The Russian Revolution
Political Revolutions (definition)
Political Revolutions are relatively ​sudden, violent ​and ​fundamental ​changes to government which,
over a period of time, ​change the nature of society a​ s well. Where revolutions are unsuccessful, or
limited in their location or extent, they tend to be called ​rebellions, revolts, insurrections ​or ​uprisings.
Another important feature of revolutions is that they are essentially a process rather than an event.
Revolutions are best seen as a series of interconnected events involving significant change over time.
The Social Structure of Tsarist Russia
Tsarist Russia was a stratified society with a high
concentration of wealth and privilege. Power was
acquired by the Tsar and Tsarina, people of political
importance (proximity to power of the Tsar), religious
power of the Russian Orthodox church, and the
Russian military.
Tsarist Russia operated a rigid social heirarchy with the
royal family and nobles at the top and the peasants
and workers at the bottom. At the end of the 19​th
century, peasants noticeably contributed to about 80%
of the population.
How was Tsarism Implemented?
Russia has been under ​autocractic rule​ for hundreds of years. This means that the ruler has ​absolute
power​ – are not obligated to consult with any other individuals about decisions. Tsars ultimately
believe that they were put in that position of power by God.
There were ​four main pillars of power ​in Tsarist society that held up Tsarist rule and aided in the
implementation of Tsarism – the Russian Orthodox Church, the Government, the Bureaucracy and
the Police. The church entices the public in believing and having faith in the system, and the police
enforce that submission. This situation made Russia highly politically unique in the Western
European world.
The Collapse of Tsarist Russia: Introduction
Fears and Challenges
The Russian Empire was colossal, expanding over one-sixth of the earth’s landmass, and yet was ever
vulnerable to foreign invasion.
“The gigantic empire of the Tsars became ever more fragile and vulnerable until it was shattered to
pieces in the turmoil of war and revolution.”
-
Alexander Chubarov, ​The Fragile Empire: A History of Imperial Russia, 1999 p.201
This 1904 cartoon provides
commentary on Russia’s decline in
power and America’s emergence as a
new power.
It suggests that Russia is:
- anti-semitic (targets Jews as a
minority group)
- oppressive (particularly towards
the Jewish, through “murder,”
“robbery” and”deception.”
“[Russia] strove to cement its multiethnic population by systematic Russification*, but this only
stimulated nationalist movements.”
*Russification: assimilation/adopting Russian culture.
“The population of the Russian Empire at the time of the Tsar Nicholas II (1894-1917) was only 40%
Russian. It was a multi-national, pluralistic society with a large number of different racial and
religious groups. These groups were in constant opposition to the autocratic government and they
were brutally suppressed…These minorities were also the subject of widespread progroms*, which
highlighted the fractured and volatile nature of the Tsarist state.”
*Progrom: an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jews in Russia.
This British 1803 cartoon portrays Russia as a monstrous,
in-human, scary and savage entity. It highlights the nation as
something to be weary of, a substantial power that should be
feared, and is foreign and not like us.
It also portrays France in the form of Napoleon, who is conveyed
as weak and able to be defeated by Russia.
Russian Vulnerability
Fears
Challenges
Conspiracies against the Tsar’s rule:
Spies and supporters in the Russian
imperial court.
Crises, peasant rebellions, and other
domestic disturbances to seize territory
and power.
Lack of trust in (and already small
number of) teachers – fear that
teachers would not teach the
government’s version of Russian
patriotic identity.
Russia’s geographical location situated away
from the centres of global trade and civilisation:
Minimal trade meant lack of cities,
literacy and a large middle class.
Russia lacked control over cities,
expansion of literacy and a large middle
class.
Agrarian empire which relied on the
scarce resources provided by peasant
farmers.
A lot of European countries were
already wealthy and developed.
Situated at the most remote, eastern
periphery of Europe separated her from
other powers.
The alliance between Germany and
Austria-Hungary, one based on practicality and
cultural similarity – Russia believed this united
central European power would pose as a threat.
Economic backwardness:
Enemies such as the Ottoman Empire,
Britain and France were economically
inclined to use technological
advancements from the Industrial
Revolution.
Initiated radical modernisation on
behalf of Alexander II (rapid
industrialisation).
The non-Russian population of Russia would be
bribed into sabotage and spy-work.
The invasion of borders:
Thousands of miles of borders that
were impossible to police.
Russia’s neighbours – Japan,
Afghanistan, Persia, Turkey, Romania,
Austria-Hungary, Germany and Sweden
– posed as potential enemies who may
have formed a formidable coalition.
Lack of natural defences.
Russia was ‘under-governed’:
There were fewer civil servants than
the more advanced countries of
western and central Europe.
The Russian government was attempting to do
much more than most European
administrations, in order to modernise rapidly.
Military defeats:
Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War led
to many reforms, which alienated
conservatives and failed to satisfy
radicals.
Managing and defending enormous territories.
Russia’s unique and vast landscape:
Russian peasantry was scattered across
a vast and usually poor agricultural
zone whose communications were
primitive.
Bringing in modern communication
mean education and welfare services
were made difficult due to the colossal
size of the empire.
Peasants often fled the state’s tax collectors
and recruitment agents by Russia’s long, open
borders.
