Factors affecting the security of the Tsarist

state before 1905

How did Tsar survive the 1905 revolution?

The Tsar did survive the 1905 revolution both literally and politically, and by the end of the attempted revolution Russia
still remained an autocratic tsarist regime. In 1905 Nicholas II, the autocratic ruler of Russia faced a serious uprising
against his rule as many Russians were prepared to take action to show how much they disapproved of the way the Tsar
was running the country. The most significant cause of unrest in 1905 was the Russo-Japanese War in which Russia who
were one the world’s great powers was defeated by a smaller inferior country, Japan as the Japanese army and navy
were better equipped and well prepared, whilst Russia had underestimated Japan’s strength and failed to understand
the enemy or the territory it was fighting in. The government was held responsible for Russia’s defeat in the war which
was a large trigger for the 1905 revolution. In addition, Bloody Sunday shocked Russians and foreigners alike, Father
Gapon led 200,000 workers to the Tsars winter palace to present a list of grievances begging him to use his royal
authority to relive their desperate conditions. In response widespread Outbreak of disorder wept across Russia and
general strike occurred as an immediate reaction to Bloody Sunday and terrorism against the government and Landlords
organised by the SR’s spread to the countryside. Pleheve the unpopular new minister appointed by the Tsar was
assassinated leading to additional opposition against the Tsar. All these events in 1905 built up to the revolution and the
ultimate blame was placed upon the Tsar and the government’s policy of political repression. Therefore, the Russian
revolution was a protest against the Tsar's refusal to make political concessions.
Despite the violence and opposition to the Tsar in Russia in 1905, Nicholas survived the crisis and his authority was
restored. Much of the credit for this lies with Sergi Witte, Nicholas Chief minister in 1905. He persuaded Tsar to make
concessions to the Liberals in Russia to win their support. As a result, the revolutionaries could be dealt with much
harsher therefore reducing the impact of the revolution on the Tsarist Regime. Consequently, on October 17, 1905
Nicholas issued the October Manifesto setting out political rights for the people of Russia and agreeing to the setting up
of an elected parliament known as a Legislative Duma. In the October Manifesto Nicholas promised to introduce a range
of civil rights, including freedom of speech, assembly and worship and the legalising of trade unions and along with the
Duma which would share in the running of the country the Liberals appetite for reforms was satisfied, and they were
keen to work with the Tsar in the Duma to bring about gradual change therefore these concessions made in the October
Manifesto had a huge impact on the survival of Nicholas II in the revolution.

Regardless of the fact violent opposition had frightened the Tsar into making concessions in order to maintain his
control, many of them were withdrawn in the years following 1905. Nicholas ensured that the Duma would have
minimal authority and in May 1960 he issued a set of fundamental Laws which gave him complete control over the
Duma. He alone could make laws in Russia and had the power to dissolve the Duma or change the laws by which it was
elected whenever it suited him. This was a key reason as to why the Tsar was able to overcome the revolution as the
Duma’s were in fact a backward step towards democracy and a disguise to cover the continuation of autocracy in Russia.
Giving power to the people would result in a revolution as so many groups opposed him, so by maintain his autocratic
system the Tsar was able to some extent control the revolutionaries.

Although a large majority of the population opposed Tsarist Regime, there were varying extremes of opposition, and
Tsar worked cleverly to temporarily please the three main opposition classes, peasantry, industrial workers and
reformist middle classes. With the Liberals satisfied the rioting peasants were next targeted in an attempt to reduce
opposition to the Tsar, Peter Stolypin, Chief Minister in July 1906 argued that if peasants had a higher standard of living,
they would be less inclined to support the revolutionary groups. He promised to progressively reduce mortgage
repayments and the abandon them altogether and the immediate response to this was a drop in the number of land
seizures across Russia. Stolypin also encourage peasants to buy land from their local village which had owned it since the
peasants were freed from serfdom in 1861. The government provided loans to help peasants purchase land and by 1914
over two million peasants had possession of their own and. Stolypin’s measures meant that there was less unrest in the
factories and the mines subsequently there were fewer strikes. .................Yet Stolypin’s
policy was “suppression before reform”, and he granted the Okhrana powers to execute those who seemed so guilty no
need for trial which led to phrase Stolypin’s necktie, over 4,000 were executed and 4,000 sentenced to hard labour.
Peasants and workers lost their right to enter the Duma and the consequences were the 3rd and 4th Dumas were heavily
dominated by right wing parties, as a result the Duma had little power and influence. His measures were extremely
successful and reduced the estimated number of revolutionaries in Russia from 100,00 in 1905 to 10,00 in 1910.

