To what extent was the Russo-Japanese war the main course of the 1905 revolt?

In this essay, I will discuss the extent of the Russo-Japanese war’s contribution to the 1905 revolt. I will debate, on different events and their possible connection between the war and the emancipation of the serfs and the implications deriving from Bloody Sunday and how it resulted to the revolt. Overall I will argue that the Russo-Japanese war was not the main cause of revolt.
Russia intended to expand its empire by attempting to gain more control over the far east, Which lead into direct conflict with Japan. Russia and Japan went to war over the control over northern China and Korea1. Russia believed success was assured because of its physical size and resources such as the Trans-Siberian and Chinese eastern railways2 would work to their advantage; however this was proved not to be true. As Japan had humiliated both the Russia government and the Tsar with, it’s better built British ships that out motived the Russia fleet and executed victory. The humiliation that a powerful nation was defeated by a much smaller, inferior country was strongly felt by the government, as well as Russia public. Russia had not just lost the war, but had lost a total of 90,000 lives and the reputation of its military3. In Russia, this defeat undermines support for the Tsar and helped to create unrest against the government as there weakness became more apparent to the public; this helped the presents as it was a good opportunity for a revolt. Overall making the war one of the many triggers of the 1905 revolt. Evidence to support this was from Felix Yusupov’s autobiography who states that “Russia's enemies took advantage of the general dissatisfaction to set the Government and the masses against each other.” This did prove to be true as the widespread unrest that followed4. This source was useful as it is from a person who was there , and was a part of the public, therefore giving us a aspect of what the common view was about the war.
The Potemkin was a new battleship of the Black Sea fleet, commissioned in 1903, with a crew of 8005. At sea on June 14th 1905 the crew complained to the captain about the quality of the working conditions, not being appropriate for their line of work, the spokesman was shot dead, which then lead to the a mutiny. The Potemkin hoisted the red flag and a ‘people’s committee’ was chosen to take charge. In hope of this incident would trigger more mutinies among the black sea fleet, the crew kept the ship. However there were only a few minor disturbances that were easily put down by the government. With little success on June 25th the crew surrendered to the Romanian authorities6, who handed the ship over to Russian naval officers. This had little effect on Russia as it only showed that there was conflict between the ranks of the military. However it could be argued that it had a connection to the revolt as it was evidence to the public that perhaps there was a chance to fight for better working conditions and that there were not the only ones to think this. Overall it seems that rather than being a direct result of the Russo Japanese’s war, this issue what about the poor working conditions.
The working conditions of the working class were not far from the working conditions found on the Potemkin. As the average working period for minors and railway workers was an 11 hour day7 and as a result these long hours ensued little pay to workers. Evidence to support this claim would be from a worker’s dairy, as it confirms this; by stating “I would grow so terribly tired.” this was a result from the eleven hour workday. Along with the poor living conditions this man had to face as he also mentions “I would fall into my flirty sack and sleep like a dead man.” This dairy was not meant to be published and seen by the public therefore it can be trusted, as it a primary source from a real worker and shows us what the man’s own personal thoughts were about the working conditions8. The owners also did as much as possible to help repress any trade unions, which were attempted by the workers9. This factor contributed to the revolt as the built up of resentment form the workers to the owners realised in several general strikes that took place in 1905.