Many counties had interests along Russia’s
southern and western borders.
Maintaining a colossal standing army:
A formidable military threatened the
people.
Large numbers of different minority groups:
Large number of non-Russians with
conflicting languages and cultures.
The 1890 census revealed that out of
125 million, less than 56 million were
native Russians.
Ongoing resistance from groups and
nations of military conquest.
Resistance against Russification.
Tsar Nicholas & The Collapse of Russia’s Absolute Monarchy
Source Analysis: Draw conclusions/inferences about Nicholas II as a person/leader in reference to the
sources below.
Source 1: ​“The daily work of a monarch he found
intolerably boring. He could not stand listening long
or seriously to ministers’ reports, or reading them.”
Written by Kerensky in 1934. Kerensky was the leader
of the government which took over when the Tsar
abdicated in 1917.
Source 2: ​“His ancestors did not pass on to him one
quality which would have made him capable of
governing an empire.” ​Written by Trotsky in 1932.
Trotsky was one of the revolutionaries who overthrew the
Tsar in 1917.
Source 3: ​“Nicholas II was not fit to run a village post
office.” ​Said by an unknown cabinet minister
Source 4: ​“He never had an opinion of his own … always
agreeing with the judgement of the last person he
spoke to.” ​By Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich
Source 5: ​Nicholas was “kind to those around him
and deeply religious. … He believed wholeheartedly
in autocracy. … He genuinely wanted to bring
happiness and prosperity to his people”. ​From a
modern GCSE school textbook.
Source 6​: “He has a quick mind and learns easily. In this
respect he is far superior to his father.” ​By Sergei
Witte, chief minister under Nicholas, in his memoirs.
Witte was known for disliking the Tsar, and was sacked by
him in 1906.
Source 7: ​“There is no doubt that Nicholas was a
kind, well-meaning person, with a deep affection for
his family. He was devoted to his wife, Alexandra,
his son, Alexis, and his four daughters. Family
photographs were in every room of the palace,
including the lavatory.” ​From a modern GCSE school
textbook.
Source 8: ​“Nicholas would sooner spend time with his
family than deal with governmental affairs. [He] could
be cruel and merciless. He would not stand for
opposition. His answer was always the same –
violence.”​ From a modern GCSE school textbook.
Source 9: ​“He kept saying … that he was wholly unfit
to reign … And yet Nicky’s unfitness was by no
means his fault. He had intelligence, he had faith
and courage and he was wholly ignorant about
governmental matters. Nicky had been trained as a
soldier. He should have been taught statesmanship,
Source 10: ​“Nicholas believed wholeheartedly in
autocracy. He thought that democracy with elections
and parliaments would lead to the collapse of Russia.
Nicholas knew very little about the [Russian] people.
He did not visit factories or villages, or go on tours. His
information about what was going on came from a small
and he was not.” ​From the private diary of the Tsar’s
sister, the Grand Duchess Olga.
number of people, who were quite happy to protect him
from the realities of life in Russia.” ​From a modern
GCSE school textbook.
Source 11: Nicholas was “​even more poorly prepared
than his father for the burdens of kingship. Nicholas
had no knowledge of the world of men, of politics or
government to help him make the weighty decisions
that in the Russian system the Tsar alone must
make​.” From H. Rogger, ​Russia in the Age of
Modernisation and Revolution​, 1983
Source 12: “​Nicholas was not a stupid man … The
problems Russia faced were very great … Nicholas II
loved his country and served it loyally and to the best of
his ability. He had not sought power … He was very
kind, sensitive, generous. … [The situation] would
probably have destroyed any man who sat on the
throne.” ​From ​Nicholas II, Emperor of All the Russians​,
by Dominic Lieven, 1994.
Source 13: “​Nicholas’ problem was that he could
understand many points of view and wavered
between them … his personality meant that he was
not very good at exercising it.” ​From ​Nicholas II,
Emperor of All the Russians​, by Dominic Lieven, 1994.
Source 14: ​Nicholas’ wife, “Alexandra, was clearly very
much in love with Nicholas. In the evenings, she
demanded that he spend time with the family. She
encouraged the Tsar to withdraw from public events to
a private family world.” ​From a modern GCSE school
textbook.
Conclusions:
o
o
o
o
o
o
He may have felt obligated to uphold the ruthless nature of Tsarist rule.
His rule seems to be on the basis of obligation rather than political interest or skill.
He didn’t feel the need to invest himself in the role – no knowledge, could be characterised
as a pushover, as indecisive.
A large amount of ineptitude for the role, lack of investment, ill-suited for the position.
Lack of knowledge – no exposure to Russian life or democracy.
Perhaps intelligent, patriotic and well-intentioned.
An overview of the role of Nicholas II as an autocrat
Nicholas drew on two large political-cultural traditions in constructing his vision as a leader:
Absolute authority advancing Russia’s interests with might and force ​ ​ all people should be
guided by the virtues of self-discipline, orderliness and regularity. Brutality in response to
opposition to his authority.
The image of the ruler as a sacred figure, a divine figure who sought unity with the people
and was loving and conciliatory. Certainty that God spoke and acted through him. The
Russian Orthodox Church encouraged obedience to the Tsar and protected his interests.