Both the Liberals and Peasants, two of the main opposition groups to the Tsar had readily taken to the idea of
concessions and had willingly accepted the government’s political and economic changes such as the October
Manifesto proved that both these groups were never in favour of a revolution and their main priority was to better their
own living conditions and they sought after reform rather than take radical action against the Tsar which was reflected
in their peaceful protest on Bloody Sunday. ...................It could be argued that the “1905
revolution was setting the scene” for the 1917 revolution, and a noteworthy aspect of the revolution the fact the
revolutionaries actually had no major impact and had a small role in the whole revolution. Only a few of them any were
either in St Petersburg or Moscow. It could be said that the revolution happened in spite of rather than because, of
them. With the exception of Lev Trotsky who was one of ringleaders in the siege of headquarters of the St Petersburg
soviet, none of the revolutionaries actually played a significant part, which could be used to back up the idea that the
events of 1905 coupe not in reality be classed as a revolution. One of the most significant reasons why Nicholas II
survived the revolution being the lack of leadership, experience and unity of the protestors at the time the revolution
took place, the liberals had backed out of the workers by leaving them to be crushed by government troops. Although
there had been mutinies earlier in the year including the Potemkin incident in the summer of 1905 the troops who
returned from the Far East at the end of the war proved loyal enough to be used against the strikers.
In conclusion even though Russia failed in the war against Japan, the Tsarist regime survived the revolution surprisingly
unharmed. It can be said that the Tsarist system survived the revolution for a number of different reasons; however, the
most significant reason is that of the nature of the concessions made in the October Manifesto had a huge impact on the
survival of Nicholas II in the revolution. The Tsar gained support from the Liberals after the manifesto which helped the
Tsar to restore this power. Although the terms of the Manifesto were not fully implemented and the Tsar still ensured
he had control over the running of the country, he compromised to a level which the peasants, industrial workers and
liberals were content. The Tsar had enough military backing to deal with the revolution; he could destroy outbreaks of
resistance wherever there was opposition to the Tsarist regime. The easing of the collective resistance was down to the
two chief ministers of the Tsar, Sergi Witte and Peter Stolypin, Witte being responsible for the Dumas and Stolypin for
the concessions for the peasants. The lack of leadership also played considerable role in assisting the Tsarist regime, as a
large percentage of the protestors were unorganised and hence disunited leading back to the question of whether a
revolution actually took place. But most importantly it was the power and authority that the Tsar had over his military
and his ability to meet the demands and needs of those who opposed him the most that determines up the real
reasoning of the survival of Tsar Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution.

Difficulties in governing the Tsarist State

The only genuine limit to the power and influence of the Tsar was the sheer expanse of the Empire and the scale of
corruption and incompetence on the part of his ministers and state officials.

However, revolutionary ideas were also on the increase.

The size of the Russian Empire

Tsar Alexander III

The far-flung corners of the Empire, some thousands of miles from Moscow, often proved ungovernable. But the scale of
the Empire, the poor infrastructure and the nature of the population also made it difficult for opposition to the Tsar to
grow:

• the bulk of the population were mostly illiterate peasant farmers

• this made it difficult to spread liberal or revolutionary ideas using books or pamphlets

• peasants lived largely in remote, widely dispersed villages

• it was not easy for them to unite in a challenge to the Tsar

• the poor state of the roads and railways made it difficult for ideas to spread

Revolutionary ideas

Vladimir Lenin, 1897

As a result of the Tsar’s unlimited power the only way to challenge Tsarist autocracy was through acts of rebellion.
Opposition groups began to grow as a consequence of successive Tsars’ refusal to grant reform and improve living
conditions:

Liberals wanted the emerging middle class to have increased political influence. Western European countries had
developed constitutional governments and increased political rights for their citizens. Many liberal thinkers wanted the
same for Russia.
Radical opposition groups often carried out political assassinations. Populism existed in the universities, while the
People’s Will tried to assassinate Alexander III in 1887. 1903-1904 became known as the Years of the Red Cockerel when
peasants seized a great deal of land in the countryside.

