Evaluate the significance of the Russo-Japanese War to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution.
IBDP History HL May 2023 Test: Paper III
Markscheme:
The question requires that candidates make an appraisal of the contribution of the Russo-Japanese war to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. Despite various mutinies such as the Potemkin mutiny the military remained loyal to the regime. Defeat in the war increased criticism of the Tsar’s government, uniting various opposition groups, (Liberals, Kadets and the SRs) in demands for reform. Responses may argue that there were important underlying causes for the revolution, such as “land hunger “and high levels of peasant taxation (peasants taxed twice as much as the nobility). There was also considerable urban discontent between 1902-1904 and there had been major strikes against poor living and working conditions. There were also many instances of student unrest. Arguably the spark that started the revolution were the events of Bloody Sunday in January 1905 where the demonstrators were focused on living and working conditions and not defeat in the war. Some may argue the war was of limited significance merely highlighting the incompetence of the government. Candidates’ opinions and conclusions will be clearly stated and supported by appropriate evidence.
Written under exam conditions (Click to enlarge):
EXAMPLE II:
The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, a military conflict between the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan over rival imperial ambitions in Manchuria and Korea, is a pivotal event in the trajectory of early 20th century Russian history. The war, often seen as a precursor to the 1905 Revolution, indeed, played a significant role in the subsequent political upheaval. However, the extent of its influence and its place among other contributing factors must be carefully examined to gain a nuanced understanding of this transformative period in Russian history.
The Russo-Japanese War was of significant importance in triggering the 1905 Revolution due to its profound effect on Russia’s socio-political climate. The war's outcome was a heavy blow to national prestige as it was the first time in modern history that a European power had been defeated by a non-European one. As Figes puts it, the Russian defeat at the hands of a nation perceived as inferior was a "national humiliation." This dent in national pride, combined with the tremendous cost of the war, led to a substantial decline in the tsarist government's popularity and provided a fertile ground for widespread discontent. Further, the Russo-Japanese War highlighted the systemic weaknesses of Russia’s autocratic system, laying bare the inefficiencies of bureaucracy, the corruption, and the overall incompetence of the Tsar's advisors. The state's inability to manage and coordinate war efforts, and the defeat they faced, served to undermine the authority of Tsar Nicholas II. Service comments on this, stating that "the war demonstrated the weaknesses of an autocratic state ill-prepared for modern warfare." This disillusionment with the state machinery was a driving force behind the demand for political reforms that characterised the 1905 Revolution.
However, Ascher suggests that the War was not the sole catalyst for the 1905 Revolution; it acted more as an accelerator, exacerbating the existing socio-political and economic tensions. Even before the war, Russia was simmering with discontent owing to economic hardship, political repression, and the government's failure to implement meaningful reforms. The poor working conditions in urban areas, coupled with peasant discontent over land ownership issues, were significant factors fuelling revolutionary sentiment. Thus, the War should be seen as a spark that ignited an already volatile situation rather than the root cause of the Revolution.
Moreover, the Russo-Japanese War had significant repercussions on the Russian military, contributing to the events leading to the Revolution. The War strained Russia's resources and revealed the Russian military's inadequacy. The failure of the Russian navy, particularly in the Battle of Tsushima, had a considerable impact on the morale of both the armed forces and the general population. The demoralisation and dissent within the armed forces played a significant role in the mutinies that were part of the 1905 Revolution, including the famous mutiny on the battleship Potemkin.
In addition, the War led to increased industrial and labour unrest. As the government focused its resources on the war, working conditions deteriorated, leading to increased labour discontent. The War, therefore, indirectly contributed to events like the Bloody Sunday massacre, which Fitzpatrick argues was the immediate trigger for the 1905 Revolution. The massacre, in which peaceful protesters were gunned down by the Tsar's troops, was a direct response to the heightened socio-economic tensions exacerbated by the War.
In conclusion, while the Russo-Japanese War was not the sole cause of the 1905 Revolution, its significance cannot be underestimated. It served as a catalyst, hastening the onset of the Revolution by highlighting the deficiencies of the autocratic regime and exacerbating socio-economic tensions. The War shook the foundations of the Tsar's rule, impacting national morale, exposing military weaknesses, and adding fuel to the already simmering discontent amongst the workers and peasants. However, it was within the larger context of political repression, economic hardship, and the demand for reforms that the effects of the War led to the outbreak of the Revolution. Thus, the Russo-Japanese War was a significant, but not exclusive, contributor to the revolutionary situation in Russia in 1905.
Compare and contrast the causes of the 1905 and February/March 1917 revolutions in Russia.
IBDP History HL 2000 Test: Paper III
Whether this question is even legitimate should be the first consideration; it could be argued that the “Revolution of 1905” is a misnomer. The resistance is considered by many to not be a revolution at all because the majority of the masses did not have truly revolutionary aims. A revolution is defined as the “forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favour of a new system.” Most of the so-called “revolutionaries” were primarily concerned with obtaining a better quality of life for themselves rather than the destruction of the entire system. Another weakness of this question is that it has not been unanimously agreed upon that this “revolution” even failed. Of the 1905 Revolution Lenin wrote: “The uprising has begun […] Rivers of blood are flowing, the civil war for freedom is blazing up.” He said that 1905 was but “the beginning of a reaction which is likely to last twenty years,” and the fact that the events of 1905 grew from a strike to a mutiny “over the heads of the organisations” was “the greatest historic gain the Russian revolution achieved.” The czarist government only achieved temporary containment of the ongoing “revolution,” though an ephemeral victory over the uprising masses that they attained through their strategy of repression and the appearance of concession (in order to deepen the already apparent divisions of the opposition).
Accepting the question’s utilization of the word “revolution” as legitimate, I believe to answer this question one must be aware of the differences between the 1905 and 1917 revolutions that may have led to the firsts failure and the latter’s success. Michael Lynch has said: “The lesson of 1905 was that as long as the tsarist government kept its nerve and the army remained basically loyal, the forces of the opposition would not be strong enough to mount a serious challenge.” Perhaps the crucial difference between the events of the two revolutions is the czar retaining support of the military and other repressive forces aiding preservation of the status quo. In the 1905 Revolution the military largely remained loyal to the czar, with any internal mutinies being repressed by the czar’s Cossack force. The resulting stability of government “enforcers” gave the czar the offensive advantage. Attacks ranged from police savagely beating revolting workers’ children to “teach them a lesson” to entire villages being obliterated and thousands of their residents incarcerated in areas of particularly strong peasant uprising. If it was the case that jails lacked space, the peasant “criminals” were simply shot or hanged. Wives and daughters were raped by Cossacks in front of the men. This horrific act in particular shows that the regime’s tactics were not just the means of ending the revolution but of reminding the people that even after their humiliating defeat by Japan, the monarchy remained powerful. After the October Manifesto, the brutality continued as the Okhrana located and arrested the Moscow and St. Petersburg soviets; the Bureau of the Peasant’s Union. Pytor Stolypin utilised the right wing “Black Hundreds” gangs to use violent tactics against protesters. As further proof of the horror of Stolypin’s violent orders, after he executed 2390 people accused of terrorism by hanging, the gallows became known as “Stolypin’s necktie,” a nickname stemming from Kadet Duma member Feuder Rodichev (a comment which he quickly apologised for in order to avoid a duel to the death with Stolypin himself). State imposed terror and fear reinforced czarist aims. This terror experienced by the people is shown in Sergei Eisenstein’s powerful Battleship Potemkin in the Odessa Steps sequence, a fictional addition to the 1905 events in which czarist soldiers brutally murder civilians. The government’s brutal repression tactics could be seen as, to quote Graham Darby, “the key to the regime’s survival.”
