frequent pogroms – organised attacks on their homes and businesses by ultra-

20 conservative nationalists.
During the nineteenth century there were a number of uprisings and protests
What Were the challenges facing the tsarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century?

from national groups seeking greater personal freedom and more autonomy
(self-government) in their parts of the empire. These tended to occur in one
region at a time and the tsarist government was able to suppress them. It seems
strange that the government sought to antagonise and alienate such a large
section of its population. It drove many into the ranks of the revolutionaries.
For instance, many Jews were found in revolutionary groups and in 1897 they
formed their own ‘Bund’ or union.
4 Political opposition
Substantial opposition had grown towards tsarism during the later part of
the nineteenth century. Amongst the Russia intelligentsia (writers, artists,
philosophers and political activists), many believed the regime was oppressive
and that Russians lacked basic freedoms present in Western European countries.
Some felt that change could be achieved through reform; others that the only
way to bring change to Russia was to overthrow the tsarist regime by revolution.

THE LIBERALS speak of. Liberalism took on a more organised form

at the beginning of the twentieth century. In 1903, the
The liberal movement had grown significantly after Union of Liberation was formed demanding economic
the local government reforms of Alexander ll in and political reform. The Liberals were the major
1864, which had set up town and district councils opposition to tsarism before 1905 and indeed up to
called zemstva (singular zemstvo). These gave local the 1917 revolution.
areas a small degree of autonomy to run their own
Main beliefs: civil rights and freedom of the
affairs, manage schools and hospitals, build and
individual, the rule of law, free elections, parliamentary
maintain roads, etc. These councils had proved to
democracy and limitation of the tsar’s powers, and
be very effective and created a class of people who
self-determination for the national minorities. Some
became skilled in local politics. This included liberal
believed that the concept of the zemstvo should be
leaning members of the Russian nobility as well as
extended to regional and perhaps national level.
representatives of the middle classes, many of whom
worked for the zemstva, including Chekhov (the Methods: reform rather than violent action, political
playwright) who was employed as a doctor. They channels through zemstva, articles in newspapers,
gained a taste for greater participation in government. meetings and reform banquets.
The zemstva have been called ‘the seedbeds of
Support: they did not have a large popular base and
liberalism’.
had few active supporters outside Moscow, Petrograd
The idea of ‘liberalism’ prevalent in Western Europe and a few other large cities. Their main support came
was not very Russian and it took a different form from the middle class intelligentsia: lawyers, doctors,
in Russia. What Russian liberals agreed on was that professors, teachers, engineers and other professional
reform rather than violence was the way to change groups. They also had support amongst progressive
the tsarist system and limit the tsar’s powers. Many landowners, industrialists and businessmen.
others wanted an extension of freedoms and rights
(see right). Before 1905, there was no liberal party to