Marxist thinking had developed in Russia in the late 1800s. Karl Marx had promoted the idea that power should be in
the hands of the masses. Revolutionary groups which combined Marx’s aims with their own goals developed.

The Social Revolutionaries adopted a combination of Marxist and Populist beliefs. They wanted to overthrow the
government in favour of giving power to the peasants. Although they were greatly uncoordinated in their efforts, they
carried out approximately 2,000 political assassinations in the years leading up to the 1905 Revolution.

The Social Democrats' beliefs were based on Marxism. They did not expect the peasants to rise in revolution. They
focused on agitation amongst the workers in the cities. In 1903, the group split after an ideological disagreement.

The Mensheviks, led by Martov, wanted revolution from below (by the workers) to occur naturally. However, the
Bolsheviks led by Lenin, believed revolution should come as soon as possible. Power would then be held by a small
group (the dictatorship of the proletariat) until the workers were ready to rule themselves.

Corruption and incompetence

At the turn of the century, the Russian Civil Service can be seen to be backward and selfish:

• Many civil servants were poorly paid resulting in widespread bribery.

• Persuasive civil servants could easily influence Tsar Nicholas II, who was unsure of himself and indecisive.

• Promotion relied more on years of service rather than competence.

• Many bureaucrats had little understanding of the importance of industrialisation.

• The vast expanse of the Empire meant that taxation was difficult to organise and police.

• Hence, governmental income was often inadequate.

Tsarist methods of control - policies

Censorship

Censorship was widespread in Russia. Freedom of speech was severely restricted. All books and newspapers were
suppressed so that people would not be influenced by liberal or socialist ideas. Any material that was thought to be
dangerous was banned.

Any person trying to circulate banned books or newspapers ran the risk of being detected by the Okhrana.

Russification

Russification was the policy of enforcing Russian culture on the vast numbers of ethnic minorities that lived in the
Russian Empire. It greatly affected the Poles, Lithuanians and the Ukrainians

Russian was the official language and all others were suppressed. Poles were banned from speaking or learning their
language in many places.

Russian Orthodoxy was promoted and Catholic monasteries were closed. Often, the Orthodox Church would take over
former Catholic Churches.

During Nicholas II’s reign, the Black Hundreds was formed. This was an extreme nationalist movement that supported
the Tsar. They assassinated pro-democratic politicians and intimidated the workers in the towns.
Terror and exile

Fear of the Okhrana was widespread as a result of their considerable power and terrifying tactics. This helped to
suppress any opposition to the Tsar.

the Okhrana was able to censor any material it deemed unsuitable

Its network of spies infiltrated political organisations. This made it difficult to tell if a new recruit was a genuine
revolutionary or an Okhrana agent.

Those suspected of opposing or criticising the state did not have the right to a trial. They were declared guilty and
sentenced immediately. Political prisoners were often exiled to Siberia

Effects of war

By the end of 1916, two years of total war had placed enormous strain on all combatant nations. None felt this more
severely than Russia, which had entered the war confident but in a precarious political, economic and social state.

The Russian economy had made great industrial advances in the two decades prior to 1914 – but it was still under-
developed and ill-equipped to supply a prolonged war.

Russia’s government was still dominated by the tsarist autocracy, which claimed political authority that was divine
rather than popular.

‘Unstable pillars’

The Russian people were already fractious, dissatisfied and eager for change. The Russian empire rested on what
historian Orlando Figes called ‘unstable pillars’, and they were unable to sustain its involvement in one of the most
intense wars in history.