Another vital difference between the two revolutions was the opposition’s lack of organisation and/or cooperation. Abraham Ascher said the revolutionaries in many ways were also guilty of the czarist system’s main weakness, stubbornness. This stubbornness prevented the coordination of the revolutionary forces’ resistance. For example, in 1905 the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, two factions of the Russian Social Democratic Party, competed for control of the Moscow and St. Petersburg soviets. The right-wing liberals disagreed with the radical liberals; the moderate Socialist Revolutionaries disagreed with the radical Socialist Revolutionaries. If infighting wasn’t divisive enough, programs of the political parties were generally failed to represent the Russian people’s wishes, and thus could not garnish sufficient support from the masses to be effective. The Social Democratic Party promoted class struggle that would result in a socialist state, but the majority of the workers, chiefly concerned with receiving better wages, did not understand the party’s revolutionary theories (Lenin would address this problem later with his simple but catchy list of Bolshevik demands: “bread, peace, land!”). Rumours that these factions were intent on staging a Jewish takeover of Russia did little to add to the revolutionaries’ popularity in a historically anti- Semitic country. While most peasants simply desired to divide the larger estates among them, the Socialist Revolutionary Party encouraged land nationalisation. The Liberals did not even include social and economic reforms in their program! Consequently the strength of the mutinying masses was not used to its potential, as the forces were not quickly enough organised or properly led (many leaders were in exile), and so the government could suppress each mutiny and each opposing party one by one with the support of his loyal bureaucracy, most of the army, and the nobility.
“The first saviour of the monarchy was Sergei Witte, who was the architect of the October Manifesto” said Christopher Read. He is partially correct: the October Manifesto and its promise of a Duma irreparably split the opposition. The lack of revolutionary zeal in most liberals and peasants was revealed when they accepted the government’s promises for political change with a hope for better times ahead, with only the radical socialists, radical workers, and hungry peasants remaining unappeased. Ascher argues that the peasant’s enthusiastic submission of cahiers demonstrates a faith in the reformative powers of the newly created Duma that proves that these reforms marked the point at which “the word replaced the sword as the main weapon in the struggle between the opposition and the autocracy.” Stolypin subsequently created law that cancelled remaining redemption payments for peasants and, in November 1906, instituted land ownership reforms under Article 87 that would aid peasant households in becoming more independent. These actions significantly helped in bringing about the end of collective resistance. Stolypin and his reforms could thus be said to be the second saviour of the monarchy. Or at least temporarily, for by the time of the revolution of 1917 these reforms had been revealed for what they truly were: a sham.
In conclusion, the three main differences between the 1905 and the 1917 revolutions, namely the army’s loyalty, the organisation of the opposition, and the people’s faith in government reforms, were the factors that ultimately combined to bring about the temporary suppression of the Russian Revolution.
Example II: Why did the 1905 Revolution fail?
The problem one has with answering this question is determining what a revolution is. This essay, shall consider a revolution being: the overthrowing of a government in order to establish a new leading order. One tends to answer this question with a rather broad and imprecise perspective, when it can simply be responded to, using one word: corruption - being the idea of “dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power”. The query will be analysed in the following text by investigating how the high corruption in Russia in the early 20th century led to the end of the tsarist autocracy, looking at two main points: the leader and the infrastructure.
The first essential reason for the revolution’s failure was the incompetence and corruption of the Russian leader, Tsar Nicholas II. To understand to what extent corruption contributed to the failure of the 1905 revolutions, one can look at the immediate aftermath, following the attempted coup. The fact that the creation of a Duma requires 3 attempts clearly portrays a corrupt state. The key explanation for this idea is the incapability and inexperience of the Tsar. He stuck to conservative concepts of tsarist ideals, which received great opposition from the people. The Menshevik and Bolshevik were the two main movements, leading the population suffering from hunger, various illnesses, and poverty. In this frame of tension was convinced of autocracy being the perfect structure for the Russian governmental system. Being extremely young (26 years old), following a much respected leader (Alexander III) who stated “what I have, I will leave to my son”, led to Nicholas II being very fatalistic. According to Marc Ferro, Nicholas II “reigned but he didn’t rule”. Therefore, his youth and inexperience led to a lot of external influence upon him, being constantly manipulated from his wife Alexandra. The government consisted of corrupt opportunists with good relationships with the Tsar, protecting their own privileges and power. Instead of considering the interests of the country, these were focussed on their personal advantage. One can clearly see, due to the Tsars inexperience, external influence and corruption played a significant role within the Russian government, this is also reflected in Franklin Schiffer’s ‘Nicholas and Alexandra’: “God is too high and the Tsar is too far away” - clearly showing that the Tsar did not play an active role in leading his nation.
Secondly, one often tends to focus too much on the leaders of nations when looking at history, ignoring the actual situation in Russia. Therefore, one needs to look at the corruption involved within the Russian infrastructure and industry. Robert Tucker argues, that the revolution of 1905 failed, due to the lack of an equilibrium within the infrastructure and industry: Russia disposed of great amounts of natural resources, which could not be handled due to undeveloped industry. This is reflected in the soldier equipment of WWI where a Russian soldier received three bullets per day. Within the nation itself, this could only be solved through corruption. There was one railway going from East to West Russia, with a 4000 mile gap (= three days of dogsled) in between, which clearly was inefficient. The mood among the Russian industry and the proletariat is efficiently portrayed in Marine Tsvetaeva’s works of the 20th century, in which corruption is often a key theme and idea. This is indicated in the fact that the revolution itself was initiated by mainly factory workers, fighting for better working conditions, of which about 2.5 million where striking by the end of 1905. Corruption led to disorder, unsafe working conditions, with bad payment and long hours. The lack of infrastructure also led to very inefficient communication throughout the nation, leading to small, local corruption. Concluding, one can understand through the works of Tsvetaeva, and the revolution itself that the corruption within the lack of infrastructure and industry, played a significant role in the cause of the 1905 revolution.