REVOLUTIONARIES ‘go to the people’ in the 1870s, moving out to the countryside to live
Populism and The People’s Will with peasants and convince them of their revolutionary potential. But the
peasants had nothing in common with these middle class youngsters with
In the later part of the nineteenth century, the main revolutionary their strange ideas and rejected them.
movement was Populism. Populists put their trust in and sought support
After the failure to get a response from the people, in 1879 some
from ordinary people. From the 1860s to the 1880s the populists or
Populists formed The People’s Will. Peaceful propaganda gave way to
Narodniks, largely well-to-do intellectuals, believed that the peasants in
violent action – they turned to terrorism to bring down the tsarist
Russia could develop their own form of socialism. Life would be based
regime. Their most spectacular success was the assassination of
around co-operation and sharing in peasant communes on a fairly
Alexander II (see page 4). This prompted a fierce reaction from the
small scale. This would avoid capitalism and the evils of industrialisation.
tsarist regime and led to a period of repression. The People’s Will and
However, it was not really clear how this would be achieved and did
Populism in general helped create a revolutionary tradition and more
not amount to a coherent programme. They believed in ‘going to the
directly gave birth to the Socialist Revolutionary Party.
people’ and spreading their socialist ideals to the peasantry by peaceful
propaganda. Many populists, particularly students and young people, did
THE SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONARIES (SRs)
The Socialist Revolutionary Party, formed in 1901,
was a loose organisation accommodating groups
with a wide variety of views and did not hold its first
congress until 1906. It was never well co-ordinated
or centrally controlled. There was a split between
moderates and radicals (who supported extreme
terrorism) that persisted into the 1917 revolution.
Main beliefs: SRs placed their central hope for
revolution with the peasants who would provide the
main support for a popular rising in which the tsarist
government would be overthrown and replaced by
a democratic republic. Land would be taken from
landlords and divided up amongst the peasants. Unlike
the populists, the SRs accepted that the development
of capitalism was a fact. The leading exponent of their
views was Victor Chernov. He accepted that the
growth of capitalism would promote the growth of
a proletariat (working class) who would rise against
their masters. But he saw no need for the peasants to
pass through capitalism; he believed they could move
The Marxists
In the 1880s, it seemed to some Russian intellectuals that there was no hope of a revolutionary movement developing amongst the peasantry. Instead
they turned to the latest theories of a German philosopher, Karl Marx. The ‘scientific’ nature of Marxism appealed to them – it was an optimistic theory
which saw progress through the development of industry and the growth of the working class to the ultimate triumph of socialism. Marxist reading circles
developed and societies and groups were formed. They believed in action and soon became involved in organising strikes in factories. The working class,
not the peasants, were the key to the revolution. See chart 1E on pages 22–23.
Karl Marx (1818–83)
Marx was a German
philosopher who spent
the last years of his life
in London. He wrote the
Communist Manifesto
which encouraged workers
to unite to seize power
by revolution. He also
wrote Das Kapital which
explained his view of
history. His views became
known as ‘Marxism’ and
influenced the thinking
of socialists throughout Europe in the late nineteenth and
twentieth centuries.
Marxism
Marxism was attractive because it seemed to offer a
‘scientific’ view of history, similar to the evolutionary theories
of Charles Darwin. According to Marx, history was evolving
in a series of stages towards a perfect state – Communism.
Each stage was characterised by the struggle between
different classes. This was a struggle over who owned the
‘means of production’ (resources used to produce food,
goods, and so on) and so controlled society. In each stage,
Marx identified a ruling class of ‘haves’ who owned the
straight to a form of rural socialism based on the 21
peasant commune that already existed. He saw SRs as
What were the challenges facing the tsarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century?
representing ‘all labouring people’.
Methods: Agitation and terrorism, including
assassination of government officials.
Support: Peasants provided a large popular base
but by 1905 industrial workers formed perhaps 50
per cent of the membership. This is probably because
many workers were recently arrived ex-peasants who
recognised the SR Party and supported its aims of
land and liberty. Most had regular contact with their
villages. It also attracted intellectuals who wanted to
make contact with the mass of the population. The
SRs often bemoaned their lack of strength in villages
because most SR committees were run by students
and intellectuals in towns and communication was
difficult. Most peasants could not read the leaflets the
SRs produced. Nevertheless they were the party the
peasants recognised as representing them, especially
its pledge to return the land ‘to those who worked it’.
means of production and exploited an oppressed class of
‘have-nots’ who sweated for them for little reward. He saw
change as being brought about by a revolutionary class who
would develop and contest power with the existing ruling
class. Economic change and development (economic forces)
would bring this new class to the fore and eventually allow it
to overthrow the ruling class in a revolution (see Chart 1E on
pages 22–23).
Marx was a determinist: he thought that there were certain
forces (economic forces, e.g. changes in technology) driving
history which would lead to the changes he predicted.
However, he did give individuals a role in history. He
believed that they could affect the course of events, though
not the general pattern: ‘Men make their own history
but do not make it just as they please; they do not make
it under circumstances chosen by themselves but under
circumstances directly encountered, given or transmitted
from the past.’
His theory gave ­middle-class revolutionaries an important
role in that they saw what the true nature of history was and
could help to bring it about.
Marx did not think his theories were the final word and
he did not think all countries would go through the pattern
described; he thought it applied particularly to countries in
Western Europe. He expected that experience would lead to
changes in his theories; he even had a name for this – praxis.
 n 1E The route to Communism
22
FEUDALISM
What were the challenges facing the tsarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century?