Nicholas II was ill prepared for the role of Tsar and knew very little about the reality of life in Russia,
which severely affected his ability to make strong political decisions.
A family-oriented man, he was out of touch with the people he ruled.
The autocratic nature of the Tsarist state at the beginning of the
twentieth century was also reflected in the continuing inequalities in
society. The inability of the urban working class to influence change
through peaceful means led to outbreaks of strikes and industrial unrest
in the period of 1899-1904.
His private letters and diary entries are revealing, as they provide
evidence of his strong religious convictions and his deep affection for his
wife and family. They also display a remarkable indifference to the world around him.
He was charming and kind to those around him and could command respect and loyalty, but could
also be vicious and merciless. He was very anti-Semitic and praised regiments that put down
disorders. Nicholas was also particularly attached to the army.
The problem for Nicholas was that he had to manage Russia though a time of major social and
economic change. He was not really equipped for this. His many inadequacies include:
His inability to make decisions
His unwillingness to engage in politics – even to read government reports
His lack of organisation skills (‘unfit to run a village post office’ – cabinet minister)
His weakness
His obstinacy.
Nicholas ultimately had to make the decision between tradition or modification into the 20​th​ century
– would he rule Russia in the same way as his father, or would he embrace change and be prepared
to modify the institutions of the autocracy?
Nicholas was ideologically incapable of accommodating the new middle class let alone a more
demanding peasantry and working class.
What were the views on Tsar Nicholas II of contemporaries and historians?
“…frail, small, almost insignificant youth, whose imperial crown seemed to crush him to the
ground…his father’s dominating personality had stunted any gifts of initiative in Nicky.’ – his sister in
law.
“He sticks to his insignificant, petty point of view.” – his tutor.
“[he does not have] one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire or even
a province or county…” – Leon Trotsky
“…quite incapable of exercising power. This was an autocracy without an autocrat.’ – Orlando FIges.
“A narrow-minded, prejudiced man, who was incapable of tolerating people who did not fit his
conception of the true Russian. He disliked the national minorities…He lacked the personal drive and
ambition…” – A. Ascher.
“He could understand many points of view and wavered between them…Nicholas loved his country
and served it loyally to the best of his ability…He was a very kind, sensitive, generous and initially
naïve man.” – Dominic Lieven.
Summaries on the sources:
o
o
o
o
In comparison particularly to his father, Nicholas II was young, politically weak, insignificant,
and without any initiative.
His intelligence was limited in the sense that he could not comprehend complex points of
view.
He was quite incapable of governing an empire, province or even a county.
The outdated nature of the autocratic system of government was too vast and complex for
him – Russia was described as ‘an autocracy without an autocrat.’
(However, autocratic Russia during this time may have been impossible for any man to
govern.)
o
o
o
o
He was narrow-minded, prejudiced and particularly anti-Semitic. He was ethno-centric and
patriotic, intolerable of those who were not ‘true Russians.’
He was indecisive, and able to be influenced easily in decision making.
He was patriotic, with an immense love and loyalty for his country.
His personality made him sensitive, generous and naïve.
The Development of Opposition to Nicholas & the Tsarist System, the Rise of Liberalism and
Socialism and the Lead-Up to the 1905 Revolution
The lead-up to the 1905 revolution encompassed:
Opposition to Nicholas II – with a focus on liberalism and socialism
Problems for Nicholas – with a focus on modernisation
External crisis – the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5
Internal crisis – Bloody Sunday 1905
The Development of Opposition to Nicholas II
In the 19​th​ century, improved transport and communication meant that modern revolutionary and
reformist ideas, such as ​liberalism and socialism, ​began to filter into Russia. As Russia slowly started
to modernise, literacy rates were rising, even in the countryside. The growing middle class and
industrial working class proved responsive to these ideas, and agitated for change. This newly
literate generation was to provide many of the local activists who, when faced with the refusal to
change from the autocratic regime, became more revolutionary as discontent increased. Military
defeats in the Russo-Japanese War added to the grievances of the peasants, workers and reformist
groups, leading to the events known as the ​1905 Revolution​.
At the turn of the century, ​discontent and demand for change began to emerge​ among the Russian
people in both rural and urban areas was widespread. Just about every social group was unhappy
under Nicholas II, due to a range of political, social and economic factors.
Discontent was found increasingly among the ​peasant class​ due to:
●
Poverty and demand for more land because of:
Population growth meant that land possession was reduced
Poor-quality soil was unsuitable for farming
Russia’s cold climate caused a short growing season
Economic backwardness among the peasant class
Inefficiencies of communal agriculture
Many peasants were in debt to the government
This opposition resulted in peasant uprisings, which occurred when harvests were particularly bad
and starvation was prominent.
The ​urban workers​ also opposed Nicholas’ regime due to:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
The standard of living was very low because of early industrialisation
Overpopulation meant crowded housing
Deplorable sanitary conditions
Exposure to long working hours
No laws to protect workers from hazards
Low wages
exposure to new political ideas through the liberal press
The urban workers opposed Nicholas through strikes due to the substantial amount of workers in
factories.
Many of the ​national minorities​ in the Russian Empire also resented Russian control due to:
o
o
Primarily due to the policy of Russification that had been rigorously imposed by Nicholas.