However, it is argued that the revolution of 1905 was firstly not Russian, and secondly actually lasted until 1917. According to Orlando Figes, there was only one Russian revolution of 1905 to 1917, as opposed to two (one in 1905 and the other in 1917), which should not be considered to be a ‘Russian’ revolution, due to the fact that only about 45% of the Russian population was of Russian origins. He sees this time period to be 1 single process, similarly to Schumann arguing that WWI and WWII were one ‘Great War. Furthermore, the majority of the population was actually Georgian, Ukrainian, and other eastern European nations. Therefore, Figes would argue that the revolution of 1905 to 1917 failed due to several reasons, but concluding that it does not matter who you put in which position: “the situation is wrong”. This is supported by Father Gapon’s letter explaining “death was seen as a preferable prolongation of our unbearable suffering”. Both showing how horrific the situation was, and agreeing that it was not events or factors that caused the revolution and its failure but one general, almost unstoppable idea, which one can see as being corruption.
In conclusion, one can see that corruption clearly was the cause of the failure of the revolution of 1905. The most valuable evidence for the role of corruption in the early 20th century is the criminal code, introduced in 1922, in which bribery was interpreted as an illegal act, which could lead to as far as death penalty. It was not due to conservative or revolutionary political ideals, that the revolution failed. A long term and global idea as to the reason of why the revolution failed, is the corruption present within Russia at that time. The corruption, poisoning every aspect of the nation: an already inexperienced and weak leader, a poor infrastructure supplying a rich industry, as well as the uncontrollable geographical size of Russia making communication extremely difficult. Therefore was not only the responsible government corrupt, but every small local aspect was too.
Example III: Why did the 1905 Russian Revolution Fail?
There are many faults in this question that must be addressed before attempting to answer this query. Firstly this so-called revolution cannot be labelled as Russian, because the Romanov Empire spanning from Europe to Asia had a Russian population of 45% thus making them the minority in this revolution. If this were a fully Russian revolution perhaps it would have been more successful as the vast space between demonstrating crowds as well as ethnic and cultural barriers stood in the way of a mass revolt. More importantly this question labels the demonstrations as a revolution, although revolutions are often, and in the sake of this essay, defined as a change in government and governmental system. Thus this essay will argue that the revolution in 1905 failed, precisely because it was not carried out as a revolution in the first place.
The reason that the Russian revolution failed is explained by Richard Pipes in a simple quote “the ‘masses’ neither needed nor desired a revolution”. The evidence for this quote lies in Father Gapon’s petition towards the Czar, which he read out in front of the St. Petersburg summer palace on Bloody Sunday. In this announcement he referred to their Czar as “our ruler” and pleaded for his “help”. These words demonstrate that this protest was made in order to improve circumstances for the working class, for example by creating better working conditions and providing a duma. It was not however requesting for the Czar to step down, much in the contrary, people still believed in him as a holy figure and went to him for support. This contradicts the definition of a revolution because the aim of these demonstrations was not to overthrow and change the whole government but rather to make reforms in the already standing government, in other words it was a reformist movement. A reformist movement is defined as a movement that desires gradual changes and not a revolution and this is exactly what Pipes is trying to clarify, that this revolution failed because it was not planned to succeed in the first place.
However Orlando Figes argues that the 1905 revolution was indeed a revolution, but a revolution that began in 1891 and ended in 1924. This view is also rational as it is supported by many facts. Between 1891-1892 there was a famine in Russia in which triggered half a million deaths, thus Marxism began to flower as people were upset by the way in which this situation was handled by the Czar. During the Czar’s coronation in 1894 when Russians were being trampled to death in the streets as they rushed to receive bread from the ceremony, Nicholas II himself was at a banquette with the French signing the Franco-Russian alliance. This once again stirred up an anti-Czarist emotion in the Russians and Figes argues it kept increase from there. In fact in 1903 the Bolshevik and Menshevik parties had already been formed in London. Furthermore the Russo-Japanese war fed to this anger and dismay with the Czarist regime adding to the tension between the people and their government. “Many of the younger comrades of 1905 were the elders of 1917” says Figes believing that the 1905 revolution to have been transcendental because it prepared the Russian people for the 1917 revolution, such that they knew what bloodshed and violence would be involved. Though Figes’ theory that the 1905 revolution was part of a gradual revolution one must not that Orlando Figes has been proven to have twisted facts, dates and historical events in order to fit his explanations even taking them out of context at times. Therefore it is not certain whether all the facts and explanations he provides in A People’s Tragedy is valid and must be careful before jumping to conclusions based on his work.
Nonetheless even if we consider this revolution not as a revolution but as a reformist movement, it was still a failure. This point can be proven by the outcomes of this event. In movies such as Fall of Eagles Bloody Sunday is portrayed by masses of workers walking towards the summer palace are presented holding crosses and Jesus figurines, symbols of their faith in god and thus the Romanovs, as they were believed to be god’s representatives. Even so, approximately 1000 of the 200 000 people at the demonstration were cold bloodedly murdered by the Czar’s military. Though these numbers will always remain unclear as do the results of all governmental shootings, it already proves that the movement was a failure as in their aim to receive help from the Czar all they received was bullets and oppression. In addition to this, the requests that they asked for such as 8-hour workdays were not fulfilled neither considered by the government. The only point that was responded to in their petition was the formation of a Duma. Though this was fulfilled for a short period of time, in early 1906 the Czar was able to shut down the Duma, due to its weak position in the monarchical government. Thus, the formation of a Duma though a positive response to the petition it is often not seen as a true reform as the change was reversed in a short period of time and even in the rule of the duma the land owners still had 45 times more voting power than the workers meaning that it was more or less useless for the people who actually fought for it.
In conclusion, though the 1905 Russian revolution was not by definition Russian nor a revolution, it was definitely a failure because it did not fulfil the aims it set for the Russian government, even if these aims were not a complete change in government.
Example IV: Why did the Revolution of 1905 Fail?
The revolution in Russia of 1905 was a wave of social unrest and political mass movements a fact which is supported through historian James De Fronzo who states that discontent with the Tsar’s rule was expressed through the “growth of political parties… through industrial strikes for better wages and working conditions, protests and riots among peasants, university demonstrations, and the assassination of government officials"1. It can be argued that the 1905 revolution was little more than outbreaks of rage, with the intention of forcing concessions – this can be seen through Bloody Sunday, the event which sparked the revolution – rather than a proper revolution which aimed to overthrow the Tsar. The fact that 1905 was no proper revolution played a key part in its failing, other factors however, such as the fatal lack of unity and military support also contributed.
