Preview

Why did the Revolution fail to topple the Tsar in 1905, but succeed in 1917?

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1656 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why did the Revolution fail to topple the Tsar in 1905, but succeed in 1917?
Why did the Revolution fail to topple the Tsar in 1905, but succeed in 1917?

The Russian Revolution had a decisive impact on the history of the twentieth century. Its implications and influences went on to effect a huge area and last decades. True to the large impact that it had, it was a large event. It spanned years and included many various groups and individuals. When studying the Russian Revolution it is important to note that it came during a time of change in Russia. Over the forty years preceding 1905, and thirty years following 1917, the Russian Empire underwent huge transformations. This meant that though many events can be seen as part of the Revolution, much of them happened against different backdrops within the country.

Nicholas II did not abdicate and was not dethroned in 1905. However the Revolution of February 1917 did remove him from his position. When asking why Nicholas II survived 1905 there are many factors to be examined. It is notable that at both times many conditions were extremely similar. Levels of dissatisfaction, large strikes and the country being geared towards a war time economy are all examples. But it is important to see the perhaps less noticeable factors and also the small differences which gave the two events such contrasting outcomes.

The Autocracy, after suffering a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japenese War, could have been dealt an even harsher blow if the peace terms it was faced with had been more severe than they transpired to be. However, the negotiations, presided over by the American president, Theodore Roosevelt in New Hampshire, were quite lenient on Russia. This allowed Nicholas to save face, pride and also security in his position. #

In 1905, despite the atrocious conditions that workers in the agricultural and industrial sectors were suffering, there does seem to have been support, or general good-will towards the Tsar. It is often suggested that the people did not blame him, but those around him for the



Bibliography: Dukes, Paul, October and the World. London 1979 Fitzpatrick, Sheila, The Russian Revolution. New York 1994. Goldston, Robert, The Russian Revolution. London 1967 Hosking, Geoffery, A History of the Soviet Union. London 1985. Mackenzie, David, A History of Russia, the Soviet Union and Beyond. California 1987.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The Decline of Imperial Russia, 1964, p.108) What caused or defined the decline and eventual fall of the Romanov dynasty cannot concluded by one influencing factor but an amalgamation of Tsar’s leadership, certain events that impacted on Russia and Revolutionary groups that aided this process. From these it is evident though that Tsar Nicholas’ role, to a major extent, was the key factor in the end of the 300-year reigning Romanov rule and subsequent execution. In exploring Russia in the early 20th Century, the revolutionary groups, mainly including the Bolsheviks, can be seen as having a minor role in that actual reason for the decline of the Romanov dynasty but rather a larger role in the events after the fall, in regards to the execution itself and shaping Russia’s future afterwards.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Russia’s industrialisation as a result of the reforms of 1891 proved crucial in the fall of the old order. After Witte’s reforms of the late 1890s the population of Petrograd doubled between 1890 and 1910. With the working population in the cities it gave revolutionary groups the advantage of having a large group of frustrated workers in a confined space. In relation to the events of 1917 February revolution the population density allowed the numbers participating in the violent revolts to reach colossal numbers. With the Tsar on the war front, the masses persuaded the soldiers to join the revolutionary forces and by the time he came back, it was too late. Cities such as Petrograd and Moscow weren’t designed for the population increase, and as such workers were living in crowded dirty, overcrowded apartments. These living conditions lead to the frustrations throughout the revolutionary groups. Witte’s reforms converted a large portion of peasants into proletariat. As the tension raised in 1917 that same industrial working class responded with strikes. The strikes started by the Pulitov Steal workers on the 18th of February 1917 started out with one company, but the frustration with the Tsar wasn’t just in one factory. In exactly 12 days one strike had turned into a revolution the reason was that the reforms of Witte and Stolypin .With the peasants now in factories it ment they lacked farmers and had nobody to farm the good harvests in the war years, in fact the harvests of 1915 and 1916 were the best of the century. Without the food to feed a starving nation, the Russian government was in trouble and with this Wittes reforms that were designed…

    • 944 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russia was an Autocracy before 1905 and the Tsar was Nicholas 2nd. Many people dispute over whether he was in control or not, the main factors being: The Tsar’s leadership, Opposition to the Tsar, Social and Economic conditions and finally means of control. It can be argued that some factors are more important than others, but they are all significant in how I believe the Tsar was losing control.…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Russian revolution which began in 1905 was a wave of mass political and social unrest that spread through vast areas of the Russian empire.…

    • 795 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    On the 27th of February 1917, Nicholas II received a telegraph. Rodzianko, the President of the Duma, was trying to urge him into action, stating “any procrastination is fatal”, the situation was moving into “a state of anarchy” and “the government is paralysed”. The grave circumstances included a break-down in the transportation system and the supply of necessities, fuel and food. Sporadic firing plagued the streets. The next day, the Czar abdicated. Thus the February revolution characterizes Russian history, as it provoked the Czarist demise. Several historians rely on the ‘optimist’ view alleging the October Manifesto had set Russia on the course of political modernisation and Russian agriculture and industry were also modernising meaning WWI was the spark that ignited the 1917 revolution. The ‘pessimist’ notion entails the theory that there were abundant contributory elements, and Czarism was doomed despite the October Manifesto and Stolypin’s agricultural reforms.…

