Was the defeat in the war the real cause of the Russian Revolution

Authors Avatar

History Essay

Was the defeat in the war the real

Cause of the Russian Revolution?

       I think that there would have still have been a revolution without the war, it would have just taken a lot longer.  The war was like a catalyst for the revolution.  This is because Lenin believed that there would be a revolution but he wrote that “We will not see a revolution in our lifetime”.  There were major flaws in Russia before this.

      Tsar Nicholas II was not a natural born leader, he had, had great tsar’s before him in the form of his father and grandfather.  He was unprepared for the throne because of the sudden death of Alexander III.  He was ‘charming but weak’.  Nicholas was a firm believer in the autocracy and so were the people that he appointed, like Pobedonostev who in 1984 was chief advisor to Nicholas.  This meant that he didn’t like to give any of his rule away and so when he made the October Manifest and Peasant Manifest in 1905 which stated that there would be franchise to all classes, fundamental civil liberties and the all the future laws would require the approval of the State Duma, less than a year later, after this ‘revolution’ was over he took it all back with the fundamental laws and Article 87 which allowed the tsar to rule by decree in emergencies.  The tsar did not learn any lessons from 1905.  When the Dumas tried to demand reform, the tsar dismissed them, which meant that the Duma wasn’t really doing anything as the tsar had no intention of giving it real power.  They rigged the elections for the Duma by using a different system which diluted the peasant and workers votes.  This would have made the nobles unhappy and the peasants and workers who took up the vast majority of the population as they would have thought that they were once again not being represented by their parties.  Extreme parties had been banned from the Duma.  By this time education was on the increase as well so people were learning to read and write and be able to understand the political situation better.  They would notice the bad things in society and the economy and want more and more for it to change as time passed by. Even though the people of Russia were growing more and more unhappy with the situation, the tsar wouldn’t have known as he kept himself to himself and didn’t really get involved, up until the war.  For example, at his coronation where over 1300 people died but he carried on with his banquet

          The autocracy was very important to the tsar and his people.  Pobedonostev brought in Russification which preserved autocracy and opposed change; this was the opposite of what Stolypin and Witte were doing as they were trying to bring Russia into Industrialisation.  It also had the opposite effect as it drove people away from the autocracy.  Witte wanted to modernise Russia and maintain her position as a great power and to combine Western technology with the Russian autocracy.  He brought in the railways, foreign investment and even persuaded the tsar to sign the October manifesto.  This was around the time that he started to question whether Nicholas was able to uphold the autocracy while bringing Russia up to date with Eastern Europe, with countries like Britain and Germany.  However because he achieved all of this he brought a threat to the tsar’s authority and that of the autocracy so he was dismissed in April 1906.  He was jealous of his successor Stolypin and helped to weaken his position.  Stolypin had almost the same views as Witte and also wanted industrialisation.  He was a great nationalist and realised that the Duma had a role to play within Russia and went about his business by manipulating them to get new laws passed and other things that he wanted.  Peter Stolypin however decided to change the population of agriculture by bringing in agricultural. Reforms which would encourage private ownership to create a prosperous, stable and loyal peasantry called the Kulaks.  During his reign as prime minister there were fewer strikes and more things happening to change Russia and industry.  After his assassination strikes began again in the countryside, which were stopped before because of then fear of Stolypin’s neckties.  This could show that the tsar was to blame for the revolution as many people thought that he had ordered for Stolypin to be assassinated in September 1911.

Join now!

        There was also a bit of a growth in opposition from 1905 to 1914.  In 1905 the opposition to the tsar was disorganised and after that ‘revolution’ nothing really happened as people were scared of Stolypin.  This all started to change in 1912 at Lena Goldfields when the workers protested about their 10 hour days to which the government sent armed troops who killed 170 people.  This made tension come close to the surface and gave rise to a wave of sympathy strikes.  In 1910 the number of strikes was 47 000 but by 1914 this ...

This is a preview of the whole essay