One of the key reasons for the failure of the revolution of 1905 was the lack of military support for the revolutionaries due to their remaining loyal to the Tsar. While mutinies such as on the Potemkin and in Sevastopol, had occurred over the course of the Russo-Japanese War due to the soldiers’ dislike of the war, and as a protest against the horrid conditions in the army, they soon stopped and the army reunited behind the Tsar, after receiving pay and changes to the service conditions. Following this change in the army, the Tsar employed them to fight revolutions and strikes in the cities and later uprisings in the countryside; the Tsar benefited from their willingness to destroy revolts, especially ones like the strike in St. Petersburg which led to the arrest of the leaders of the St. Petersburg Soviet, these including Leon Trotsky and Alexander Parvus, on December 3ed 1905, before they could cause legitimate damage to the Tsar’s regime2. The Tsar’s willingness to rely on such harsh measures to end the revolutionary activities in cities and towns caused them to become less and less, until troops could be spared to be sent around the Russian Empire to restore order by January 1906 – thousands of peasants were found guilty of causing unrest in the countryside, 3394 of which were sentenced to death3. Although strikes and riots were still carried out in the larger cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg many important revolutionaries fled the country in order to escape; on February 18th 1906 new punishments were introduced for those “seeking to undermine government offices and agencies by verbal or written 'inaccuracy'”, which resulted in the arrest of more revolutionaries4. As the army dispersed and weakened Nicholas’ II opposition, it played a key role in the failure of the revolution of 1905. The Tsar’s reign would have been threatened if mutinies like the Potemkin Mutiny in the June of 1905, had succeeded; the army may have turned against the Tsar, if the men returning from Japan had not been loyal to Nicholas due to a strong belief in the Tsar and economic benefits. Had the army joined the revolutions and turned against the Tsar, he would have been overthrown easily, thus making this one of the key aspects contributing to the fail of the revolution.
Another key factor, which caused the failing of the 1905 revolution, was the fact that the Tsar’s opposition was disunited and that the revolution itself lacked a clear leader. It can be argued that if the revolution would have had two strong leaders like in 1917, it could have overthrown the Tsar. It was however, not only this fatal lack of leaders, but also the fact that the regime’s oppositions – the different political parties, the proletarians, middle class, students and general public – failed to unify and cooperate to form an effective opposition. As argued by Richard Pipes, “the ‘masses’ neither needed nor desired a revolution; the only group interested in it was the intelligentsia”5, a fact which can be seen through the drastic ideological differences between different social classes and political groups – this making it nearly impossible for the different groups to work together in a coherent revolution. The Tsar managed to divide his opposition so that the already separated parties had even less common ground, through October Manifesto; the moderate liberals, which wanted to keep the Tsar with limited control over the government, were happy with the promised reforms causing their support for the revolts to diminish. Moreover, the middle class, which had been created through Witte’s industrialization was scared of anarchy – Peter Struve, a Marxist turned liberal, stated “thank God for the Tsar who saved us from the people” after harboring peasants in his home during the revolution of 1905 – this showing the division between different political groups which inevitably contributed to the revolution’s failure6. Additionally, the Tsar’s regime succeeded in splitting the revolutionaries even more through the proposal of a Duma – the alliance of liberals, proletarians and peasants fell apart as every group had different objectives. As a result, the differences between different social groups and parties became clear making collaboration even more difficult. The Tsar also managed to diminish unrests and riots in the countryside by announcing that redemption payments would be reduced and even entirely abolished7. Furthermore, peasant unions were given up on as those who continued fighting where faced with no mercy. Other parties, such as the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, worked together and organized mass strikes in cities which were however, often crushed forcing their leaders to flea, resulting in a lack of commanders on the side of the revolution. As a result, the drastic differences between different political groups and the subsequent lack of unity, in addition with the absence of one strong leader caused the revolution to fail in 1905.
Another problem, which contributed to the failing of the 1905 revolution, was the unrest among different nationalities. The Russian Empire covered nearly 23 million square kilometers, with a population of 128 million people, of which only 45% were ethnic Russian.8 As the governing elite was almost entirely culturally russified, people of different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds were discriminated against and maltreated – Jews and Muslims in particular where shunned and forced to live miserable and circumscribed lives and forbidden to settle or acquire land outside the cities and towns9. As a result, different ethnical groups separated during the revolution – even though they had a common goal, they could not overcome deep-seated prejudices and antagonisms in order to unite. Unrest among different nationalities was also caused through the vast size of the Russian Empire – it was close to impossible to communicate with the 85% of the Russian population living in the center or the east of the empire – and as a result people did not know what was happening in different regions and how the revolution was being carried out there10. Furthermore, nationalistic movements of minorities in the Russian Empire grew steadily to reclaim and revive their culture; Poles especially strived to regain independence, which caused tension between different ethnicities as many did not want to give up the land they owned for a new country to be formed. As a result, the revolution was unstable from the start due to well-established contempt and distrust between different ethical groups with clashing cultures.
In contrast to this, one can however also argue that the revolution of 1905 was no proper revolution at all; the term ‘revolution’ is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as a “forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”, the revolution in Russia initially requested changed to the Tsar’s ruling and did not wish to overthrow him, and as such it did not fail. The people’s outcry for a reform however, also failed as the Duma was soon closed and Fundamental Laws were introduced in 1906, which enabled the Tsar to over-go the Duma. As proposed by Orlando Figes, “…although the regime succeeded in restoring order, it could not hope to put the clock back. 1905 had changed society for good. Many of the younger comrades of 1905 were the elders of 1917. They were inspired by its memory and instructed by its lessons”11 – as such the revolution had never failed, as it set the foundations for the revolution in 1917, which resulted in the collapse of the Romanov Empire, the point of a revolution. Nevertheless, many argue that 1905 was a failed revolution, most notably due to its chaotic nature, a lack of unity on the side of the revolutionaries, distrust between different ethnicities and cultural groups and a strong opposition in form of the army.
Sources:
1 De Fronzo, James. Revolutions and
Revolutionary Moments. Westview Press, 1996. Print. 2 Trotsky, Leon.
1905. Random House, 1972. Print. 3 Fitzpatrick, Sheila. The Russian
Revolution. Oxford University Press, 2008. Print. 4 Martin, Claudia. Die
Revolution 1905 in Russland. Munich: GRIN Verlag, 2007. Print. 5 Pipes, Richard. The Russian
Revolution. Vintage Books, 1991. Print. 6 Lynch, Michael. Access to
History: Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924. 3ed ed. Hachette UK,
2005. Print. 7 Robinson, Geroid T. Rural Russia under the Old Regime.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967. Print. 8 Gaddy, Clifford
G., and Fiona Hill. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left
Russia Out in the Cold. Brookings Institution Press, 2003. Print. 9
Harcave, Sidney. The Russian Revolution. Collier Books, 1970. Print. 10
Gaddy, Clifford G., and Fiona Hill. The Siberian Curse: How Communist
Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold. Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
Print.
Example V: Why Did The Russian Revolution of 1905 Fail?
“Sire! We workers, our children and wives, the helpless old people who are our parents, we have come to you, Sire, to seek justice and protection. We are in great poverty, we are oppressed and weighed down with labours beyond our strength; we are insulted, we are not recognised as human beings, we are treated like slaves who must bear their lot in silence. […] Sire, our strength is at an end! The limit of our patience has been reached: the terrible moment has come for us when it is better to die than to continue suffering intolerable torment.”