Involved making non-Russians use the Russian language instead of their own and adopt
Russian customs and traditions.
The emphasis on the ethnocentric view of the Russian population infuriated the national
minorities, who saw Russification as a fundamental and discriminatory attack on their
national and cultural identity.
The Jewish demographic of Russia also suffered from a deliberate policy of anti-Semitism
implemented by Nicholas which encompassed social, political and economic restrictions on
them, and were subject to frequent progroms.
As a result of this, there were a number of uprisings and protests from national groups seeking
greater personal freedom and more autonomy.
Opposition to the Tsarist regime also came from ​political opposition groups​. The continual exposure
of the middle class to liberalistic ideologies and the rise of education in Russia made prominent the
question of what political system should replace Tsarism in Russia.
Key Opposition groups:
o The Liberals ​ ​ the Kadet Party was the main liberal opposition group
Key features of liberalism:
Freedom of speech
Free trade
Open competition
Individual rights and freedoms
Equality in society
SUPPORTER OF CAPITALIST ECONOMY (minimum government intervention)
o
The Socialists ​ ​ Socialist Democrats (SD’s) & Socialist Revolutionaries (SR’s)
Believed in the ultimate triumph of socialism, followed the theories of Karl Marx
Shared goals of greater rights, freedoms and equality with the liberals, but differed
in the ECONOMIC views, as they believed in the even distribution of wealth through
elimination of private ownership, maximum government intervention and a lack of
any economic oppression
Therefore, they believed that capitalism and the capitalist phase was necessary in
achieving a socialist state due to the need for:
- A society that is industrialised and wealthy
- Material abundance & technology
- People being exploited and oppressed (revolutionary ideology)
In 1903, the Socialist Democratic Party was split into the Bolshevik (majority) and Menshevik
(minority) parties. Both parties accepted the main theory of Marxism, but disagreed over the role of
the party.
Bolsheviks
Mensheviks
Lenin establishes this party due to reluctance to
have to wait for revolution. His ideology was
that it is not required for Russia to proceed
through the capitalist phase due to the fact that
there was already an abundance of discontent
among the middle class. He also believed that
internationalism and the global spread of
socialism would accumulate the necessary
wealth.
The Mensheviks believed in the Marxist line
that there would be a long period of bourgeois
democratic government, during which the
capitalist phase would take place and the
workers would develop a class and
revolutionary consciousness until they were
prepared for a socialist revolution.
His will for the Bolshevik Party:
o A party that operated under centralised
leadership.
o This leadership would be in the hands
of a select few, who were members of
the intelligentsia (lawyers, writers,
philosophers)
Their will for the party:
o Be broadly based and take in all those
who wished to join.
o Be more democratic
Opposition to Nicholas and the Tsarist Regime – Modernisation
Why did Russia need to modernise?
o
o
o
o
Defeat in the Crimean War due to inadequacies of military supplies and weaponry reflected
Russia’s lacking industry. Exposed Russia’s rulers to the ‘reality and consequences of Russian
backwardness.’ (Dr Dominic Lieven)
Germany became a threat as one of the fastest growing industrial states.
Alec Nove suggests that the dominant motive behind Witte and Russia’s industrialisation
policy was to allow Russia to catch up with the more developed powers ‘particularly in her
potential to produce the means of national power, above all armaments.’ Russia had to
modernise to match countries like the USA, Germany, Britain and France in technological
capacity.
Also needed to modernise to raise the standards of living for ordinary people. Had to
increase its general wealth to bring peasants out of poverty and stabilise the backward
nature of the economy.
Why would Nicholas II be reluctant to initiate modernisation?
The dilemma for Nicholas II was that while modernisation was desirable in many respects, it also
posed a serious threat to the Tsarist regime.
o
o
The working classes could become volatile and discontented due to living and working in
poor conditions.
Rise of education/educated workforce, growth of middle class ​ ​ push for political change
“Industrialisation was bound to threaten political stability.” – H. Rogger
The lead-up to the 1905 revolution encompassed:
Opposition to Nicholas II – with a focus on liberalism and socialism
Problems for Nicholas – with a focus on modernisation
External crisis – the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5
Internal crisis – Bloody Sunday 1905
The Lead up to 1905 – External Crisis: The Russo-Japanese War 1904-05
Tsar
Nicholas was overly confident, unconcerned and oblivious.
In 1903, Russia annexed Manchuria, a north-eastern Chinese territory that Russia and Japan had long
disputed over. The region was now on the brink of war.
Due to rapid modernisation initiated by Emperor Meiji, Japan had built a strong military and naval
force, making the nation well positioned for war. Russia suffered immense and epic defeat in 1905 at
the conclusion of the war, with a loss of around 90 000 men (Japan had lost approx. 31 000).
Russia’s epic defeat was due to
o
o
Russia being economically backward and unmodernised.
Japan’s newly formed alliance with Britain (Anglo-Japanese alliance).
When the Russian public learned of the humiliating defeats in Asia, they reacted with anger,
heightening an already tense situation in a nation in the midst of crisis.
The outcomes of the Russo-Japanese War:
Facing international pressure for a diplomatic resolution combined with the internal pressure of the
1905 revolution, Tsar Nicholas II allowed US President Theodore Roosevelt to mediate between
Russia and Japan. The result was Russia’s withdrawal and acknowledgement of Japan’s supremacy in
the region. Humiliation spread across Russia.
o
o
In Russia, the disaster of the Russo-Japanese War​ contributed to the uprising​ of 1905.
It was the first time a European power had been defeated by an Asian nation. Although
Russia had a much larger fleet than the Japanese, the majority of their ​vessels were
outdated​ and the crews were generally ill-trained.
o
The Battle of Tsushima can be said to have directly contributed to the ​damaging image of
the leadership​ of Tsar Nicholas II. The Russian soldiers were shown to be unprofessional and
poorly led compared to the Japanese, who were highly disciplined and dedicated.
Impact on Tsar Nicholas and his position:
o
o
o
Economic decline
Loss of morale and humiliation
Casualties
All which contributed to the 1905 revolution.
Depictions of the Russo-Japanese War
French Political Cartoon Postcard “Nicholas the 2​nd​, and Last”
The 2 key battles ​ ​ “Moukden” (land) and “Tsousima” (sea)
Japanese emperor portrayed as the sun.
Phrases representing the revolutionary situation in Russia.
Portrays Russia in a negative light ​ ​ humiliation.
Demonstrates ​global awareness ​of Russia’s situation
Russian Political Cartoon
Russia’s confidence in triumph.
The Japanese are portrayed as
brutish, degrading and racist.
This adds to the humiliation for
Russia.
French political cartoon
Roosevelt meditating situation
Nicholas is portrayed as
injured, weak (represents his loss)
Religious prevalence in Russia
Russia’s death toll is
significantly higher.
Account for the perspective of France in the cartoon above:
France’s perspective on the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War can be accounted for by
examining the international view of Russia’s vulnerability and Tsar Nicholas’ leadership as weak. The
cartoon portrays the Tsar as physically wounded, the injuries covered with bandages with the names
of significant battles written on them, representing the weakening impact of their defeat, including
their loss of morale and humiliation. In contrast, the Japanese emperor is displayed as strong and
unfazed.
The Lead up to 1905 – Internal Crisis: Bloody Sunday
By the end of 1904, Russia was in turmoil. With a foundering economy and harvest failures, food
prices skyrocketed while the level of real wages fell to 25%. As the situation inside Russia steadily
deteriorated, so did the military situation with Japan.
The incompetence and total inadequacy of Russian military leadership, combined with the
government’s inability to properly supply its troops, led to a series of major defeats. Disillusionment,
demoralisation and widespread anger quickly dominated the national mood as Russian forces
suffered humiliation after humiliation.
Bloody Sunday
Events in St Petersburg began to boil over. By early January, there were about 120 000 workers on
strike. On 9 January, a protest march of more than 100 000 people – men, women and children –
began walking to the tsar’s Winter Palace. This was a peaceful march, led by an Orthodox priest, who
carried a petition outlining the people’s grievances, which he hoped to present to the Tsar.
As the marchers approached the Winter Palace, they were ordered to turn back by troops guarding
the palace. There was panic among the ranks of the police and troops, and someone fired into the
crows. Mayhem followed as more shots were fired. Modern estimates suggest that about 200
people were killed, and about 800 wounded. The events of 9 January became known as ‘Bloody
Sunday.’
Nicholas was blamed for this massacre of innocent, working Russian people; overnight he had
changed from being Nicholas the ‘little father’ to Nicholas the ‘bloody murderer.’ Bloody Sunday and
continuing disasters in the war with Japan fuelled revolutionary action, and within months the
country was spiralling out of control. By mid-1905, the tsarist regime’s existence was under serious
threat.
The 1905 Revolution
Bloody Sunday had a crippling effect on the tsarist government, demonstrating for the first time
widespread contempt for the regime. The autocracy was soon on the verge of collapse. Bloody
Sunday sparked further industrial action, seeing 400 000 workers strike in January alone. News of
the Russian defeat in the battle of Tsushima filtered home in May 1905, followed by a series of
disturbances across the country. Terrorism also soon spread to rural areas and the countryside.
o
o
o
Industrial action – large scale strike movement
Horrific losses in the Russo-Japanese War
Spread of terrorism though the countryside (assassinations & attempts)
The troops returning from the Russo-Japanese War mutinied on their arrival home. Mutinies
continued in the Tsar’s military and navy. The end of the Russo-Japanese War had certainly
exacerbated the situation.
Robert Service – “The monarchy’s fate hung by a thread.” War defeat had in many ways ​united the
anti-tsarist forces.
The outraged reaction to Bloody Sunday spread through universities around the country, with
students going on strike in large numbers and exercising political opposition.
Throughout 1905 industrial strikes spread from the centre in St Petersburg to other major cities and
towns. The prominence of opposition groups continued to grow, and professional unions organised
themselves into a national alliance, the St Petersburg (Petrograd) Soviet, who demanded industrial
change. Leon Trotsky, a Menshevik, became the vice chairman of the Soviets, which called for a
National General Strike.
The October Manifesto
Nicholas issued a document known as the October Manifesto, which promised political reform and
distribution of constitutional civil rights. Nicholas was reluctant about the manifesto written by Witte
due to his total belief in the value of autocracy.
He outlines in a letter to his ‘dearest Mama’ that there were only two ways to respond the situation
of discontent in Russia – with force, suppression and brutality, or ​“to give the people their civil rights,
freedom of speech and press, also to have laws confirmed by a State Duma – that, of course, would
be a constitution.” … “My dear Mama, you can’t imagine what I went through in that moment.”
A significant split occurred within the political oppositional parties. The liberal opponents separated
into the Octoberists (who were satisfied with the reforms) and the Kadets (who continued to
campaign against the government for further reforms). The Marxist opponents, including Trotsky,
were extremely critical of the Tsar’s manifesto.
“A constitution is given, but the autocracy remains. Everything is given and nothing is given.”
– Trotsky.
The Consequences of 1905
In 1906, within a few months, the details of the promised reforms were announced in terms of a set
of laws that became known as the Fundamental Laws. These initiated the legalisation of parties,
elections to the Duma (parliament) and an ability for this Duma to pass laws. But in other ways, the
new Duma proved a constantly frustrating reminder of how the autocracy was not willing to accept
political reform rather than an effective outlet for the people’s grievances.
How does Nicholas strengthen his political position after the October Manifesto?
There was immense government intervention and regulation in the Duma.
Voting laws to the Duma were skewed in favour of classes the government most trusted.
Article 87 ​ ​ to limit the legislative authority of the Duma. The government could, at any
time, declare a state of emergency and pass any law it wished while the Duma was out of
session.
Gains favour of the people through liberal reform.
How does Nicholas weaken the power of the people?
The legislative power of the Duma was restricted.
The Tsar had authority to veto any piece of legislation he didn’t like.
The State Council constituted of members personally appointed by the Tsar himself.
He restricted democratic legislation by giving the State Council the power to veto anything
passed by the Duma.
The Duma had minimal control over the budget, and no real influence over the military or
foreign policy.
Stolypin’s execution of revolutionaries.
What impact does the Lena Goldfield’s massacre (1912) have on Nicholas’ position?
The workers heavily opposed the views of the government, forming committees to write
resolutions to formally condemn the massacre.
The massacre reignited revolutionary sentiment immediately, gripping the Russian peoples
and sparking media attention.
Highlighted the government willingness to resort to violence as a response, especially after
Bloody Sunday.
Signified the end of a period of peace and stability brought about by Prime Minister Stolypin,
and began revolutionary uproar.
Revival of opposition to the Tsarist Regime, flourishing of economic and political strikes.
The Social Democratic Party formally separated into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in 1912.
Grigori Rasputin
“It was not the bullets of revolutionary terrorists, nor the shells
of Germans at the front, but the existence of a single person
that was threatening to destroy one of the greatest empires in
the world.”
- E​ dward Radzinsky
Many eyewitnesses and historians have criticised
Rasputin as being the symbol of the decay evident in the tsarist
regime.
The peasant class was already disillusioned with the
Tsarist Regime. The rise of Rasputin aided to disillusion the
upper class.
The Role of World War I in the Collapse of the Tsarist Regime
Account for Russia’s lack of success in World War I
o
o
o
o
Lack of Russian industry (as opposed to Germany)
The army comprised of ill-trained conscripted peasants
Lack of weaponry, military production
Demoralisation and disillusionment of the army
The Impact on World War I on Russia
At first, the war proved to be a great thing for Russia. Going to battle kept people’s minds off the
various concerns and problems that had become so characteristic of late imperial Russia up till then.
It united large numbers of people in support of the government against the external enemy. The
Tsar was more popular than he had been for years, and he started to work more closely with the
Duma.
Social Impacts
o
o
o
o
o
Food Shortages were the most visible
sign of hardship, creating social
problems in the cities.
Discontent led to a growing strike
movement based on wages and
demands for food ​ ​ deepening anger
of the Russian people.
Military defeats, distant leadership and
economic disaster resulted in significant
social depression and tension ​
increase in crime and prostitution.
In 1915, military command ordered the
mass evacuation of western areas,
causing millions to be pushed east.
Starvation and Typhus ensued.
Violent resistance to conscription.
Economic Impacts
o
o
o
o
o
o
“…it was his failure to harness the loyalty of his
own people which eventually cost him his
throne.” – Lockhart.
o
Political Impacts
o
o
The political disillusionment about
Tsarism was exacerbated by the
military defeats. Economic and social
conflicts created a revolutionary
situation.
The Tsar left Petrograd in August 1915,
leaving his wife to lead the country,
along with Grigori Rasputin, a Siberian
monk. Public criticism focused on the
Empress and the immense influence
Rasputin had on her.
Inflation was a major problem ​ ​ prices
of food and commodities kept rising in
the course of the war due to the
shortages, and were pressing down
wages. (several hundred % by 1917)
Fuel and raw materials were
increasingly scarce, which often
affected production.
Many essential tradesmen had been
sent to the front.
The farming system broke down due to
horses being sent to the front and the
conscription of farmers.
Imports decreased due to the Straits to
the Mediterranean being closed
(Turkish opposition).
Government debt soared due to war
spending.
Growing unemployment due to fuel
shortages.
