The Russian Revolution Of 1905 Was In

Fact No Revolution At All Essay, Research Paper The revolution of 1905, in Russia, was not a complete revolution at all. To be able to respond to this statement accurately, it is firstly advisable, to look at what a revolution is. It is then best to observe what the Russian society was like before 1905, during 1905 and after 1905, to establish whether or not, a complete revolution had in fact taken place in the so called ?revolution of 1905?.

Fact No Revolution At All Essay, Research Paper

The revolution of 1905, in Russia, was not a complete revolution at all. To be able to respond to this statement accurately, it is firstly advisable, to look at what a revolution is. It is then best to observe what the Russian society was like before 1905, during 1905 and after 1905, to establish whether or not, a complete revolution had in fact taken place in the so called ?revolution of 1905?.

To identify what to look for in the Russian revolution of 1905, and to discover if it were or were not a genuine revolution, it is firstly important to define the true meaning of the word ?revolution?.

In ?The Macquarie Dictionary? the word ?revolution? means,? a complete overthrow of an established government or political system.? In ?The Oxford School Dictionary? it also says a ?revolution? is an ?overthrow of old government by force and replacing it by a new one.? And in ?Chamber?s Twentieth Century Dictionary? it says ?? a great upheaval: a radical change, esp. in government.?

From each of these different dictionaries; the modern dictionary, to the early 1900?s dictionary, the meaning of the word revolution has been essentially the same. This meaning is that if a revolution was to occur, in a country as a whole, the governmental system is to be abolished, and a new one is to be set in it?s place, (which would in turn create a completely different social structure).

Knowing what the word ?revolution? means, confirms that the revolution of 1905 was in actual fact no revolution at all, even though Nicholas himself believed at the time it was, indeed a revolution . This becomes clearer as each stage (ie. before, during and after) of the ?revolution of 1905? is uncovered.

Secondly, it is crucial to look at the background of Russia, before 1905, prior to looking at the actual period of the 1905 revolution, as to understand how the events of the revolution of 1905 did not create a revolution in itself.

Before the 1905 revolution, the living conditions of the majority of the public were appalling, and multitudes were unhappy. There were two sides to the Russian society, on one hand there was ?privileged Russia? including nobles, bureaucrats, the run of educated Russians, and even the merchants, (who often had risen from the peasants), -they owned most of the land. The peasants, or ?dark people?, on the other hand, were the bulk of Russian citizenry, -they worked the land that the nobility owned. Chekhov described the peasants in a story that he published in 1897: ?? these people lived worse than cattle? The most insignificant little clerk or official treated the peasants as though they were tramps, and addressed even the village elders and church wardens as inferiors, and as though he had a right to do so.? Chekhov was from the privileged Russian society, he came from an educated background (he studied medicine at Moscow University).

Income for most was also severe, from October 1903 to October 1904 real wages declined by between 20 and 25 per cent. Rapid industrialisation caused a number of people to move to the cities and towns, which made them crowded. Many were unsatisfied with the major cultural barrier between Russia and Europe, as Russia was not progressing into ?modern times? like them. This was to do with the Tsars lack of effort for reforms.

The Romanov Imperial family had ruled Russia for more than three hundred years by absolute autocracy. (This meant no political power, other than the Tsar, was allowed, and citizens did not possess the ability of free speech, press etc *). In 1894 Nicholas became Tsar, he was determined to rule as harshly as his father did, but his character was weak, and incompetent. He did not posses the qualities needed to lead Russia through such Turmoil of revolutionary acts, and many revolutionaries saw this as an opportunity to act.

Revolutionary parties were illegal up until 1905 but they had gradually becoming more popular in ?the underground?. Nicholas and the government ignored the growth of Revolutionary parties through the 1890?s. In 1898 the Social Democratic Labor Party was established, and in 1900 the Social Revolutionaries were formed. They both wanted reform in social and political sectors. The Social Democratic Labor Party split into two groups in 1903, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks . The revolutionary word was beginning to escape from the underground, and an uprising of rebellion was starting to develop.

As the Russian economics were falling into a depression, widespread urban and rural unrest was aroused. Partly due to this unrest the government led Russia into a war with Japan. There were many Russian troops, but they performed very poorly, had insufficient equipment and inadequate clothes. The Russian army suffered a disastrous succession of defeats. The Russian forces were finally beaten . This defeat, in turn, led to the onset of the revolutionary events that were to come, and had already started to occur .

Russia, at this stage, had a dominant power, the Tsar, he had the ability to rule as he pleased, and to get rid of ringleaders of bothersome affairs at any time. Russia was under developed compared to the rest of the world and had extreme class struggles. Many were discontented. By looking at this overview of the Russian society prior to 1905 it will become easier to understand that the Revolution of 1905 was in fact no revolution at all, as the governmental system was not completely overthrown, and no major change in society occurred.

Thirdly, it is important to establish what events happened, and why they happened over the year of 1905, to provide evidence that the occurrences were revolutionary, but the year in itself was not a revolution.

By the 21st of January,1905 more than 110 000 citizens had ceased work. Through February 1905 there was a time of the chaotic disconnected strikes.

January 22, 1905, commonly known as Bloody Sunday, was a revolutionary event only because of what followed, not of what actually happened on that day: A group of workers and their families set out, with the backing of several officials, to present a petition to the Tsar. As they approached the Winter Palace, soldiers with rifles sprayed them with bullets. Father Gapon, the leader of the procession explains what he felt about the Tsar after the horrific event, ?? Perhaps this anger saved me , for I knew the very truth that a new chapter was opened in the book of the history of our people? ?There is no longer a Tsar for us?? I exclaimed??

A number of events then proceeded to take place. In June the crew of the battleship ?Potoinkin? threw officers overboard, and took control of the ship. The Georgians and Poles took this time of chaos to their advantage; they declared independence from the Russian rule.

Thus the “October Revolution.” Peasants and workers revolted in an elemental and anarchic rebellion, ultimately turning a large-scale strike and bringing the government, economy, and all public services to a complete halt. Trade after trade, factory after factory, town after town were stopping work. The railway lines were the channels along which the strike epidemic spread. The unrest of the towns encouraged the peasants to seize the estate, crops, and the livestock of the landowners. Nicholas describes the disorders from his point of view in a letter to his wife, ? ?Nothing but new strikes in schools and factories, murdered policemen, Cossacks and soldiers, riots, disorder, mutinies?? By October 1905, the relations between the Tsar and his subjects had come to a complete breakdown.

The Tsar realised that there were two possibilities that could restore his status, and maybe even quell the revolution. These were to either, ? find an energetic soldier and crush the rebellion by sheer force?[or]?give the people their civil rights?? He decided to go with the more peaceful way. With the help of his advisers he wrote up the ?October Manifesto?, this he signed. It became an official document on the 30th of October 1905. It gave the citizens of Russia their civil rights, and the right to a Duma. It basically promised to end the abuses of the autocracy. The October Manifesto was met with a mixed reception, many were satisfied, others saw it as the first concession in a battle of more radical reform, and some doubted that the Tsar would keep his promises.

After the Manifesto was written and received, in December all members of the Soviet were arrested and were sent into exile in Siberia. The army was sent to crush the soviet and over a thousand were killed. The Tsar continued to quash other areas of the revolution and a gang of thugs often known as the black Hundreds organised massacres against the revolution.

Even at the end of 1905 Russia still had a core governing power, the Tsar. He still had the ability to rule as he pleased, and to get rid of ringleaders of bothersome affairs at any time, this is shown through his attempt of trying to crush revolutionaries. Russia was still under developed compared to the rest of the world and still had extreme class struggles. Many were unsatisfied with the Tsar course of action toward the so-called revolution of 1905.

Lastly it is important to look at the aftermath of the revolution to observe the affects that took place in society, and to understand how the government, in essence had remained the same; no radical change had taken place.

From the October Manifesto a Duma was formed. This Duma was meant to share the Tsars power with the citizens of Russia. But the manifesto was only a bunch of words on a page, and the revolutionary parties did not trust Nicholas to his word. They were proven right in December that year when the soviets were arrested. By March 1906 the so-called revolution was over. The Duma met in May for the first time, and Nicholas had set out a set of fundamental laws, one which stated,? To the Emperor of all the Russians belongs supreme autocratic powers?. In other words as far as Nicholas was concerned, Duma or no Duma Russia was still an autocracy. Nicholas even appointed a new Prime Minister, called Peter Stolypin, to make sure that there were no more outbreaks of revolution.

The majority of the people of Russia were content with the new system. But as time progressed they begin to realise how little a change the 1905 revolution really was. The Tsar started to disappoint the public by showing how unreliable and how corrupt his governmental system was. This was shown through world war one when Nicholas made himself number one in charge. By doing this he took the blame for all of the defeats they received. Another problem that arose was that he left his wife Alexandra, a German, to govern Russia during his absence. Rasputin, a close family friend made his way into governmental affairs through Alexandra. He sacked 21 ministers and replaced them with men of his choice. The public was greatly affected by all of these incidents, and it left them feeling somewhat unhappy and dissatisfied.

After 1905 Russia still had an autocratic ruler, the Tsar. He still had the ability to rule as he pleased, and to get rid of ringleaders of bothersome affairs at any time, shown through Stolypin. Russia was still under developed compared to the rest of the world and had extreme class struggles. Many were still unsatisfied with the Tsar and his place in the social structure.

Therefore, ?The revolution of 1905 was in fact no revolution at all? the autocracy was shaken but not overthrown?(Floyd). A Revolution is ?a complete overthrow of an established government or political system?; the autocracy in the so-called ?1905 Revolution? was not abolished, but remained firmly in place. Hence, even though revolutionary acts may have occurred, a revolution did not take place. Though it could be seen as ?The Dress Rehearsal? for the ?real? revolution to come.