With these words, the proletariat of Russia made their debut on the stage of history. 150,000 protesters, holding religious icons, singing hymns (“God save the Tsar! Strong and majestic, Reign for glory, For our glory!”) and led by a priest carrying the above petition were fired upon in their attempt to deliver their demands to the Tsar at the Winter Palace. The escalation of this, according to a member of the Duma Professor Maksim Kovalesky was more than 14,000 executions and 75,000 imprisonments against the protesters. Traditionally, this ‘failure' of the revolution is put down to several key factors, however perhaps one should address the failure of the question. Did the revolution of 1905 truly fail? To fail is to be unsuccessful in achieving one’s goal, and a revolution is a forcible overthrow of a government or social order for a new system. This essay will argue that the goals of the people were met, and that there was no intention of over-throwing the government. Forward as it may sound, the question’s blind assumptions lead it to answer itself. The ‘Russian Revolution’ of 1905 was not Russian, nor was it a revolution, and it can be argued that in fact, it did not fail
According to popular historical belief, there are several factors which can be attributed to the failure of the Russian Revolution. One such belief stems from one of the assumptions this question makes that is in fact false – that the revolution was ‘Russian’. The Russian Empire was, in a word, vast. It was almost 1/6 of the Earth’s landmass, consisting of more than 100 different ethnic groups. Only 45% of the population was Russian. After the events of Bloody Sunday it was not only the Russians that revolted, but the Empire. By the end of January 1905, over 400,000 workers in Russian Poland were on strike. Other strikes took place in Finland and the Baltic coast. By February strikes had erupted in Caucasus, by April in the Urals and beyond. In such a manner a localised protest in St. Petersburg had spread across the different nationalities of the Russian Empire. It was the Tsar that had connected all these people under the 'Russian Empire', and as they turned from him they turned to fight hard for autonomy. With splits between these nationalities where each fought for different purposes, there was no sense of common purpose or common goal to achieve, and as a result the possible force and might of the empire failed to come together and take power.
Another issue this question raises is the concept of a ‘revolution'. For example, according to Trotsky, “the events of 1905 were prologue to the two revolutions of 1917… Although with a few broken ribs, tsarism came out of the experience of 1905 alive and strong enough.” However, no one is quite clear as to what they believe the events of 1905 were trying to achieve. There are two types of revolutions according to International Relations expert Neil Davidson – social and political. Political revolutions are struggles within a society for an existing state, but ones that leave the social and economic structure intact. Generally, the class that was in control stay in control (although individuals and political parties may have been replaced), and the class that was exploited remains so. Social revolutions on the other hand result in the complete and total transformation of one type of society into another. From this, it can be clearly seen that the events of 1905 attempted to do neither, but instead were requesting some change in policy. Bloody Sunday, which arguably triggered the event, called not for a new government, or a new political system, but merely for longer working hours, a Duma, and a few other requests. These were not 'revolutionary' demands, they were simple changes in policy that were met with strong resistance by the inflexible Tsar.
Not only were the events of 1905 not a revolution, but furthermore, they did not fail. Almost all aspects of the 1905 unrest led to the successful social revolution of 1917. It can, and is, argued that the October Manifesto was the true reason the 'revolution' failed. It was so unexpected from the unyielding Tsar that it stopped the 'revolutionaries' in their tracks and led them to accept it, and settle back into their lives. Further evidence of this failure is often produced through what the Tsar did after instigating this Duma - he then undermined his pledge of democracy with Article 87 of the 1906 Fundamental State laws, and then chose to dismiss the first two Dumas when they proved obstinate. These unfulfilled hopes of democracy were, according to historian Martin Frost, the fuel to “revolutionary ideas and violence targeted at the Tsarist regime”. Although Martin Frost claims that 1905 failed, his proposal here is certainly accurate. These slight political and social reforms weakened the Tsar, and left the people blood-hungry for later change. They created the conditions where in 1917 true social revolution could occur. For example, the number of prisoners throughout the Russian Empire (which had peaked at 116,376) fell by over a third to 75,009 in January 1905 as the Tsar granted mass amnesties. S G Wheatcroft has wondered what role these prisoners played in the 1906-1907 social unrest. Although a seemingly small and short term issue, many of the decisions and actions taken during 1905 were vital to the revolution of 1917. In this way it can be seen that the events of 1905 did not fail.
To conclude, one must pose the question to the reader, why do we think it failed? I concede that the Tsar was not overthrown, but that was not the aim. According to Figes “although the regime succeeded in restoring order, it could not hope to put the clock back. 1905 had changed society for good.” Similarly, historian Norman Hapgood said, “from 1905 on, all the conditions have been such that made some kind of revolution inevitable. Agreement between historians in history is a rare thing, but almost all believe that 1905 was vital to 1917. As a result, how can one say that it failed? The events of 1905 were did not completely change society, first of all because they were dealing with the 'Nationality Problem' and second of all because they had no intense of being a revolution. Instead, they were a very important dress rehearsal, without which the revolution could not have succeeded.
Example VI:
The revolution of 1905 failed to overthrow the Tsarist government and to improve the situation for the people of Russia, for which there are various reasons discussed in this essay. However, to understand the significance of 1905 one has to look at its successes rather than failures. This essay will argue, that although the revolution of 1905 failed in terms of being a revolution, it did not fail to instruct the revolutionaries of 1917.
One very obvious and significant reason the 1905 revolution failed was because it lacked focus. Several factors played into this. At the time, the Russian Empire dispersed throughout 13 different time zones and consisted of a population of over 120 million people. This population was made up of a variety of ethnic groups, languages and religions, which made Russia a huge multinational state. Inevitably, this caused various tensions and violent confrontations throughout the population. For instance, between 1890 and 1904 the Finnish had an independence movement, revolting against Russian rule. Poland was equally nominally independent but administered by Russia, which resulted in another fight for independence. Also there was a bloody wave of anti-Jewish pogroms between 1903 and 1906. These events show how torn the population of Russia was and how diverse its aims and issues were. Furthermore, looking at the geographical size of the empire and looking back at the fact that it consisted of 13 time zones, how could a revolutionary unity among the people of the Russian Empire possibly be achieved? If there are nomadic tribes in the East and central Asia, continually on the move, while there are Eskimo tribes within the Arctic Circle keeping to themselves, it appears as though controlling the population was impossible. It did not help that the revolution had no apparent leader; although Lenin returned to Russia in 1905, he had lived in Munich and London in the years before, where he could not contribute to revolutionary ideas except through newspapers and pamphlets.
Another aspect that played into the failure of the revolution was the disagreements over revolutionary ideas and strategies. The revolutionaries were simply divided about how to revolt. Some used violence and political assassinations (a social revolutionary murdered the Tsar’s uncle, General Duke Sergei in February 1905), while others favoured propaganda and debate. This disagreement caused the biggest socialist party, the Social Democrats, to split, forming the Bolsheviks in 1903 under Lenin and the Hanna Wiesenfarth Mensheviks. Although both wanted to overthrow the Tsar and establish a Socialist State, the Bolsheviks wanted to achieve this through small, secret professional membership and a tight control while the Mensheviks supported the idea of mass membership organised within trade unions. However, not all revolutionaries agreed with Lenin and Martov’s political programme. The Liberals supported the idea to keep the Tsar but limit his powers by introducing a democratically elected parliament, while many peasants’ attitude towards monarchy was far from hostile; some referred to the Tsar as “Papa”, which suggests they did not consider revolting against him at all. This shows, not only was Russia loose and divided within its population, but also did its people disagree about what they wanted to achieve through a revolution. Some wanted to get rid of the Tsar, others simply wanted a say. However, looking at the different aims the revolutionaries had, one has to ask oneself: what is a revolution? Looking at Libya, Egypt and Syria today, I believe a revolution is when a current form of government is overthrown, when there is a complete change. If half of the Russian population merely demanded reforms and more rights, was the revolution not bound to fail? A revolution would have required stronger, more powerful appeals to spark successfully, which the divided population could not give enough of, implied by the points above. This raises the question of whether 1905 was in fact a revolution, or merely a series of riots and upheavals.
The popular demand for reform lead the Tsar to introduce the “October Manifesto” on October 17th 1905. This provided the Russian people with an elected parliament, which could prevent new laws from being passed, freedom of speech, the right to form political groups and created laws on the press as well as an assembly law, which allowed public meetings. The workers called off their general strike immediately, allowing the Tsar to come down hard on leading socialists, hence, restoring order. This involved 3,349 people being sentenced to death. Lenin fled to exile once more. Unfortunately the manifesto did not give any of the Tsar’s powers away; he could dismiss the Duma if he wanted, create a State Council, which would stop laws that were proposed in the Duma and he could select government ministers, instead of the Duma. In short, nothing had changed. The Tsar had simply appeased the workers, to ease the situation and make it possible for him to bring an end to rioting within three years. This leads back to my previous point. It appears as though the revolution could not have succeeded, simply because its people were unclear about the aims and were satisfied by the Tsar’s Hanna Wiesenfarth compromise. Furthermore, comparing the 1905 revolution to the successful revolution of 1917, it did not have a backbone as the army was with the Tsar, whereas in 1917, the army was with the revolution. Looking at “Bloody Sunday”, January 9th 1905, where 150,000 peaceful protestors marched to the Winter Palace and 200 were killed within minutes, shows that a fully equipped army will always emerge as the victor against unarmed and poor people. Many revolutions in history could not have been possible without aggression. One simply needs to remember Mandela’s call for violent uprisings during the Apartheid Regime in South Africa, to see that without armed forces, revolutionaries hardly ever stand a chance. Also referring back to Libya, one can see that without violence the government could never have been overthrown, seeing as Gaddafi’s rule was ended by a military operation. History has shown that, unfortunately, revolutions of such an enormous scale are most successful when strengthened by armed forces, which was not the case in Russia in 1905.
However, the problem I have with the question is that it fails to acknowledge that the revolution may not have been a complete failure after all. Historian Orlando Figes argues that in fact, it set an important foundation for the revolution of 1917 to succeed. “…although the regime succeeded in restoring order, it could not hope to put the clock back. 1905 had changed society for good. Many of the younger comrades of 1905 were the elders of 1917. They were inspired by its memory and instructed by its lessons” Through this, Figes shows how the 1905 revolution could possibly be seen as a vitally significant pre-stage to 1917. Hence, one could argue that 1905 was a series of riots and upheavals, which gave the Russian people important experiences and lead them to start a real revolution successfully. One can see that this significantly increases the importance of 1905 and that perhaps, although it did not succeed in terms of changing the government and enforcing new laws, the revolution successfully created an important path leading towards the so desired change.
Therefore, one can argue that the 1905 revolution did not succeed due to instability and weakness of revolutionary forces, geographical disadvantages and the clash of over 150 nationalities and languages. Furthermore, a failure was inevitable as the aims were unclear and revolutionaries were divided among each other. Thus, 1905 as a revolution failed, however in terms of the lessons and experiences it created, it could be seen as a success, rather than a failure.
Why did the Revolution of 1905 Fail?
Prior to answering this, the term “revolution” must be clarified for the question pre-supposes that the revolution of 1905 failed. In the Oxford Dictionary the definition for revolution is „ A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system“. There was some change, albeit limited, resulting from the revolutionary events of 1905, for the government moved away from an absolutist rule and towards a constitution. However the Tsar was still in place and many people unhappy. The “revolution” did not lead to a long lasting and satisfying change. This essay will be concerned with the reasons for which the “revolution” was not effective.
Most historians agree that the way in which the revolution was lead and the fact that it was spontaneous, are key factors for its failure. Abraham Asher, for example, draws attention to the revolutionaries not having any experience in the political field. He writes, “The lack of political maturity among all social groups undermined every endeavour to reach a reasonable solution.” This is surely true. Moreover, in “A people’s tragedy”, Figes states, “the strikes were not really organised; they were more like a spontaneous outburst of anger; and the workers demands were often not even formulated till after the strike had begun. The socialist parties were still much too weak to play a leading role”. This quote contains even more of the reasons for which the revolution could have failed. To begin with it supports the argument that the revolution was very spontaneous and stretched out over a long period of time. Next Figes argues that reasons for the revolution were mainly the revolutionaries wanting to be violent as a display of their anger towards the rich. It seems the revolution was only a culmination of feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction with the Romanov dynasty. The revolutionaries acting in a violent and undiplomatic way in fact made it harder for their parties to advance along a productive path. The next point is that the different groups of revolutionaries and later parties had a wide range of very different opinions and all wanted a different kind of reform. They were not coordinated enough to act at the same time and this way form a strong unit, which could overthrow the government. The revolutionaries did simply not manage to set the threat of a systematic attack or have a clear aim. Lastly the revolution lacked in leadership and management. Evidence for this are leaders like Lenin, Martov, Trotsky, Plekhanov and Chernov that remained in exile instead of stepping in even if this meant a harsh and difficult life in Russia. While the revolutionary forces suffered from a lack of organisation and leadership, it was clearly an important factor in the Tsar’s favour that he could count on the support of the Russian army, for they stayed loyal to him, supporting his regime by terrorising the revolutionising population. It was only during the revolution of 1917, that the soldier’s faith in Nicholas II started faltering and they turned against him. In 1905 however, they were still completely on his side. This thesis is proven in the fact that the army fully supported the Tsar’s will in combating the uprisings and revolts that followed the “Bloody Sunday Massacre”. Even after returning from the Russo-Japanese War, which they had lost, the army was willing to side with the Tsar against the revolution and from January to October 1905 the Russian military silenced 2,700
peasant uprisings. Having the army’s support was an immense advantage for the government in the 1905 revolution because the opposition could simply not match the army’s weaponry and organisation. The military siding with the government meant that all the force and power they needed in crushing demonstrations, strikes and uprisings, were at their disposition. Whilst the “October Manifesto” seemed as if Nicholas II was making a concession it is arguable that it actually played into the hands of the government. Over half a year after the “Bloody Sunday Massacre” and what is sometimes referred to as the start of the revolution Nicholas II finally acknowledged the revolution as well as the demands of the Russian population and allowed there to be a parliament or “Duma” and a “constitution” which was announced in the from of the “October Manifesto”. As Figes puts it “ The Manifesto’s proclamation was met with jubilation in the streets”. Even though this “constitution” could be seen as giving in to the revolutionaries, it turned out to actually be an advantage to the government. For the Tsar, the new “constitution” did not make any big promises and was not something that he planned to adhere by. For the people this was the first real step towards a reform and caused great excitement. In the words of a liberal, quoted in “A People’s Tragedy“, “the whole country buzzed like a huge garden full of bee’s on a hot summers day”. So, the “October Manifesto” can actually be counted as a reason for the failure of the 1905 revolution. As said before, with this “timely concession” the Tsar was setting up a great advantage for himself. Firstly, he was gaining time by satisfying the majority of the population. Secondly, the because of the diversity of parties, the revolutionaries agreed to different parts of the new “constitution”. This meant that it split the revolutionaries. There was now no longer one big, mass of people but different “parties”. The “parties” were obviously a much easier target for the government to proceed against. Finally, however, the “October Manifesto” enabled the government to stay flexible. It was now in a position from which it could easily move between reform and repression. The loyalty of the army to the Tsar, the spontaneity of the revolution and lack in leadership on the side of the revolutionaries, as well as the ways in which the “October Manifesto” lured the revolutionaries into a false understanding of what the Russian government meant by “constitution”, all contributed to the Tsar being able to hold his position as absolute ruler. In this respect, the revolution can be seen as a failure for the revolutionaries. However, there were also elements of success for the revolutionary forces. The Tsar had only a limited rule and could no longer force his old fashioned and autocratic policies onto the Russian population with ease. The Revolutionaries themselves had gained experience and would now be able to confront the opposition in a politically strong and successful way. To conclude with, I think that Lenin referring to the “revolution “ as a “dress rehearsal” describes the situation very well. The 1905 “revolution” was what the Russian population needed for a positive result in the revolution of 1917
Why Did the Revolution of 1905 Fail?
