The Revolution of 1905
|
|
What was 1905? Historians are all agreed that 1905 was significant, but disgaree about in what way it was significant – for example: • Benard Pares (1939) thought it gave hope for the survival of the monarchy: “the monarchy had been saved; the economy was prosperous; and Russia had... half a constitution”. • Abraham Ascher (1988) thought the revolution reflected deep-seated social and economic issues; the Tsar's concessions were tactical, to buy time, rather than addressing the causes. • Stephen Lee (2006) saw 1905 as the logical outcome of reforms made by the Tsars, and actually as the start of a gradual return to uncompromising repression. • Sheila Fitzpatrick (2008) thought the outcome: “ambiguous, and unsatisfactory to all concerned”. It did not produce satisfactory reforms, did not create a clear working-class unity, and actually showed that the Army was still prepared and able to put down uncoordinated uprisings. • John Morison (2014) believed that 1905 was a genuine revolution, the point in time when ordinary Russians became political aware. As you study this webpage, be thinking: what do YOU make of it?
|
Going DeeperThe following links will help you widen your knowledge: Basic accounts from BBC Bitesize on the causes and events International School History - excellent
YouTube 1905 revolution - detailed narrative account The Dumas - narrative account How did the Tsar survive the 1905 revolution - suggests two reasons Myths & Reality - a very one-sided revisionist view of Nicholas II
|
Causes [CUPID]
1. Coronation catastropheTsar Nicholas’ coronation was held on 26 May 1896. A celebration was planned on the Khodynka army training field, and people were promised a goody bag, including a spice-bread and a commemorative mug, both with Nicholas’ monogram on them … distributed from tables set up next to a ditch. 400,000 people gathered and, when a rumour went round that the gifts were being distributed, there was a surge … and a crush; 1,282 people died. Nicholas noted the “disgusting impression” left by the news on “this sad national holiday” … but still went ahead with the evening’s ball. Although the victims’ families were compensated financially, he gained a reputation – which was to return again and again – of not caring about his people.
|
The coronation of Nicholas, 1896. It was a bad omen when the Cross of St Andrew fell from his cloak. |
2. Universal unrest: riots, strikes and terrorismYou have studied the background, and know that Russia was in violent ferment in 1904 … to the point where historians disagree about what was the starting date of the ‘1905’ revolution. The main sources of unrest were [SPIN]: a. Student anger
b. Peasant anger
c. Industrial workers anger
d. Nationalist anger Nicholas pursued a policy of ‘Russification’ – extending Russian control over the Empire.
|
|
3. Political aspirationsThe ‘Liberals’ included many members of the intelligentsia and bourgeois middle class:
|
Did You KnowNote that many textbooks also list the ‘Social Democrats’ (followers of Karl Marx). Founded in 1898, the group was, however, small, its leaders in prison or in exile, and in 1903 it quarrelled and split into the moderate Mensheviks (wanted Communism without a revolution) and the extremist Bolsheviks (wanted a violent proletarian revolution). It only became significant after the 1905 revolution.
|
4. Inadequate reformsSome of Nicholas’s actions seem downright repressive:
However, it was not so much that Nicholas refused reform:
What annoyed people was that these reforms only came after riots & strikes, and did not go as far as people wanted.
|
|
5. Defeat by Japan
|
Did You KnowIn 1898 Nicholas issued a Rescript for Peace, proposing a disarmament conference at the Hague. The Conference set up a Court of Arbitration still used today, but failure to defuse international tensions. Nicholas was considered naive, and it did not help that one of the Court’s first decisions was to make Russia pay reparations when a Russian warship accidentally sunk some British trawlers (thinking they were the Japanese navy).
Consider:1. I have analysed the underlying causes of the 1905 Revolution into five
causes [CUPID]. The AQA syllabus suggests a different list: 2. When would YOU say the 1905 ‘revolution’ started?
|
Events
1. Bloody SundayOn Sunday 22 January Father Gapon led a huge Assembly of Russian Factory and Mill Workers procession to the Tsar’s Winter Place to ask for a constitutional assembly. It was peaceful, and many carried religious icons and images of the royal family. As the crowd failed to disperse when ordered, troops opened fire. The official police report recorded 75 killed, historians suggest perhaps 200, rumours at the time claimed 1,000. The whole country rose. The Tsar’s uncle was assassinated. There were nationalist demonstrations in Poland & Finland, and mass strikes in the towns. Workers' Councils ('Soviets') were set up in St Petersburg (January), Moscow (May) and many other towwns. There were more than 3,000 ‘Red Cockerel’ uprisings across the country. The sailors on the battleship Potemkin mutinied (June), killed their officers, bombarded Odessa and fled to Roumania.