Government: Absolute monarchy

Means of production: Land; land ownership gives power.
Social organisation: Aristocracy is the dominant group controlling the
mass of the population – peasants – who work on their estates. Peasants
are virtually owned by their lords and masters.
Revolutionary change: The revolutionary class is the middle class (merchants,
traders, manufacturers). As this group gets wealthier, it begins to break down
the rules of feudal society which hinder its development, e.g. wants an
economy based on money and labourers free to work in towns.

COMMUNISM
Government: There is no state, just people who
are interested in managing the day-to-day business
of keeping society going.
Social organisation: Everybody is equal. There
is an abundance of goods produced by machinery
SOCIALISM
rather than by workers’ labour, so everyone has
Government: Workers control the
much more leisure time. People work on the
state. At first, government is
principle, ‘From each, according to their ability, to
exercised through the dictatorship
each according to their needs’ – they take out
of the proletariat, a period of
what they need from a central pool and contribute
strict control necessary to deal with
to society in whatever way they can. (Marx’s view
counter-revolution (old capitalist
of Communist society is not very clear.)
enemies trying to recover power)
THE TRANSITION TO COMMUNISM and to root out non-socialist
The need for government declines because attitudes.
there are no competing classes. Means of production: Factories,
machines, etc., as in the capitalist
period but not owned by individuals.
They are owned collectively by
everybody.
Social organisation: Everybody is
equal, the class system is brought to
an end. Wealth and goods produced
by industry are shared out fairly.
Everybody has an equal entitlement
to good housing and decent
standards of living.
 23

What were the challenges facing the tsarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century?
BOURGEOIS (MIDDLE-CLASS) REVOLUTION
The growth of trade and industry sees the middle classes becoming larger and more powerful.
Eventually, they want to reshape society and government to suit their interests, e.g. they want
to have a say in how the country is run and do not want landed aristocrats determining
national policy. The middle classes take power from the monarch and aristocracy. The
bourgeois revolution can be violent, as in France in 1789, or more peaceful and gradual, as in
Britain during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

CAPITALISM
LENIN’S CHANGES Government: Parliamentary democracy with civil rights, elections,
TO MARXIST THEORY freedom of the press, etc., but largely run by the middle classes.
(MARXISM–LENINISM) Means of production: Industrial premises, factories, capital
1 Revolution would be goods like machinery, banks owned by capitalists. Land
accomplished by a small group becomes less important as industry and trade create
of highly professional, dedicated greater share of national wealth.
revolutionaries.They were needed Social organisation: Middle classes or
to develop the revolutionary bourgeoisie are the dominant or ruling class
consciousness of workers and focus although the aristocracy may still hold on to
their actions. some positions of power and prestige. The
2 Lenin believed that the revolution would mass of the population move from being
occur during a period of conflict between peasants to being industrial workers –
capitalist powers. He accepted Trotsky’s the proletariat, who are forced to
‘weakest link’ theory – revolution would start work long hours in poor conditions
in an underdeveloped country (just like Russia) for little reward.
where the struggle and conflict between Revolutionary change: As
proletariat and bourgeoisie was very great, capitalism grows so does the
then spread to more advanced industrial proletariat, since more workers
countries. are needed to work in
3 He did not think that the middle classes in factories and commercial
Russia were strong enough to carry through premises. Great wealth and
a bourgeois-democratic revolution. He believed material goods are produced,
that the working class could develop a but these are not shared out
revolutionary government of its own in alliance fairly. A small bourgeoisie
with poor peasants who had a history of gets increasingly wealthy
mass action in Russia – the bourgeois and while the proletariat
socialist revolution could be rolled into remains poor. Gradually,
one. the proletariat develops a
class consciousness and
realises that it is being
oppressed as a class.

SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
The proletariat moves from class consciousness to a revolutionary consciousness aided by
revolutionary leaders (often from the middle classes). They now form the great bulk of the
population whilst the bourgeoisie are a tiny minority. They rise up and seize power, ousting their
class enemies – the bourgeoisie. The socialist revolution starts in a highly industrialised country.
24 THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS (SDs)
What Were the challenges facing the tsarist regime at the end of the nineteenth century?
In 1898, Marxists formed the Russian Social
Democratic Labour Party. The leading light was
George Plekhanov who had translated Karl Marx’s
work into Russian. However, some people found him
a little too intellectual and not revolutionary enough.
There were serious disputes about the direction of
the party. Some wanted to encourage trade unions
to improve the conditions of the workers. Others
wanted the focus to be on revolutionary tactics and
the preparation of the working class for revolution.
At the Second Party Congress in 1903, the SDs split
into two factions – the Bolsheviks (Majoritarians)
Main beliefs: Both factions accepted the main tenets of Marxism but they were split over the role of the party.
Bolsheviks
Lenin believed that a revolutionary party should:
• be made up of a small number of highly disciplined professional
revolutionaries
• operate under centralised leadership
• have a system of small cells (made up of three people) so that it would
be more difficult for the police to infiltrate.
It was the job of the party to bring socialist consciousness to the workers
and lead them through the revolution. Critics warned that a centralised
party like this would lead to dictatorship.
Support: Their support came mainly from the working class. The Bolsheviks tended to attract younger more militant peasant workers who liked the
discipline, firm leadership and simple slogans. The Mensheviks tended to attract different types of workers and members of the intelligentsia, also a broader
range of people – more non-Russians, especially Jews and Georgians.
and the Mensheviks (Minoritarians). This was largely
caused by the abrasive personality of Vladimir
Ulyanov or Lenin (see page 26) who was determined
to see his idea of the revolutionary party triumph.
During the congress the votes taken on various issues
showed the two groups were roughly equal. But in
a particular series of votes Lenin’s faction came out
on top (mainly because some delegates had walked
out of the conference) and he jumped on the idea of
calling his group the majority party (Bolsheviki) which
gave them a stronger image. In fact, until 1917, they
always had fewer members that the Mensheviks for
reasons that will become apparent below.
Mensheviks
They believed that the party should:
• be broadly based and take in all those who wished to join
• be more democratic, allowing its members to have a say in policy
making
• encourage trade unions to help the working class improve their
conditions.
Mensheviks took the Marxist line that there would be a long period of
bourgeois democratic government during which the workers would
develop a class and revolutionary consciousness until they were ready to
take over in a socialist revolution.
2 1905

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

At the beginning of the twentieth century, Russia was unsettled and volatile. This instability was heightened by an
economic depression, which started after 1900, and a war with Japan in 1904. Opposition to the Tsar was growing
stronger, particularly from the liberal intelligentsia. At the beginning of 1905, when feelings were running high, the
murder of protestors on 9 January, ‘Bloody Sunday’, led to an explosion of popular discontent. For over a year
Russia was out of control and the survival of the tsarist regime was threatened. The Tsar survived mainly because
the army remained loyal and he made concessions. There followed a period of brutal suppression that changed
the relationship between the Tsar and his people.
A What were the causes of the revolution of 1905? (pp. 28–32)
B The 1905 revolution (pp. 32–39)
C Why did the Tsar survive the 1905 revolution? (pp. 39–42)
D Interpreting 1905 (pp. 42–45)

A What were the causes of the

revolution of 1905?
FOCUS ROUTE
1 Make notes on the following key factors that pushed Russia into revolution in 1905:
a) rapid social and economic change
b) economic depression
c) failure of government attempts to improve conditions for workers
d) Russo-Japanese War
e) increasing opposition from the liberal intelligentsia.
2 Collect evidence/information which tells you about:
a) whether 1905 was a popular revolution
b) the role of revolutionary parties
c) whether it deserves to be called a ‘revolution’.

