Transcript Slide 1

What factors were responsible for
instability by 1904?
• Intro – keep it short. Context, factors, LoA
“In 1904, Russia was under the rule of Nicholas II and was very unstable. There are lots of factors
that led up to this point that had contributed to this instability, such as industrialisation,
economic problems and the personality of Nicholas II. Though some may argue that it was
mainly the faults in the Tsar’s personality that made Russia unstable…I personally believe that
while Nicholas’ personality did contribute to instability, it was mainly the past events of Russia,
such as industrialisation, that led to this.”
• Balance your argument. What factors can be discussed? What evidence can you give to back
these up?
–
–
–
–
–
Personality of Nicholas II
Industrialisation
Population increase
Urbanisation
Rural problems
“…policy of Russification. This forced the Russian language and culture on people of other ethnic
backgrounds and endorded wide-spread anti-semitism, which produced a number of pogroms
against Jews…As a result, a disproportionate number of Jews were forced towards revolutionary
groups. In 1897, the General Union of Jewish Workers in Russia and Poland was set up and later
became the Marxist Social Democratic Movement (Trotsky, Zinoviev etc). They had a prominent
role in the growth of opposition…as they co-operated with the bourgeoisie to try and end
autocracy and accelerate the socialist revolution among factory workers in the cities.”
What factors were responsible for
instability by 1904?
• Link back to the Q to ensure you explain why the factor is responsible for
instability by 1904. ie, rejection of the “All-Zemstvo Organisation” in 1896
and purging of the elected board of the Liberals – how might this cause
instability?
• Complete paragraph section of feedback
• Conclusion – make sure you answer the Q. Try to evaluate
“Overall, it is clear to see that Nicholas II’s personality contributed to unrest
and instability in Russia in 1904. He was unfit to be Tsar due to his lack of
interest in political affairs and lack of strength as a leader to implement new
laws and ideas. However, it is also clear that other factors contributed to
instability and had more of an impact that Nicholas II’s personality. The most
important factor was the urbanisation of cities [as] this allowed more support
to develop for western ideas, mainly because of poor working
conditions…Problems with the Zemstva and rural areas of Russia also
contributed to instability, but not as much as Nicholas’ personality…”
• Complete conclusion section of feedback
RUSSO JAPANESE WAR 1904 TO 1905
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dec: Surrender of Port Arthur by Russia to Japanese forces.
Jan:
Feb:
Mar: Defeat of Russian armed forces to Japan at Battle of Mukden.
Apr:
May: Defeat of Russian Baltic Fleet by Japan at Battle of Tsushima
Jun:
Jul:
Aug: Treaty of Portsmouth signed between Russia & Japan (End of War)
Sept:
RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1905
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dec:
Jan:Putilov Strike (3/1),Bloody Sunday,(9/1) and General Strike (31/1).
Feb:Grand Duke Sergei assassinated by SRs,Return of Trotsky to Russia.
Mar:
Apr:All Russian Union of Railway Workers formed:Strike action spreads.
May:Soviets,Kronstadt Rebellion,Liberal “Union of Unions”,Trotsky leaves.
Jun:Potemkin Naval Mutiny in Odessa,Nationalist Rebellions (Poles/Finns)
Jul:Shuvalov (Governor of Moscow) assassinated by SRs,Liberals:Reforms.
Aug:Land seizures,Peasants Union,Congress,“Russian Union of Peasants”.
Sept:Printers & bakers strike in St.Petersburg,Zemstvos Conference (Libs)
Causes of the October Revolution
Short term
Long term
HOMEWORK: Read and note take
P86-88 on the October Manifesto and
Reaction
Explain why the Russian Liberals were
dissatisfied with the Tsarist regime.
(12marks)
• dissatisfaction with the exclusion of most of the
population, but especially the middle class, from political
influence, especially by those influenced by western ideas
of representative government
• desire for a genuinely representative assembly, a State
Duma
• significant social and economic issues and the failure of
the Government to resolve them, e.g. famines and the
economic slump from 1900
• reaction against the Russo-Japanese War
• dissatisfaction with Nicholas II’s abilities as a ruler and
his obvious reluctance to consider meaningful reform.
Key words:
October Manifesto
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
What was the reaction of the
Tsar to the 1905 Revolution?
To understand what the October Manifesto
was
To explain why Nicholas II agreed to reform
WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED…
The middle-classes
demanded that they
should be able to vote
for an elected
parliament.
Peasants demanded
land and that something
be done to relieve their
poverty and starvation.