At the epicentre of this turmoil was Nicholas II, Tsar of all the Russias. Most historians agree that Nicholas was not
equipped for governing Russia through difficult times. He was the son of an overbearing autocrat and the grandson of a
reformer – but was himself incapable of being either.

Nicholas was determined to cling to autocratic power but he was blind to the problems this created and the threats it
posed to his throne. The Tsar professed to love the Russian people but he turned the other way when hungry workers
were shot in St Petersburg (1905) or striking miners were machine-gunned in Siberia (1912).

The 1905 Revolution

Nicholas’ throne had already been challenged by a premature Russian revolution, a decade before the outbreak of
World War I. A disastrous defeat in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5), coupled with a flagging economy, poor living
conditions and the shooting of protestors in St Petersburg, led to a spontaneous but intense challenge to the tsarist rule.

The Tsar responded as he normally did and blamed Russia’s troubles on anarchists, universities and on Jews. Ultimately,
however, he was forced to relent, agreeing to authorise a written constitution and allow the formation of an elected
legislature (the Duma).

Nicholas failed to honour these promises, however, simply using them to buy time. The constitution was passed but it
changed little. The Duma was elected but it was given little power. The Tsar, it seemed, was determined to continue his
autocratic rule as before.
A war between cousins

The tsar and his much taller military chief, Grand Duke Nikolai

The rapid descent into war in 1914 had caught the Tsar unaware. Nicholas knew the German Kaiser was ambitious and
prone to rash decisions – but he did not think Wilhelm so treacherous that he would declare war on the empire of his
own cousin.

Nicholas made the first of several blunders in July 1914 when he cousin, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich, as
commander-in-chief of the army. Nikolaevich had military training as a cavalry officer but had never commanded an
army in battle. He now found himself in charge of one of the world’s largest armies in the largest war in history.

The Prussian campaign

In August 1914, Nikolaevich and his generals – aware that most German forces would be occupied with the Schlieffen
Plan in the west – planned an invasion of East Prussia.

It was a bold campaign that might have succeeded if not for poor planning and leadership. The two Russian field
commanders, Alexander Samsonov and Pavel von Rennenkampf, were competent officers but were both over-confident
and vainglorious. They were also bitter rivals who could barely stand the sight of one another.

Their inept decision-making and constant squabbling contributed to a disastrous Russian defeat at the Battle of
Tannenberg in late August 1914. Unable to face reporting the loss of 150,000 troops to the tsar, Samsonov took his own
life.

Nicholas takes charge

In September 1915, after a year of fighting and several costly defeats, the exasperated Nicholas II decided to personally
take command of the army. Against the advice of his ministers, he dismissed Nikolaevich and proceeded to the frontline.

The decision proved telling for two reasons. Nicholas’ distance from the Eastern Front in 1914 and early 1915 had
buffered him from criticism. Instead, his generals had footed the blame for military disasters. Now, the tsar would be
responsible for every defeat, shattering the divine infallibility that many superstitious Russians believed he had.

Secondly, Nicholas left the reins of domestic government with his wife rather than his prime minister. Tsarina Alexandra
was utterly devoted to her husband but was even more politically naive than he. Worse, she was of German birth and
now had de facto political power during a bitter war with Germany.
Rasputin the ‘mad monk’

Grigori Rasputin, the Siberian monk whose drinking and sexual antics discredited the tsar

There was also another sinister figure lingering on the periphery in 1916. Grigori Rasputin was a Siberian itinerant who
had trekked his way to Saint Petersburg several years before. Once in the capital, he began to attract attention as an
occultist, a fortune-teller and a faith-healer.

Despite his appalling manners and personal hygiene, the mysterious Rasputin found his way into the parlours – and in
many cases, the bedrooms – of Saint Petersburg’s aristocratic and bourgeois ladies. He eventually received an invitation
to the Winter Palace, where the deeply religious tsarina sought divine assistance for her young son Alexei, who was
cursed with the genetic blood disorder haemophilia.