The Russian empire was far behind the development of the rest of the world because of serfdom10. Victor Serge ( From Serfdom to Proletarian Revolution), agrees with this statement as he said that “the need for serious reform does begin to be apparent: agricultural production is poor11.” Alexander II was aware of this issue12 therefore in 1861 he passed a legislation that set in motion an on-going process to abolish serfdom in Russia; this would be soon known as the emancipation of the serfs. Giving the serfs freedom and land seemed to leave the existing land-owners without the cheap labor force they needed to keep their estates and lifestyles13. In general serfdom was seeing as the prime cause of Russia’s inefficiency14 however other main reforms were no longer possible whilst serfdom remained. One of the key provisions was that if the peasants were not given land this would cause mass poverty15, but if given land on generous terms this would upset the upper classes. It shows in Serge’s source that the presents had to pay for the land there received over 49 years16, these were known as redemption payments, and in turn this still meant that freedom was limited. As the source clams, “Yesterday’s serfs discovered that, in becoming free, they were now hopelessly in debt.” This shows that life did change for the serfs but not by much as this disappointed the peasants as for example some had to wait a total of 20 years obtain their land17. This source as a whole is useful as it gives an average person’s view of event that is not biased and has the benefit of hindsight because of the date It was published. Over time the freedom the serfs received, only wetted their appetite for more, as next generation wanted this as soon as possible. Therefor there response to the government was to play a part in the 1905 revolt. This issue was connected to the revolt, as it was desire to be free from the younger generation
The weaknesses of the Tsar Nicholas II should also be considered as one of the reasons for the 1905 revolt. Nicholas lacked the leadership and character of the role as Tsar, as he would place the needs of his family above his responsibilities. In 1895 Nicholas broadcasted that he would be a strong leader by declaring: “Devoting my strength to the welfare of the people”. As this was from one of his speeches that promised many things, but it was only for the public ears and did not end with any changes to the way he handed the role.18 This source is a speech, and was meant for the public to hear, therefor it can been seen as not very reliable, as it purpose was to urn support for the tsar, there for it might have been made promises that he could not keep. As for evidence to support this, Nicholas was not present at the Winter Palace to receive the demonstrators petition in 190519. This in turn damaged the image of the Tsar as the protector of the people, and his weakness became better known to the public. This issue was evidence that the Tsar was not capable of the role, in turn seeing the tsar weakness the public were given an Image of a revolt being successful, as Nicholas had openly proven himself wrong, Therefor this issue was one of the reason for the revolt.
In January 1905 protest that took place outside of the winter place, led by Father Gapon20, an orthodox priest. He attempted a peaceful protest with the workers and their families that wanted to achieve a better quality of life. To support this clam, Gapon had send a letter to Nicholas II about the protest in it said the time and date of when he would be outside of the winter place. Along with a statement “Do not fear anything.” This is evidence to support the fact that Gapon did not wish of there to be any blood shed as had his attains to be different from a peaceful protest, he would have not sent the letter21. This source was a letter to Nicholas II, it is useful as it shows what Gapon intentions were, and it is evidence that Gapon did notify the tsar of the protest. However this protest panicked the troops, therefore the troops with no police to aid them reacted with open fire. Killing over 200 people and hundreds more injured22. This event highlighted the long term problems with Tsarism as it showed yet another inadequacy of the Russia government, as a regime that had been accused of trying to build a police state that had no police officers prepared and insect of troops that had no experience when dealing with civilians23. Nicholas II had review this event in his dairy, he had describe this day as “painful and sad.” This shows that Nicholas did not fully grasp the events of Bloody Sunday as he doesn’t understand the impact of this issue it had on the public, he speaks in the way that this issue could be fixed, and downplays the amount of people that were hurt just because of one act. Nicholas would have wanted to minimise this event as much as possible, as he was the tsar at the time and because of this people would blamed him for the killings24. This source is a dairy therefore to some extend is useful as it shows Nichols’s thoughts on the event and how he understood it. The event could be argued as the start of the revolt as it begun a wave of uncoordinated protests thought out Russia, as workers, peasants and middle class workers a shared goal25, making this event one of the main reasons for the 1905 revolt.
To conclude, a variety of factors did contribute to the revolt. From the evidence that I have displayed I believe that Bloody Sunday was the trigger and cause of the revolt as it led to widespread disorder, for example the general strikes, peasant revolts and the way in which the government responded to it caused vast public outrage. These factors made it clear that Bloody Sunday play a major role that help start the revolt. Unlike the Potemkin mutiny, that had no long term effects. Nevertheless other factors such as the Russo-Japanese war were also significant, as the war was responsible for the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution to a certain extent. As it could be argued that it was the most important factor that caused the Russia revolt was Russo Japanese war defeat, as it was doubtful to the Russian people that Japan would defeat them, and when the defeat did come and Russia was humiliated by an international scale. It was also real evidence to the people of Russia that the Tsar was unstable.