It is important to note that this question is contentious for a couple of reasons. First, it is unclear whether or not the 1905 Russian revolution was even a failure. When the workers and middle class of St. Petersburg took to the streets in protest, they demanded that two main points should be met by the Tsarist regime. First, they wanted radical social reforms to help guarantee the safety and well-being of the Russian factory workers. This included demands for an 8 hour working week, amongst others. The second major demand made during the 1905 revolution was the creation of an elected parliament, known as a Duma, so as to take some of the political power away from the autocratic Tsar and have it given to the people. By October 30th, 1905, the Tsar had passed the October Manifesto, a precursor to Russia’s first constitution, that granted basic civil rights to the people as well as created the Duma and stated that no law shall be passed without the consent of the Duma. This indicates that by October, the two main demands that the protestors had made in January had been fulfilled, although it could be argued that the Tsars social reforms were nowhere near as radical as had been suggested. The second reason why this question is contentious is because there is widespread debate as to whether the 1905 revolution was a revolution at all. The commonly agreed definition of a revolution is a “forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”. While on the one hand it is true that the so called revolutionaries were looking for a new system to replace the old, they were looking to achieve this through appeals to the existing government as opposed to its forcible overthrow. Thus it can be argued that the 1905 revolution was not so much a revolution as a series of mass protests. Other historians counter this by saying that although the masses may not have initially wanted to replace the Tsarist regime, there was even in 1905 a revolutionary undertone, as reflected by Leon Trotsky in his account of the so-called revolution, published in 1909, where he states that “the power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers… a general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is inadequate for achieving the task itself.” While this may be an isolated view and may only provide a narrow focus on the events of 1905, this quote clearly shows that some Russians did indeed seek to take these protests further and turn them into a revolution.
Accepting, however, that there was a “revolution” in 1905 and that it failed, in that the Tsar was able to retain most of his political end economic influence, one of the main reasons why this “failure” occurred would be that the army and in particular the Cossacks, unlike in 1917, had remained loyal to the regime. During the aftermath of the disastrous Russo-Japanese war, various sections of the Russian army, perhaps most notably on the Battleship the “Potemkin”, mutinied against orders from St. Petersburg. This apparent unrest may have spurred revolutionary factors throughout Russia on to wards the 1905 revolution, believing that the internal conflicts in the Russian military might cause them to be less inclined to follow the orders of the Tsarist government. This did not prove to be the case. As argued by the revisionist historian Orlando Figes, who, it is important to note is very selective in his facts when supporting his very opinionated arguments; “the only way, they argued, to prevent a revolution was to rule Russia with an iron hand”. This is indicative of Tsar Nicholas II initial Jonathan White response to the mass protests sweeping , where he uses his military to try to disperse the mass protests. The best known and perhaps most historically significant example of this was Bloody Sunday, where a large mass of workers peacefully marched, led by Father Gapon, to the gates of the Tsar’s palace to make their demands for their civil rights, only to be dispersed (massacred) through the usage of live ammunition by the loyal Cossack garrison stationed there. Although it is argued by Robert K. Massie that this massacre was done without the knowledge of the Tsar, it is important to consider that he published his book, “Nicholas and Alexandra”, before the opening of Soviet archives in 1991, and since then the common view has been accepted that the Tsar was directly involved in the massacre of an unknown quantity of peaceful protestors. Thus, it can be seen that the fact that the army remained loyal to the Tsar despite internal conflicts allowed the Tsar to suppress the uprisings through the usage of police violence, as seen on Bloody Sunday. This contrasts with the successful revolutions of 1917, where the military, particularly the Cossacks, to some extent betrayed the Tsar and sided with the rebellious factions.
A second reason for the failure of the 1905 revolution lies in the weaknesses of its conception. The 1905 revolution was very spontaneous in its nature. It started through the agreement of workers throughout St. Petersburg and, eventually, Russia, to cease working all at once in a show of solidarity against the Tsar. This resulted in there not being one single motivation or group to lead this so-called revolution. Indeed, the protests consisted of multiple different groups and showed little evidence of effective leadership. Many of the figures associated with the Russian revolution of 1917 were, in Lenin’s case, abroad, or, as in Trotsky’s case, were still only minor members with marginal influence. As a result, although there was a common theme to the protests, the riots themselves were organised and led by many different professional and amateur political groups with minimal communication between them. This caused various disparate groups to conflict with one another, allowing for a weakness in the revolutionary movement that the Tsar can exploit through the dividing of his opposition. One clear dividing factor was the nationalism and the resulting civil unrest this caused in Russia during 1905. Of the Russian empire, only 40% of its population were ethnically Russian. As many of the ethnic minorities were harshly discriminated against and were held in contempt by the Russians, this resulted in various nationalist movements, especially in Poland. This translated during the 1905 revolution into the creation of rifts between rebellious factions of various different nationalities, thus greatly weakening the revolutionary movement. This weakness was recognised by Lenin in 1916, just prior to his revolution, where he states in a letter that the “International unity of the workers is more important than the national” implying that he recognises that only through the unifying of the various ethnic groups of workers could he succeed in his revolution.
