1) Guaranteed freedom of speech
2) Freedom from arrest without due cause
3) An elected Duma (parliament) with power to make laws
4) Legal political parties were allowed
Though the promised elections did take place, the Tsar didn't like the Duma that was created, mainly because it was not as orthodox and wanted a constitutional monarchy like Great Britain. So in 1907 the Duma was dissolved on the charge that it was trying to cause unrest and a second Duma was elected. However, this Duma wanted the same changes as the first. Finally, the Tsar followed Stolypin's advice and he restricted the peoples vote to right wing parties only. There were two more Dumas, none of which represented the people; they only increased antagonism for the Tsar in sections of society. Yet with the creation of the "Soviets (town councils)" facilitated the co-ordination of the workers.
Both the revolutions of 1905 and February 1917 are often said to have been leaderless. It is true that in 1905 there were few, if any individuals willing to assume control of the masses and wrestle power from the autocracy. February 1917 can be seen as leaderless in a different way. The main revolutionary leaders were in exile. The members of their groups by this time were accustomed to absent leaders, were more capable. Though few emerged as individual leaders, they were able to direct their groups through these masses towards clearer goals. Added to this temporary unification of the important revolutionary groups (Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks) in 1917, compared to 1905 and a driving force for revolution can be seen.
Despite the failure of Russia in the war against Japan, the Tsarist regime survived the 1905 revolution unscathed. There are a few reasons for this. A significant reason is that Nicholas II had enough manpower because of his military to deal with the revolution; he was able to crush pockets of resistance. The end of a collective resistance was down to the two progressive ministers of the Tsar, Witte and Stolypin, the former being responsible for the Dumas and the latter for the concessions for the peasants. In this way, the demands of both the liberals and the peasants were satisfied.
In 1905 the Tsar had the full backing of his army unlike 1917; this was a key factor because all dictatorships need the support of their army. Another reason for his survival in 1905 was the lack of leadership before the revolt, the strikes and demonstrations needed to be organised systematically so that it paralysed the country. To do this you need someone to take charge to co-ordinate everyone, this way the Tsar would have no way out.
On August 1st 1914, Russia went to war with Austria-Hungry and Germany. France and Great Britain joined in on Russia's side, being just ten years after the disaster with Japan this was a great risk to her. Russia was traditionally the defender of the Serbs and Austria-Hungry had declared war on Serbia. If Russia did not intervene she would stand to lose all influence in South East Europe. At first the war was very popular but it soon lost support as it was realised that the Russian army was taking huge losses as they were so badly led and equipped. Many believed that Russia shouldn't have gone into the war, when it was clear that it didn't have enough resources. The setbacks in the war highlighted the weaknesses of the Tsar's rule and military leadership. Victories were costly and defeats were many. For example in June 16, the Alexei Brusilov offensive was an attempt to end the war on the eastern front and move troops to the west. Russia attacked Austria-Hungary and even advanced a few miles. But the morale of the soldiers was down, for the first time there were mass desertions as they continued to mutiny. The Tsar was clearly not in control of the situation. When Nicholas II left to go to the warfront to support his generals, he left the Tsarina behind and people did not feel it as a good sign. Earlier the Tsar’s cousin The Grand Duke Nicholas was in charge but now it was the Tsar himself. Any defeats under the Tsar would be identified with him and not the army.
Nicholas' attitude in 1917 was very different. Perhaps wary of completely losing the power, which he still clung to, he refused to bow to any pressure this time. Also in February 1917, he was not in Petrograd but at the front, hundreds of miles south. Two quotes sum up his bewildering lack of concern at this time best. When authorities in Petrograd contacted Nicholas for help and guidance, he replied by telegram "I order that the disorders in the capital be stopped tomorrow. That is all." And when Rodzianko, President of the Duma, telegraphed him suggesting a compromise would have to be reached, Nicholas simply commented that he had received "some more rubbish from Rodzianko".
There would be no compromise from Nicholas, and thus no compromise from the people. Unlike Nicholas, those who took part in the 1905 Revolution learned from their experiences. Had they given up too easily? Not moved quickly enough, or failed to prepare properly? In 1917, these mistakes would not be made again. The people had experience of strikes, attacks from police and other government armed forces. This would prove invaluable and cannot be dismissed as a key reason for the successful removal of Nicholas II in 1917.
Only in 1917 (during the war, when Nicholas II was sent to the front) did the army lose its faith to the Tsar while not only did the war lead to nothing but also the Tsar didn’t manage to retain his soldier’s good opinion, as he was the only man to blame for the defeats. By 1917 the bond between the Tsar and most of Russia had been broken. The government was breaking up and with Nicholas's occasional dissolving of the Duma, the minority groups were gaining power. After World War 1 the poorly led and ill-equipped soldiers were taking heavy losses and turned against the Tsar, without his army the Tsar looked weak to the people of Russia. Finally on the 8th March riots broke out in St Petersburg which was then called Petrograd. When nearly all of Petrograd had joined the revolt and Nicholas fearing for the life of himself and his family was forced to abdicate on 15th March. His brother then refused the throne, so 300 years of the Romanovs came to an end.
All the issues discussed so far were reasons Nicholas remained in power after 1905 until 1917. The most important of all these reasons comes when the Armed forces of Russia are discussed. In 1905, the Army and the Cossacks in Petrograd supported Nicholas. In 1917, they did not. The desire to achieve a goal is often cited as the most important factor in any successful endeavour. However, without the practical and physical forces required, these hopes and desires can often fail to be realised.
In 1905, there had been a small number of mutinies but the Tsar still controlled the majority of the Army and Navy. Though the masses of protestors had seemed overwhelming, the combination of concessions and brutal use of armed forces, especially from the Cossacks, quickly subdued those on the streets. Similarly in Moscow, artillery was effectively used to quell the rebellion of the Lenin led Soviet.
But Nicholas was not to receive the same support in 1917. In February, when it became clear the strikes were turning to revolution, the military governor of Petrograd, Khabalov had decided on his plan of action against the protestors. First police, or Pharaohs as they were known would be used, then Cossacks and then finally the Army. After street fighting with the police, on the second day, the Cossacks were sent out, but they did not interfere. It seemed they supported the people and before long actually aided the protestors.
On the morning of the 10th, soldiers replaced the police. However, it was not the professional soldiers, which had previously occupied the cities as they were at the front, had been replaced by conscripts many from the locality, and often men who had been dissatisfied peasants and workers. Though they did not at first support the people, they did not attempt to subdue them. This was a turning point for the Russian people and also for Nicholas. The regiments and garrisons joined the people in revolution. Some regiments, loyal to the Tsar, attempted to enter the city and quell the rebellion, but turned back when the extent of the rising was realised. Thus, Nicholas had lost control of his capital. His attempts to return were prevented by workers and railway-men loyal to the Revolution, underlining the extent of the opposition towards him. Executive Committees and Soviets quickly emerged to act as a temporary government. Also on the night of March 15th, Nicholas II finally signed the abdication so desired by the Russian people.
There are, of course, other issues to be considered in this argument. It is often said that Bolshevik influence had become much stronger than it had been twelve years earlier. And the war, in which Russia was embroiled in 1917, is often identified as a factor in the Revolution, and thus the Tsar's downfall. These are valid points and must be taken into account.
There are numerous reasons behind all major events in history, and Nicholas' removal in 1917, and not 1905, is no different. When examining the two situations it is important to note the similarities and differences in the backgrounds of the two. Peace, war, hunger and widespread dissatisfaction all played their parts in determining how events would unfold. The Revolution of 1905, as a relatively spontaneous event, may have had too many obstacles to overcome with such little preparation or experience. In contrast to this, the years and months preceding the 1917 February Revolution were rife with strikes and social unrest. Perhaps this made revolution, when it came, more likely to succeed.
When revolution did come it came swiftly and successfully. For the first time since Ivan the Terrible was crowned in 1547, Russia was without a Tsar. The factors that existed in 1917 but not 1905 prompted Nicholas to comment, "There is no justice among men". But the generations of untold millions of suffering serfs, peasants, workers and soldiers would not have agreed with him.
In conclusion, the Tsarist regime was able to survived the 1905 revolution for a number of reasons, but the most prominent was the divided opposition, this allowed the army to crush the pockets of resistance. The lack of leadership played a considerable role in assisting the Tsarist regime, as the majority of the people were unorganised and divided. The groups’ ideas had no real way of “converting” the people to their political beliefs. But above all, it was the power and authority that the Tsar had over his military and the sheer size of it actuality sums up the real reason of the survival of the Tsar in the 1905 revolution. However, he didn’t manage to keep the good will of his supporters through the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The 1917 revolution was successful because the Tsar did not have the full backing of his army which meant that he was vulnerable. This happened because he had taken personal command of the army, so he was blamed for everything that went wrong in World War 1. This revolution actually had a established opposition in the shape of Stalin's communist party this meant no peaceful protest like in 1905, the protests were riots and with no backing from his army, who walked out on 12th March, the Tsar was helpless. The last reason it was successful was this revolution had and motivator and leader that man was Lenin.
Bibliography:
Alan Farmer – An Introduction to Modern European History 1890-1990. London 2000
Dukes Paul - October and the World. London 1979
Goldston Robert - The Russian Revolution. London 1967
Hosking Geoffrey - A History of the Soviet Union. London 1985.
Michael Lynch - Reaction and Revolutions Russia 1881-1924 (Access to History), 2000
Title Picture from -