In the last decade of the nineteenth century, Russia was experiencing rapid
social and economic change. As the economy grew, peasants poured into
overcrowded cities and towns to take up industrial jobs. Living conditions were
squalid, pay was low and hours were long. Militancy amongst workers was
evident in strikes throughout the 1890s. In rural areas, some peasants were
prospering but most still lived in poverty under burdensome restrictions and
there were frequent disturbances and outbreaks of violence. The only response
the government could come up with to deal with these expressions of discontent
was repression.
The nature of civil society in Russia was changing. The nobility did not have
the firm hold on the countryside they once had. They were selling their estates
and renting land to enterprising peasants. Many were moving to the cities and
their children were entering the liberal professions. Ex-peasants could become
landowners and merchants. A new class of businessmen was emerging, looking
hard at how the government managed its affairs. The zemstva had been active
in towns and a growing class of professional people believed they should play
SOURCE 2.1 Extract from a letter
sent to the Tsar in 1902 by Leo Tolstoy
concerning the state of the nation at the
beginning of the century. Quoted in
M. Ferro, Nicholas ll, The Last of the Tsars,
1990, pp. 73–4
One third of Russia is under a regime
of reinforced surveillance... The army
of policemen, regular and secret, grows
continually. The prisons and places
of deportation are filled with persons
sentenced for political reasons, not to
mention the hundreds of thousands of
ordinary prisoners to whom the work-
ers must now be added. The censorship
has attained a level of oppressiveness
unknown even in the abominable
period of the 1840s. Religious persecu-
tion has never been so frequent and
so cruel, and grows worse every day.
Troops with weapons loaded ready to
fire on the people have been sent into
every city... And the peasants, all one
hundred million of them, are getting
poorer every year... Famine has become
a normal phenomenon. Normal like-
wise is the discontent of all classes of
society with the government.
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–59)
French political thinker and historian,
best known for his book Democracy in
America (1835).
BOSSES AND WORKERS
Historian Beryl Williams points out
that many industrial enterprises
were run along paternalistic lines,
with bosses ‘seeing themselves as
father figures to their workforce
rather than employers’. It seems
that many workers before 1905 co-
operated with employers they saw
as ‘good’. They protested against
undignified treatment by supervisors
and managers and wanted better
conditions and opportunities for
education. Williams adds: ‘The vast
majority of workers before 1905 never
saw a revolutionary.’
a more active part in running society. But the government would not work with
them, dismissing hundreds of liberals from the zemstva in 1900. The liberal 29
intelligentsia were tired of this backward and cumbersome regime and began to
1905
think in terms of civil rights rather than service to the Tsar. During 1899–1901 in
St Petersburg, Moscow and other cities, after brutal police suppression, student
disturbances resulted in the closure of universities and higher education
institutions.
It is in this unsettled situation that we can look for the explanation of the 1905
revolution. Alexis de Tocqueville commented that revolutions tend to happen in
times of rapid change when things are improving and expectations are rising.
What makes the situation especially revolutionary is when things take a turn for
the worse and those expectations are frustrated. In Russia, things certainly took
a turn for the worse.
From 1900, Russia entered a deep depression brought on by an international
recession. All areas of the economy were affected. Any gains that might have
been made by the industrial workers were wiped out by the slump. Wages fell
and there was increasing unemployment. The areas that had been growing fast
were the areas that were particularly hard hit: in the Donbass region, by 1903,
only 23 of the 35 blast furnaces were working and mines were closing. There
was also a slump in the oil industry. The railway industry was badly hit and
the metal working industry in St Petersburg suffered from falling government
orders resulting in the closure of many small firms. In 1902 and 1903, across
Russia there was growing worker discontent and industrial action. The peasants
were also affected. A poor harvest in 1901 against a backdrop of increasing rents
led to a peasant revolt in 1902–3. Many ex-peasant workers went back to their
villages to join the revolt. There was an air of growing internal disorder.
Amidst this turmoil, the revolutionary parties – the Social Democrats and
Socialist Revolutionaries – were taking shape (see pages 20–24). However,
it would be wrong to think that the parties recruited workers and peasants
in large numbers (see Bosses and Workers below). The workers were more
likely to join trade unions set up by the police (see below). The peasants
in the countryside were not rushing to sign up to the SRs. In fact, it is now
acknowledged that the SR Party was an urban rather than a rural party at this
time. It was newly urbanised peasants and students who were attracted to their
programme of armed struggle and terrorism.
Police trade unions
Sergei Zubatov, head of the Moscow Okhrana, believed that repressive
measures alone could not combat the appeal of socialism and the spread of
revolutionary ideas. The workers had to be convinced that their lives could
be improved within the existing system. He thought this could be achieved
by giving them trades unions and educational and self-help organisations –
supervised and partially funded by the police. Starting in 1901, Zubatov set up
three unions in Moscow, which submitted demands to their employers who
were then pressured by police representatives into making concessions to the
workers. The Zubatov movement spread rapidly across the south and west
of the Empire in towns like Odessa. It provided workers with a mechanism
to voice their criticism and demands legally. Concerned by his success, Iskra,
the revolutionary newspaper, denounced Zubatovism, saying: ‘It was more
terrible to us than is police brutality.’ Some of the government and the business
community were also not keen, fearing the unions would politicise the workers
and harm the economy irreparably. When, in 1903, a strike organised by police
unions in Odessa escalated into a general strike, Zubatov was dismissed.
Historians have differing views on Zubatov’s programme. Chris Read regards
it as a government own goal, one of the self-inflicted blows that caused the
1905 revolution: ‘Wherever they were set up, Zubatov unions became a cover
for radicals and blew up in the face of their sponsors.’ However, Jeremiah
Scheidermann points out that it was the only coherent labour policy coming
from government quarters.
30
1905

