This industrialisation in Russia had created a working class. The conditions, in which this new class lived and worked, were appalling. Attempts to relieve distress had been made: laws had been introduced to limit the use of child labour and women’s labour (1882); to set up factory boards to arbitrate industrial disputes (1886); and to limit hours of work (1897). A world slump in trade had helped to undermine these enlightened laws and in consequence there had been wage cuts, followed by strikes, followed by lockouts. In crisis the government proved itself the friend of the employer rather then the worker and intervened in the strikes with considerable and bloody force. For example, during the Baku Oil Strike of 1903 the price of oil fell which inevitably led to the reduction of payment, to the deterioration of working conditions, and an increased number of unemployed. This led to a massive workers strike in July.
Alexander III responded to the death of his father by adopting a policy known as The Reaction, associated with this was a programme of Russification. This affected the minorities and interfered in the education systems so that children would be taught in Russian and introduced to Russian culture. It valued Russian speakers and meant that only they could receive decent qualifications. Russification also touched on long established legal systems and more importantly attempted to convert all to the Orthodox Church. While this caused few problems in the ‘home’ provinces, in the more distant and outlying provinces, some of which were relatively recent additions to the Empire, these attempts led to opposition and discontent. Russification in Poland, for example, caused a huge outbreak of nationalism. This Polish nationalism proved to be a great rallying force that cut through political barriers in Poland. Groups like the ‘Proletariat’ and the ‘National League’ were determined to oppose Russian domination.
Workers and peasants were the main reason for political opposition, as they were demanding rights and representation. The ‘Social Revolutionaries’ appointed themselves as aids to the vast peasantry of the Russian Empire. They were established in 1901, a follow on from ‘The Populist movement’ and concentrated on advocating terrorism as a means of achieving their objectives. The ‘Social Democrats’ were few in number and in 1903 split in two (the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks). They aided the working class and based their arguments on the principles of Marx. The Liberals also posed a political threat to the Tsar, they were made up of intellectuals and had a chain of business and family links. They expressed the need for freedom of speech and freedom of assembly etc. They managed to deliver their opinions through the Union of Unions in May 1905.
All the above suggests that large parts of the population of the Russian Empire had good reason for discontent. The misery of the people of Imperial Russia was of long standing and it is next necessary to establish the specific events that pushed the nations of Russia from dissatisfaction to revolution.
I believe the assassination of the Minister of the Interior, Plehve in July 1904 to be a good starting point. The general indifference to this shocking act was a measure of the fragility of the regime’s popular support. Plehve’s successor Mirsky decided to tackle the problem of political opposition by concession to the Liberals rather than repression. This policy was reversed and in September 1904 the political opponents of the Tsar held a conference beyond his influence in Paris. They formed the ‘Paris Bloc’ and when members of this bloc returned to Russia they agitated against the Tsarist regime (the failures of which were harshly highlighted by the war with Japan). Along with this political outbreak the Tsar was faced with Zemstvo congress demands, they stressed the need for a representative assembly and civil liberties.
Although government and political miscalculations were significant I don’t believe them to be as important in the triggering of the 1905 revolution as ‘Bloody Sunday’. In January 1905 Father Gapon, an orthodox priest and previously an Okhrana agent who had sympathy with the plight of the industrial workers led a peaceful march to the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. It was their intention to present a petition explaining their point of view. They regarded the Tsar as ‘Little Father’ who, if he knew the extent of their suffering, would, they believed, use his royal powers to alleviate it. The event turned sour when the Cossack guard, panicked by the sheer numbers of protestors, fired and charged. It is believed that casualty figures ran in hundreds. Nicholas himself was not present in the Winter Palace at the time but the incident was used by his opponents to add fuel to the claims that he was heartless and that this had been a deliberate massacre of innocents. This event caused a nationwide outbreak of disorder and with what followed many acts of terrorism and violence along with numerous strikes. These incidents were made worse by Russia’s humiliating defeat against Japan.
Further peasant dissatisfaction was caused by the governments attempt to seize their property due to failure to pay off mortgages, thus leading to thousands of peasant petitions and calls for reform. Many heard these calls and groups like the ‘Union of Unions’ (set up in May 1905) organised an alliance between themselves, workers and peasants.
Non-Russians started to lift their heads and realised that the time was ripe for them to live their dreams and desires. They longed for the destruction of the Tsarist system.
In conclusion there were various reasons as to why a revolution occurred in 1905: long term dissatisfaction by many classes: the peasants, industrial working class, minorities and political extremists; they all added to the build up of negative views and attitudes to the Tsarist regime. It was inevitable there would be a revolution, but it specifically occurred in 1905 due to factors such as the assassination of Plehve, ‘Bloody Sunday’ and political rivalry (e.g. ‘Union of Unions’ and the ‘Paris Bloc’).