The final reason why Tsar Nicholas II was able to retain so much power following the 1905 revolution was through the use of the October Manifesto. Through the concessions that the Tsar made within the manifesto, the regime was able to satisfy some of the revolutionaries, buy off others and alienate the rest, thus effectively causing the revolution to be broken up. The key to the Jonathan White October Manifesto was the creation of the Duma. Through the creation of an elected parliament, the Tsarist regime was able to satisfy the demands of the moderate-liberals, who had sought to gain influence over foreign policy due to their great dissatisfaction with the Tsar’s policies during the catastrophic Russo-Japanese war. By stating that the Duma could control which laws got passed or not, the Tsar appeared to be giving consent to the demands of the middle class moderate-liberals who had been at the forefront of the organisation of the riots throughout 1905. In truth, however, the Tsar was able to retain most of his influence and power simply by later restricting the ability of the Duma to act effectively. In 1906, the Tsar passed the Fundamental Law of the Empire, which stated, “The Emperor of All Russia has supreme autocratic power.” This law allowed the Tsar to reserve the right to act in various key areas, such as declaring war, free from the influence of the Duma, thus rendering it pointless. Indeed, if the Tsar did find the Duma to be obstructive, he could then just dissolve it, as he did in July, 1906. By 1906, it was clear that the creation of the Duma, which had initially satisfied the wishes of the moderate-liberals and middle class, was an empty promise of power, although by the time the former revolutionaries had realised this, the revolution was over. The other half of the October Manifesto guaranteed civil rights including “real personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association”. Following the break-up of the makeshift alliance between peasants, workers and the liberals due to the proposing of the Duma, this granting of civil rights along with offers of money and land allowed the Tsar to buy off most of the peasant and workers. Those who remained were regarded as revolutionaries and were suppressed in St Petersburg and Moscow by the troops loyal to the Tsar who had returned from fighting against Japan. Thus, it can be seen that the terms held within the October Manifesto allowed the Tsar to split up the revolutionaries, satisfying some, buying the loyalty of others and then using brute force to suppress what remained.
To conclude, the so called 1905 revolution was considered to be a failure as the Tsar emerged, as stated by Trotsky, despite “a few broken ribs… alive and strong enough.” The Tsar was able to retain his power and influence through the loyalty of his armed forces, in particular the Cossacks, allowing him to respond with deadly force, the disorganisation and fractured nature of the revolutionary movement in 1905 and through the clever use of the October Manifesto, with which he breaks up the rebellious factions. Despite the Tsar remaining in a powerful position, the 1905 revolution was by no means a complete failure, as it was, as Trotsky puts it, “A dress rehearsal [for the Bolsheviks] for the real revolution in 1917.”
Example 2:
Why did the 1905 Russian Revolution Fail?
According to political theorist Alan Wood the 1905 Russian Revolution was “a wide spread manifestation of popular grief, indignation, and anger…”. In order to understand why the revolution failed one must look at three key elements of the events leading up to and during 1905. Firstly it is important to understand that the Russian Revolution of 1905 was spontaneous rather than planned. Furthermore it was not one revolutionary movement but a series of revolts and strikes organized by different parties and entities. This meant that the revolutionaries were divided and each group wanted to achieve different aims. It is also important to analyse the Tsar’s ability to use military force against the protesters. The military supported the Tsar throughout the protests and strikes of 1905 and helped to put down rioters and forcibly end protests. Lastly the concessions made by the Tsar’s regime were extremely important in ending the revolution of 1905 because they gave the revolutionaries a sense of victory.
A huge factor that lead to the failure of the Russian Revolution of 1905 was that it was not coordinated and rather spontaneous. The trigger event of “Bloody Sunday” lead to many riots and protests yet they were never unified into one movement. The revolution spread from major Russian cities such as Moscow and St. Petersburg to the Russian Territories. The Poles and Finns wanted to gain independence, however this stood in direct conflict with the interests of those revolutionaries who owned land in Poland and Finland. Furthermore the protesting middle class wanted more rights yet they did not believe that Jews should be equal citizens. This allowed the Tsar to keep the revolutionaries in check. As Figes argues “For all too many of these highborn revolutionaries, the main attraction of the cause lay not… in the satisfaction they might derive from seeing the daily people’s lives improved…”. This statement highlights the divisions within the revolutionary cause. Those revolutionaries who were of higher social standing had no interest in the struggle of the common folk. They were never in favor of achieving social equality because that would mean that they would have to share their wealth. If the revolutionaries had unified they would have been a serious threat to the Tsar’s regime. A unified opposition could have organized nation wide strikes and protests. However the conflicting interests and ideologies of many revolutionary groups prevented this from happening. Ultimately this lack of unity allowed the Tsar to take back control.
The second factor behind the failings of the 1905 revolution was the involvement of the Russian Military. Throughout 1905 and 1906 the Russian Military stayed loyal to the Tsar. With the exception of the Potemkin mutiny, Russian troops never abandoned the Tsar. The end of the Russo-Japanese War in September 1905 allowed the Tsar to use his returning troops against the revolutionaries. Using money and better service conditions as incentives the Tsar ensured that his troops were motivated to fight.. The result was that the military was able to put down multiple revolts and strikes around the country. The arrest of Trotsky in St.Petersburg effectively ended the St.Petersburg Soviet. Factory workers went back to their posts and production continued. In Moscow and territories such as Poland, the Baltic, and Georgia the revolution was crushed using brute force. The defeat of revolutionaries was only possible with military intervention. Nicholas II would have been easily overthrown if the military had not been loyal to him, as seen by the 1917 revolution. However the loyalty of his soldiers allowed him to remain in power for some time.
Lastly the concessions of the Tsar regime played a key role in halting the Revolution of 1905. With the issue of the October Manifesto the Tsar gave the people a sense of victory. Many members of the bourgeoisie were satisfied by the creation of a Duma. Thus the resistance in the bourgeoisie ended and their demands for a constitutional monarchy with representation were met. Furthermore the inclusions of free speech and free press helped quell the fire of revolution. Protesters felt they had been victorious and had achieved their goal of democracy. However the Tsar had not given up any real power. In April 1906 the Tsar issued the Fundamental Laws. These allowed the Tsar to dismiss the Duma at will and issue ‘emergency’ decrees which lasted indefinitely. Thus the Tsar retained his power to make laws. Therefor the October Manifesto did not bring about any real change and was not a defeat for the Tsar. Nicholas II was able to appease the protesters long enough to re-instate control.
The failure of the 1905 revolution was down to three key things. The spontaneousness of the riots and protests along with the divisions between different revolutionary groups. Secondly the loyalty of the military to the Tsar allowed Nicholas II to use brute force to crush revolutionaries. Lastly the October Manifesto helped to appease many protesters long enough for the Tsar to regain control. When Nicholas II issued the Fundamental Laws it was already too late to re-instate revolution. The 1905 revolution could have been more successful if it had been a unified effort. The people could have caused greater change by pushing for even more reform after the October Manifesto. However the lack of military support was in the end the damning factor for the failing of the 1905 revolution.
Why did the 1905 Revolution fail?