Workers demanded to be
allowed to set up trade
unions and to have
freedom of speech.
Nicholas said that a new
parliament called the
Duma would be set up
and its members would
be elected.
Nicholas abolished the
payments peasants
were having to make for
the land they had been
‘given’ in 1861.
Nicholas promised civil
rights such as freedom of
speech and association.
Generally, though, he
responds with violence.
Note down the demands made by each section of society
and how the October Manifesto appeared to satisfy these.
What was the reaction to the October
Manifesto?
Positive
How did the Tsar recover? P88
Negative
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (1)
1a)Explain why Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto in
1905.
(12 Marks)
• Reasons varied and interlinked with one another but may be
organised into long, medium and short term.
• Long: Include development “Personal Rule” of Nicholas II and
Alexander III encouraged by Pobedonostev with lack of any
political reform and persecution of middle classes in zemstvos
& repressive policies of russification as well as anti semitism.
• Medium: Underlying resentment made worse by problems in
economy with recession 1900+ leading to falling living
standards,decision to go to war with Japan, consequences of
“Bloody Sunday” & outbreak of Revolution .These may not
have been so significant without the underlying long term
problems building up in the late 19th century
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (2)
• Short: Inability of regime to take action to resolve political and
economic crisis between January & September 1905 resulting in
widespread industrial action & mutinies in the armed forces
which was compounded by the humiliation of Russia by Japan at
Mukden and Tsushima. This led to the Tsarist system being
under threat of collapse and forcing Nicholas II to issue the
October Manifesto out of political expediency.
• Judgement: Probably long term causes most significant due to
fact that if Nicholas II adopted different approach at the time
middle class may not have been alienated from the regime.The
opposition to Tsarism would have lost some of its key leaders
and this may have weakened the impact of the economic crisis
after 1900 which could have resulted in the avoidance of war
with Japan in 1904 to 1905.
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (3)
1b)How successful was the tsarist autocracy in reasserting
its authority by the end of 1905?
(24 Marks)
• By December 1905 Tsarist Regime was in full control of the country
with Revolution crushed and as such it may be said that autocracy
had reasserted its authority.
• Reasserting authority had been achieved at the price of giving
concessions to the middle class (Duma) and the peasants (land
reforms) but fact that forced to introduce them could be argued to
have undermined autocracy.
• Ability of regime to crush working classes and control of towns and
cities through the Soviets could be said to be evidence of reasserting
authority by “divide and rule” in terms of political opposition in the
country.
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (4)
• Although Tsarism could be said to have reasserted control by end of
1905 the fact that this only achieved by means of “divide and rule”
indication of weaknesses of regime & raises question as to whether
or not it was a success.
• Authority reasserted by “divide and rule” was not solution to the
grievances of the people.Both middle classes & the peasants saw it as
just the first step to further reforms but regime saw it as final.This
would cause problems in the future and indicated that apparent
reassertion of authority was only temporary and as such not really
successful.
• Failure of regime to “read the warning signs” from events of 1905 &
desire for change indicate that it had not been successful in
reasserting authority in long term in spite of ability to issue
Fundamental Laws in 1906.
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (5)
• Re-emergence of problems in Russia between 1906 & 1914 in
terms of social unrest (and need of Stolypin to use harsh tactics to
control them) & political unrest with problems in terms of the
Duma seem to indicate that the autocracy had only reasserted its
authority in the immediate short term & not in the medium &
longer term with many of the problems which existed before 1905
remaining unresolved.
• Re-assertion of Tsarist autocracy and fact that was success based
on political expediency could be held to have led to authority of
regime being weakened to greater extent after 1905 than before
it as all classes even those who may be said to have benefited
from the revolution came to see that in effect they had been
“duped” by Tsarism. This resulted in them being even more
determined to change the system at some stage in the future.
ESSAY PLAN:REVOLUTION OF 1905 (6)
• Willingness of middle class, working class and peasants to attempt to
challenge the regime (in spite of the repressive measures introduced
against political opponents (i.e.3000 executions in 3 years between
1906 and 1909) provided a clear indication that there was a failure in
1905 to reassert authority with success as there no longer an
acceptance of the “right to rule” of the autocracy as in the past.
• In conclusion Tsarist regime was able to exert authority to some extent
after 1905 and in this respect “successful” as it was able to retain
power. Despite this there remained a great deal of hostility to regime
and “fear factor” towards Tsarism had disappeared with the system
being no longer seen as “legitimate” raising question of whether this
was a “success” for the regime in terms of reasserting autocratic rule.
It could be argued that this was a failure.