Rasputin’s ministrations comforted the boy – and his mother – and the Siberian mystic became a regular in the royal
court. He prayed with the Romanovs and treated Alexei during the day, then at night crawled the seedier parts of the
city, boozing and cavorting with gipsy prostitutes.

Rasputin came to exert some political sway over Alexandra, passing on ‘divine advice’ about ministerial appointments,
domestic policy, even military matters. Though his influence has probably been overstated, Rasputin’s baleful presence
revealed the anachronistic and corruptible nature of tsarism.

The road to revolution

In December 1916, a group of aristocrats attempted to ‘save’ the monarchy from Rasputin by murdering him. They
succeeded in disposing of him but it proved too little, too late. The way to a Russian revolution had been cleared.

By February 1917, the situation in Russia’s cities had become critical. Shortages of food and fuel were dire: the capital
city, since re-named Petrograd, needed 60 railway cars of food a day but often received barely one-third this amount.
Inflation had been so severe through 1916 that the rouble had just a quarter of its pre-war buying power.

In February, when a women’s day march through Petrograd merged with angry bread queues, the unrest spilt over into
revolution. Soldiers ordered to fire on the crowd refused and shot their officers instead. The tsarina’s response was
dismissive, writing off the unrest as a “hooligan movement”.

Things eventually became so dire that the tsar set out to return from the front. He was halted along the way by striking
railway workers. While waiting on train sidings in Pskov, Nicholas II was met by his generals and members of the Duma.
All but one demanded he sign an instrument of abdication, which Nicholas eventually did.
With the swish of a pen in a stranded railway cart, the Russian Revolution had brought more than 300 years of Romanov
rule to an inglorious end.

The Provisional Government

Russian revolutionaries on the march in 1917

In different times, the departure of tsarism might have paved the way for a brighter future for Russia – but the war
continued and so too did the problems it created.

The Provisional Government that replaced the tsarist regime introduced some liberal reforms, like freedoms of assembly
and the press, and amnesties for political prisoners. Facing international pressure, however, it refused to end Russian
involvement in the war.

The defeats, military follies, casualty lists and food shortages continued, and after six months the Provisional
Government’s popularity had slumped.

Lenin and the Bolsheviks

In October 1917, a new political force, the socialist Bolshevik Party, emerged to seize control of the nation in October
1917. Led by Vladimir Ulyanov, or Lenin, the Bolsheviks promised ‘peace, bread and land’ – promises that resonated
with Russian workers, soldiers and sailors.

Once in power, the Bolsheviks commenced peace negotiations with Germany. In March 1918, they signed the Treaty of
Brest-Litovsk, formally ending Russia’s involvement in the war. It was a costly peace: Russia had to surrender large
amounts of territory, people and fertile farmland.

World War I had incited the Russian Revolution, killed off one of Europe’s oldest monarchies and delivered a new
political phenomenon: socialist dictatorship. This would itself come to deliver its share of death, deprivation and human
suffering.

“The declaration of war did bring a powerful if brief burst of patriotic support for the tsarist government. [But] within six
months, the human and economic costs of the war badly eroded whatever political capital the tsar’s government had
gained by declaring war… Among the civilian population it was the peasantry who felt the pains of the war most sharply.
Army mobilisations dragged away nearly a third of all the men in the villages – about one million men per month were
conscripted in 1914-15. Conscription brought tragedy for hundreds of thousands of families, altered life in the villages
[and] created a shortage of labour that hampered Russia’s already inefficient agrarian system.”
Michael Hickey, historian
1. At the start of the war, Russia was a vast empire with a large army – but was politically and industrially backward.

2. Its leader, Tsar Nicholas II, adhered to principles of autocracy but was not competent to govern autocratically.

3. Russia’s disastrous 1914 campaigns saw Nicholas take personal command of the army, a politically dangerous step.

4. The tsar and his wife were also discredited by their involvement with the meddling faith healer Grigori Rasputin.

5. By the start of 1917, Russia’s domestic economy had collapsed and both food and fuel were critically scarce in Russian
cities. This triggered the February Revolution, an uprising that led to the abdication of the tsar and, by the end of 1917,
the rise of a socialist government in Russia.