Military Impacts
o
Significant defeats in the early stages of
the war in 1914 (Tannenburg and
Masurian Lakes). High numbers of
casualties and prisoners of war.
o The war was seen as a catastrophe due
to:
- horrendous trench conditions
- critical supply situation (e.g. ammunition,
rifles, uniforms, food)
- devastating human losses (40 000 dead by 5
months, three million by 1916.)
- feeling of exploitation as raw materials by the
soldiers.
o Despite improvements in the military
situation in 1916, morale among
soldiers continued to decline, turning to
desertion and mutiny.
Extract from Professor Maureen Perrie:
Thus, the First World War brought about the February Revolution not only through its effects on the
social and economic position of the ordinary people – the workers and soldiers – of Petrograd, but
also through its impact on the attitudes of the elite of Russian society towards the Tsar. By the
beginning of 1917 Nicholas was alienated from influential courtiers, from the Duma politicians, from
his own generals; it was these key figures who persuaded him to make the fateful decision to respond
to the revolutionary events in Petrograd not by military repression but by political concessions,
culminating in his own abdication and the end of the Russian monarchy.
The Impact of World War I on Nicholas’ Position
Confidence in the government evaporated as its incompetence and inability to effectively organise
supplies for the military at the front and the people in the cities became apparent.
The Tsar was pressured into reconvening the Duma in July 1915. They wished to be fully involved in
the war effort and wanted to prevent the country from slipping into revolution and anarchy. This
offered a real chance for the Tsar to be seen to be working with the people and offload some of the
responsibility for the war. But the Tsar would not countenance it and suspended the Duma. This
caused the Duma to become frustrated with his intransigence: ​“Is this stupidity or treason?” –​
Milyukov (Kadet leader).
In August 1915, the Tsar made a huge mistake: he decided to take direct control of the army and
went off to military headquarters in Mogilev, 600 km from Petrograd. Tsar Nicholas taking supreme
control of the military had a number of consequences:
o
o
o
He is forced to take full responsibility for the conduct of the war, including any mishaps.
He is ill-suited for the role, as he has no military experience.
He is removed from the political situation in Russia ​ ​ the Tsarina and Rasputin became in
charge of the government, which left a bad impression.
(This reiterated the notion of Russian backwardness and the corrupt nature of the Tsarist Regime.)
This created chronic instability in the government. Constant change of ministers meant that
competent people were dismissed and incompetent people were appointed.
By the end of 1916, support for the Tsar was deteriorating fast. All classes in society were
disillusioned by the way the government was running the war, and it was towards him that the
finger of responsibility was pointed. The governing elite was also in disarray. People were talking
about an impending revolution.
The February Revolution
What were the key events leading up the revolution?
T​ sarist perspective on the discontent of the people:
No sense of responsibility
Utter denial
Arrogance, delusional
So far separated from the situation, no understanding of it
Strikes and Protests contributing to tensions
On 9 January, 150 000 workers demonstrated in Petrograd in commemoration of Bloody Sunday,
and this led to a number of other strikes in January and early February.
Cold Weather culmination of discontent, plus food shortages (due to transportation failure) and
homelessness
The Russian Winter of 1916-17 was one of the coldest on record. The cold also had a negative effect
on what was left of the transport system. This made the shortages of food and fuel in the cities
worse, in turn forcing thousands of dismissed workers onto the streets of Petrograd.
The Tsar leaving for the War
The Tsar decided on 21 February that he should leave for the war front the following day.
Protests encompassing various forms of discontent
On 23 February, thousands of women marched on Petrograd to mark International Women’s Day,
demanding equality and access to more bread. They were joined by a group of around 100 000
workers who protested the lack of available bread. The following day the number of protesters had
doubles, and there was an identifiable sense of anti-tsarist and anti-war sentiment.
The Tsar and Khabalov’s Orders
Information regarding the protests was sent to the Tsar, who responded by writing to General
Khabalov (leader of Petrograd’s military garrison), ordering the strikes to be quashed. Khabalov
responded by banning public gatherings in the capital. When crowds gathered in defiance of
Khabalov’s oder on 26 February there were several instances of violence, which emboldened the
protesters.
The Mutiny of the Petrograd Garrison
On 27 February, the only body capable of enforcing the Tsar’s authority, the Petrograd garrison,
mutinied. This was due to discontent regarding working conditions, as well as distaste for the way
protests were being handled by the Tsar. The mutinied soldiers became the critical group that led to
the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty because they deprived the Tsar of any military authority in the
capital. It also gave power to the people, giving them a military capacity and critical organisation.
Nicholas’ Dismissal of the Duma
After being given information about the chaos in the capital by the Duma president, Nicholas
responded by dismissing the Duma, exacerbating the situation.
Formation of the Provisional Committee
In defiance of the Tsar’s order, the Duma formed a group of twelve to the known as the Provisional
Committee, who tasked themselves with restoring order in Petrograd. As the revolution emerged,
Petrograd was ruled by two differing groups – the PC (middle class members of the Duma), and the
Petrograd Soviet (lower class workers, sailors and soldiers).
The Tsar’s Abdication
Finally ceding to pressure to abdicate, he decided to pass the throne to his younger brother, the
Grand Duke Mikhail. When Mikhail declined the crown (due to contempt for the Romanov lineage)
and signed the formal declaration of abdication, over 300 years of Romanov rule came to an end.