    • 1986 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    ‘The desire seems to have been to reform and improve existing institutions rather then to destroy them root and branch.’ Though this quote is in reference to the French Revolution of 1789, yet upon hindsight many historians envisage the striking parallels between the revolutionary movements of France in 1789 and that of the Russian Revolution in 1905, and hence historiography for the two revolutions can largely be cross contextual. Thus, although the concessions introduced from 1906 might be enough to suppress the relatively mild spirit of reform, it is not sufficient to stem the revolutionary challenge that arose during 1917. The main argument of this discursive is the question of reform versus revolution: two inherently different situations cannot be solved with only one solution. Another reason why the Tsarist regime fell was because the reforms that were introduced did not dissipate the discontent of the general masses: by not solving the grievances of the people effectively, this only means that resentment will grow with time and lead to higher expectations, which culminated in the climatic movement of 1917. Thirdly, the autocratic regime fell as the Tsar’s bastion of support had dissolved: this not only includes the landed gentry, but also the military forces that represented the element of coercion that a monocracy needs. With his support base gone, the Tsar himself has become but an iconic past. Lastly, the incidence of World War One creates a coincidence of discontent: not only has it precipitated the problems of the past, it has also become a problem of itself. Alan Wood questions, ‘Did the military situation generate the domestic crisis which brought about the disintegration of the Tsarist regime; or were the pressures and contradictions within the social and political system already of such a refractory nature as to make revolution in any case inevitable?’ The answer is that there is probably an essence of both, but very evidently the War exposes…

    • 2039 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Nationwide Revolution

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In 1905 the massacre of innocent people during a peaceful protest outside the winter palace in St Petersburg sparked the start of a nationwide revolution. This mass murder of the innocent protestors became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. During the revolution strikes occurred across the nation involving more than 400,000 people, peasants attacked and raided the homes of their landlords and the Tsar’s uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei, was assassinated. Although Bloody Sunday was the immediate reason for the revolution, there were several causes which had caused long term grievances towards the Tsarist regime among the population of Russia leading up to 1905. These include the developments in the countryside and the lives of the peasants, the treatment of the inner-city working class and ethnic minorities, the repression and growth of the political opposition and the impact of the Russo Japanese war. Although all these factors contributed to the initiation of a revolution in Russia, I believe that the attitudes towards and treatment of the working class and the peasants was the most prominent reason for the uprising in 1905.…

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    During 1917 the political system of Russia, and the political opinions of its public, began to change. The First World War was deeply taking its toll, with the casualties running into millions, and food shortages were reaching crisis levels across Russia. Presided over by the Provisional Government, who had little support and even less real power, the people of Russia became restless. In October, the animosity between Government and populace came to a head, and a revolution put Lenin’s socialist Bolshevik party in power. This essay will show that, while the Bolshevik party was dedicated and driven in the values they believed in, it was only the seizing of opportunity, and a lot of luck, that they succeeded in taking power.…

    • 1594 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Although there were uprisings before the revolution, and attempts at change, the revolution of February 1917 was significant and different because of the huge range of opposition and the speed at which it became a full blown revolution. It occurred between 18th February, and 4th March, and resulted in the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, due to the loss of support from his own elites, who abandoned him and urged him to abdicate. It can be attributed to various different factors: Nicholas himself and the failure to reform politically, the middle class, the working class, the peasantry, the situation of Russia both on the eve of and during the First World War, and the revolutionary parties, to name a few.…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The abdication of the Tsar in 1917 is still talked about today; the reasons are still disputed to this day. There are three main views; the optimist view which states that Russia was on the right path but the First World War slipped Russia into revolution. This view is supported by A.Gerschenkron who says, “That in the absence of war, Russia could have continued in the road of progressive westernisation”. The second is the Marxist view which suggests that Russia was on the verge of revolution until war broke out. In addition, this view also comes with the idea that war was ultimately good for Russia as it unified the country under the Tsar, but also it suggests that as the war prolonged, Russia was heading down the revolutionary path yet again. The last view is called the Synthesis view which suggests Russia’s revolution was going happen no matter but the war was just a catalyst in this process. The view that I agree with is the synthesis view, the idea that revolution was coming but war sped up the process. The main reason I agree with this is because as oppression increases the people become radical and we already saw this in ‘1905 revolution’, there are also many examples of this happening in modern day history.…

    • 1556 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Romanov Dynasty

    • 1502 Words
    • 7 Pages

    When discussing why public opinion of the tsar was so easily pliable in the lead up to revolution in 1917, we must acknowledge that Russia was evolving rapidly. As modern historians and public spectators, it is simple to map out how Russian society became a pressure cooker of discontent and anger. Mass industrialisation made living for a working, urban class almost unbearable, the class divide was still rigid, revolutionary ideas from the West offered a foundation to base claims for the removal of the autocratic system, and the pressures of World War 1 served to unite the people in one cause to end hardship. These factors stoked a population already vying for change and such an environment made revolution in Petrograd (St Petersburg) in the February of 1917 almost inevitable, foreshadowing the end of the…

    • 1502 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Like the statement states the weakness of the opposition towards the tsar really impacted the fact he survived. In 1905 the only thing uniting all the groups against the Tsar was the Russo Japanese war so the Tsar ended the war so it broke the common denominator. So this meant in 1906 every group had a different agenda. The alienated intelligentsia wanted a say in Russia, the revolutionaries didn’t work together, socialist wanted removal of the tsar and the liberals wanted to share power with the tsar, because of this in 1906 the only revolutionary against the tsar at this time was Trotsky. The proletariat wanted better working conditions and pay and the peasant wanted rid of mortgage repayments, food and more land. Therefore opposition was not united making it easier for the tsar to appease them.…

    • 874 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays