Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The collapse of the tsarist system of government
Early stages of the russian revolution
Early stages of the russian revolution
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The collapse of the tsarist system of government
How did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution?
Introduction
Controversy surrounds whether or not the revolution was a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution or a missed opportunity for Tsar Nicholas II to consolidate a constitutional monarchy.
This dissertation will focus on the survival of the Tsar, as it is ultimately an open question whether he would have saved the monarchy. The dissertation will also reveal that in the Tsar’s heart was more in reaction than reform. This coursework will show that part of the key to the monarchy’s survival was the division of the opponents of Tsarism. It took World War I to cause a major breakdown in relations that left the monarchy open to further revolution through total war.
The 1905 revolution was the result of the Russo-Japanese war which broke out in 1904. The war saw military and naval defeats for the Russian forces. There were food shortages in cities and the Soviets (assemblies of workers and soldiers’ representatives) were formed in St. Petersburg and Moscow. The event which started the whole revolution in the Russian Empire was “Bloody Sunday”; the event of the massacre of armament workers by Cossacks in front of the Winter Palace at St. Petersburg. The leader, Father Gapon, wanted to present the Tsar a petition requesting an improvement of living conditions and more freedom of expression. Riots spread to Odessa, the Black Sea Port and to Moscow where the Soviets were formed and Trotsky became involved. The battleship Potemkin mutinied and tried to help the Odessa rebels. There was a film made by the director Eisenstein which implied that the 1905 rebellion gave the momentum to a new revolutionary movement. However, ultimately, the revolution of 1905 was suppressed in the short term.
Summer brought mutinies from both the navy and army. The loss against Japan at Port Arthur and defeat at Tsushima far from strengthened the position of the Tsar’s government, in fact had weakened it. Autumn saw the transformation of industrial discontent give way to an all-out strike. It was then that the Soviets began to form-councils to demand improvements for the workers, led by Lev Trotsky.
Disturbances and riots such as Bloody Sunday clearly proved to be a challenge to the Tsarist system. There are key factors which allowed the Tsar to survive. We can isolate three factors which enhanced the Tsar’s survival: the loyalty of...
... middle of paper ...
...l and social grievances. Stolypin was dropped and he had been assassinated by 1911. The Duma was distrusted and total war after 1914 prepared the road of revolution by 1917. The Tsar survived the 1905 Russian Revolution by a combination of repression, economic reforms and tactics which divided the opposition.
Bibliography
Ascher, Abraham (1992) Second Edition: The Revolutions of 1905, Stanford University Press.
Bushnell, Albert (1985) Mutiny amid Repression: Russian Soldiers in the Revolution of 1905, Indiana University Press.
Evans, David and Jenkins, Jane, (2001) Years of Russia and the USSR, 1851-1992, Hodder and Stoughton Educational.
Karpovich, Michael (1960) Imperial Russia, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston Inc.
Lynch, Michael (2000) Reactions and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924, Hodder and Stoughton.
Lynch, Michael (2000) “The Russian Revolution: Russia 1881-1924”, Hodder and Stoughton.
Morris, Terry and Murphy, Derrick (2000)“Europe: 1870-1991” HarperCollins Educational
Pipes, Richard (1990) The Russian Revolution 1899-1919, Alfred A. Knoph Inc.,
Pipes, Richard (1970) Struve: Liberal on the left, 1870-1905 Cambridge Massachusetts Press.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
Sack, Arkady J., “The Birth of the Russian Democracy”. New York city, Russian information bureau. 1918.
I know that one of the benefit of our current income tax system is those who make a lower income will have to pay a lower tax percentage from their earnings. However, the disadvantages with this method is quite obvious. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the charts show that it has six federal income tax brackets between 10 to 35 percent, which means that our progressive tax system affects hard working people with a higher tax rate (Freedomworks.org). For example, people who earned an income up to $8,400 would be under the 10% tax bracket, while people earning about $360,000 or more would fall under the 35% tax bracket (Rosen, Elizabeth). The taxpayers are broken down into groups based on their taxable income. The more a person earns, then the more taxes they will have to pay once they reach the different taxes bracket levels
future leader of the Soviet Union as a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution. The most important difference is that the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy in Imperial Russia. A combination of reasons can explain why this revolution failed at overthrowing the Tsar Nikolas the Second. The revolutions participants were not revolutionaries that wanted to overthrow the Tsar, it was not started by revolutionary groups. The military and military context played an important role to the revolution’s failure, and the autocracy’s reforms gave compromise to the protestors who could be satisfied with the changes. These factors show why the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy.
I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent, along with economic hardships, caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution, as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards.
This essay asks for the comparison of the three historical monographs, which offer different interpretations of the same or related topic. This essay will focus on writings about the Russian Revolution (1818-1919) particularly concentrating on the October Revolution in 1917 and the leadership of Vladimir Lenin during this period. The goal of this essay is to examine how three historians, from three separate schools of thought, have interpreted these events and how their particular political views, evidence and personal experiences have influenced these interpretations. This will be achieved by analysing the works of Richard Pipes; a western liberal-conservative, Dmitri Volkogonov; a soviet-revisionist and John Reed; a socialist.
The resignation of Nicholas II March 1917, in union with the organization of a temporary government in Russia built on western values of constitutional moderation, and the capture of control by the Bolsheviks in October is the political crucial opinions of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The actions of that historic year must also be viewed more broadly, however: as aburst of social strains associated with quick development; as a disaster of political modernization, in relations of the tensions sited on old-fashioned traditions by the burdens of Westernization; and as a social disruption in the widest sense, concerning a massive, unprompted expropriation of upper class land by fuming peasants, the devastation of outmoded social patterns and morals, and the scuffle for a new, democratic society.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
In February of 1917 a group of female factory workers and led a revolt in which the Tsar was dethroned, only to be replaced by a provisionary government composed of the Russian elite. When this government did not live up to its promises of an end to Russian involvement in World War I, the Bolsheviks (“majority”), a revolutionary movement led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the provisionary government in what bacame known as the October revolution.
3) Field, Daniel. Rebels in the Name of the Tsar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976
The Russian Revolutions of 1917 led to the riddance of the czarist Russia as well as the ushering in of the socialistic Russia. The first of the two revolutions forced Nicolas II to abdicate his throne to a provisional government. Lenin headed the second of the two revolutions in which he overthrew the provisional government.
The discontentment of industrial workers in Russia was an important factor behind the 1905 revolution in Russia. The conditions in the factories left a lot of workers dissatisfied with how they were treat, with many factories completely forsaking anything resembling health and safety regulations and others making their employees work 11 hours a day throughout the week and 10 hours on a Saturday. However, there were several other important factors that led to the 1905 revolution such as the Russo Japanese war in 1904-1905, The policy of Russification and the events of Bloody Sunday. All of these factors will be discussed in the
Riasanovsky, Nicholas V., and Mark D. Steinberg. A History of Russia. 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford, 2005. Print.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.