|
|
2. August ManifestoIn February, Nicholas promised reforms and asked for suggestions. The trouble subsided. 60,000 peasant petitions poured in. The Liberals formed the Union of Unions to co-ordinate their response. In August, Nicholas promised to call a Duma, but it would have a restricted electorate and no powers. It was not enough. There was another wave of protests. A Railway strike paralysed the country and stopped the supply of food to the towns. On 26 October, St Petersburg Soviet (worker’s committee) held its first formal meeting; by November it had 562 deputies.
|
|
3. October ManifestoOn 30 October 1905, therefore, the Tsar issued the October Manifesto, which promised “freedom based on the principles of real personal inviolability, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and union” and a Duma which would be elected by universal suffrage, have the power to veto laws, and “actual participation” in the government of the country. He also promised to abolish redemption payments (this happened in 1907).
|
|
Outcomes [DROPS]
1. DumasThe 1905 revolution DID give Russia a kind of parliament, albeit a very weak one, with the right to criticise. This was key to the Tsar's survival in 1905, because it removed the 'constitutionalists' – the zemstvo nobles, bourgeois and intelligentsia (e.g. the 'Octobrists' and the Kadets) from the revolution. There were FOUR Dumas, 1905-17:
|
Explanation of political parties in Russia by Louise Bryant, an American journalist (1918) |
2. Repression: Crushing the revolutionTThe concessions FAILED to stop the violence. Oct 1905-Oct 1906 a total of 3,611 government officials of all ranks were killed (17,000 by 1916). However, the concessions had broken the revolutionary unity, so unrest could be countered on a piecemeal basis by a severe repression. The St Petersburg Soviet was arrested en masse. An armed uprising led by the Moscow Soviets in December 1905 was brutally crushed. This repression intensified under Tsar’s Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin: 1,400 people were executed in 1906; the noose became known as ‘Stolypin’s necktie’. By the end of 1907 Poland, Finland and two thirds of Russia were under martial law. Stolypin also introduced laws which allowed peasants to consolidate their holdings and contract out of the mir (village community). This created a small class of wealthier, ‘middle-class’ farmers (the ‘kulaks’) … and reduced the mirs’ ability to resist the government.
|
Source AThe key to the regime's survival, of corse, was its use of repression and ultimatey the loyalty of th army – the opposition could not match the weaponry and organisation of the army as the Moscow uprising demonstrated. Graham Darby, The Russian Revolution (1998).
|
3. Overturning the constitutional changesIn February 1906, The Tsar upgraded his State Council (an advisory body) to a Second Chamber with the power of veto. Next, on 6 May 1906, just before the First Duma met, he issued the 'Fundamental Laws', giving the Tsar a veto of any decisions, the right to dissolve the Duma, and the right to make laws when it was not in session. The Tsar kept full control of the administration, foreign policy and the army. The Duma was forbidden to discuss financial matters … basically, the Tsar had reneged on his October Manifesto. There was no renewed revolution, however – the Tsar had survived with his powers more or less intact.
|
Source BThe workers and peasants had shown that they could create havoc, but their actions had been too haphazard to be effective, once the government had succeeded in dividing its opponents with the publication of the October Manifesto. Anthony Wood, The Russian Revolution (1979).
|
4. Political Parties were formedAlthough it might seem that the 1905 Revolution had been defeated, even the weakened Duma gradually developed proper parliamentary procedures, and proper political parties, which took the leading role in February 1917.
5. SovietsThe Soviets were suppressed in December 1905, but the idea did not go away. The defeated Moscow Soviet announced: "We are ending our struggle…. All the people are looking at us — some with horror, others with deep sympathy. Blood, violence and death will follow in our footsteps. But it does not matter. The working class will win."
|
Source C[In 1905] Russia got a new constitution... A new, elected parliament, the Duma, was established, and political parties (such as the Octobrists) and trade unions were legalized. Although the government was still not responsible to the Duma, this reform seemed only a matter of time, and the foundation seemed to have been laid for a responsible and liberal opposition. Industry was booming, and the government of Petr Stolypin (prime minister 1906-11) made some reforms to remove the causes of peasant discontent. Hutchinson Encyclopaedia (2000).
|
Interpretations of Stolypin
|
On Stolypin: • Overview • Comment on his counter-insurgency
Consider:1. Using Sources A-C and your own knowledge, explain how the Tsar survived the 1905 Revolution. 2. Collect from this webpage all the information you can about Stolypin. Explain which of the four historiographical interpretations seems to you most accurate.
|
|