II led to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty and the Russian Empire in 1917.
Assess the extent to which the political incompetence of Nicholas II led to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty and the Russian Empire in 1917. Politically, Tsar Nicholas II was poorly prepared for the position and when he was placed in power he was an indecisive autocrat being easily influenced by others and always making poor decisions. For example, his relationship with Alexandra and Rasputin was a submissive one. There is no doubt that to a degree his rule was characterized with political naivety, obstinacy, incompetence and insensitivity. However, it is not solely these faults in his character that led to the demise of the Russian Empire. The inherent unpopular autocracy, class structure, flagging economy, terrorist uprisings against Alexander II and World War I were also significant factors in the collapse of the Romanov's dynasty and the Empire. Nonetheless, it was Nicholas' political incompetency and negligence of these issues that magnified and worsened the problems. The Tsar was believed to be appointed by God, and he was known affectionately as "the little father" by his subjects. His decisions were accepted and considered final. Then what was it about Nicholas II rule that undid so much trust and confidence his people put in him? Even the Cossacks, before 1901, defended the Tsar and were ruthless with all those against the autocracy, but by 1917 they had drawn