The Tsar’s Warnings about the Revolutionary Situation
o
o
o
Reports from the Tsar’s secret police about the atmosphere in Petrograd
The Chairman of the Duma visited the Tsar to share his grave concerns
Prophetic warning from the British Ambassador in Russia
The Causes of Nicholas’ Abdication and the Tsar’s Responsibility
Discuss the view that Nicholas was responsible for his own downfall
For
Against
Personality and Leadership
Personality – weak but obstinate,
indecisive, lack of interest in the world
around him.
Did not have the skills (e.g.
organisational) or capabilities (e.g.
unwilling to address people directly) to
do the job of ruling Russia.
Used repression as the main weapon in
dealing with problems, reliance on the
army.
(difficulties any Tsar would be unable to cope
with)
Problems due to Industrialisation and
Modernisation
The ruling elite knew that Russia
needed to modernise to compete with
other world powers and remain a major
military power. But the majority were
determine to resist any challenge to
autocracy and the social transformation
modernisation entailed.
The growing professional middle class
wanted a greater role in national
government and felt they could do a
better job than the autocracy.
Rapid industrialisation generated a new
strata of society – a working class
extremely isolated and hostile to the
existing situation and able to organise
itself.
Attitude to Political Change
Resisted all forms of change pre-1905 –
confirmed believer in autocracy.
Reluctance to allow self-government.
Reluctant to constitutionalise October
Manifesto – never committed to it and
reneged on promises for reform.
His attitude towards the Duma showed
his unwillingness to share power.
Would not cooperate with the Duma
during 1906-14 or during the war.
Reform
Political change
Problems to do with constitutional
change – relations between the Tsar,
his ministers and the Duma.
Problems of bringing in reforms. The
hostility to Stolypin’s reforms from all
Never willingly supported Witte’s or
Stolypin’s reforms: wanted to retain
court power and resisted reform.
No real concessions to workers on
limiting working days or improving
working conditions. Rejected trade
unions or representative bodies.
Misjudgements and Mistakes
Failed to realise seriousness of the
situation building in 1904 and the need
to respond to the demands of liberals
and workers – Bloody Sunday resulted
in massive loss of respect for him.
Appointment of incompetents to run
government after Stolypin’s death.
His and Tsarina’s support for Rasputin
damaged the reputation of royal family
Going to the front in 1915, personal
responsibility for the war.
Leaving gov. in hands of Tsarina & R
Rejected proposals of the Duma (1916)
Remained unaware of dangers to
regime in 1917 until too late.
sides demonstrated the difficultly of
being neutral.
Attitudes of parties on both left and
right created a deadlocked political
system, one ‘drifting helplessly toward
destruction’.
Social and Economic Divisions and Strains
Lack of improvement in living and
working conditions of the working
classes.
Strikes and militancy pre-1914 and
during the war.
Impact of Stolypin’s reforms on
peasants and attitudes of peasants
pre-1914.
Opposition groups
The development of the liberal parties
pre-1914 and middle class pressure for
reform.
The development of the revolutionary
parties, their relative strength and
important pre-1914, the extent to
which the Bolsheviks were articulating
the interests and aspirations of the
working classes.
Degree of support for the Tsarist Regime
Contraction of the social bases of
support for the regime.
Developments after 1905-6 increased
concerns about the reliability of the
army in a crisis.
Impact of the First World War
Effects of defeats and losses of the
army and its morale, the changing
composition of the army.
Effect of economic disruption and
distribution problems on people back
home.
Effect on the confidence in gov.
The actions of opposition politicians in
the Duma and the development of the
War Industries Committee.
Historical Interpretations – To What Extent was Tsar Nicholas II Responsible for the Collapse of the
Romanov Dynasty?
Tsar Nicholas as a weak ruler and narrow-minded tyrant – Orlando Figes
“Nicholas was the source of all the problems. If there was a vacuum of power at the centre of the
ruling system, then he was the empty space. In a sense, Russia gained in him the worst of both
worlds: a Tsar determined to rule from the throne yet quite incapable of exercising power. This was
‘autocracy without an autocrat.’ Perhaps nobody could have fulfilled the role which Nicholas had set
himself: the work of government had become too much, too vast and complex for a single man;
autocracy itself was out of date​. But Nicholas was mistaken to try in the first place.
Tsar Nicholas made key mistakes during Russian involvement in WWI – JN Westwood
“It was only to be expected that after two years of war and sacrifice, with no apparent result,
Russians would be beginning to ask themselves whether the country was being properly led…[there
was a ] feeling that there were many in the government who wanted the Germans to win, or who
were in German pay…
… most Russians did not condemn the war as such, only ​the way it was being prosecuted​.”
Nicholas II was a product of political-cultural tradition that formulated his ideas about rule – D Lieven
“Nicholas II was not stupid. On the contrary, his problem tended to be that he could understand
many points of view and wavered between them. The dangers Russia faced were very
great…Nicholas loved his country and served it loyally and to the best of his ability. He had not
sought power and he was not by temperament or personality very well equipped to wield it. He was
a very kind, sensitive, generous and initially naïve man. These traumatic years required something
very different and would ​probably have destroyed any man​ who sat on the throne.”