SOURCE 2.2 A cartoon drawn during the Russo-Japanese war. The sailor is saying: ‘Oh you funny Japs, always
making mistakes. Thank you for the badly aimed shells which help me light my pipe!’

ACTIVITY The Russo-Japanese War 1904–5

1 What does Source 2.2 reveal about
the Russian attitude towards the
Japanese?
2 How might this help explain why the
war started?
By the end of 1903, the situation in Russia was volatile and potentially explosive.
And then war was added to the mix.
The war with Japan arose out of Russia’s expansionist policy in the Far East.
Russia wanted to exploit the area because it was rich in resources and markets.
It also wanted control of the ice-free port of Port Arthur in Manchuria. It came
into conflict with Japan over Korea, which the Japanese had already marked out
for themselves for economic expansion. When Japan proposed a compromise
whereby Russia would be ceded predominance in Manchuria if it agreed that
Japan could control Korea, the Russians treated the Japanese with disdain.
Not long afterwards, Japan launched a surprise attack on Russian ships at Port
Arthur on 26 January 1904, and the war was on.
It has been claimed that the Tsar and his Minister of Internal Affairs,
Plehve, had sought the war as a convenient way of diverting attention from the
problems at home – a successful war would rally the people behind the Tsar.
However, recent evidence suggests that the Tsar and his chief ministers did
not want a war. It is more likely that they saw Japan as a third-rate power that
could be bullied easily and it was this that led to their high-handed manner in
refusing to negotiate a settlement.
n 2A The war with Japan
31

1905
The war started with a quarrel over
control of Manchuria and Korea.

RUSSIA
R ailway
ian
Trans-Siber SAKHALIN
R. Am
u ur

Ch

R. Am
r
ine
se
Ea
st e

E
rn
Ra MANCHURIA

n
ilw
ay
Harbin

South Manchurian Railway

March 1905 Russian army Vladivostok

defeated at Mukden. Mukden
SEA OF JAPAN
Peking alu
CHINA R.Y JAPAN
January 1905 Russians Port Arthur KOREA
surrendered Port Arthur.
Tokyo

Str hima
May 1905 Russian navy destroyed

aits
in the Tsushima Straits.

s
YELLOW

Tsu
SEA

0 600
km

The Russians wanted Port Arthur for its

Pacific Fleet because it was an ice-free port.

What is clear is that the Russians completely underestimated Japan and

overestimated their own superiority. Japan had a better trained army and navy
and more effective intelligence. They were also much closer to the action.
The Russians were operating a very long way from European Russia and had
not completed the Trans-Siberian Railway which made it difficult to send
reinforcements and supplies. The Russians suffered several defeats in early
1904 and had to retreat. Public support for the war quickly turned to dismay.
In January 1905, Port Arthur fell to the Japanese and the following March, the
Russian army was defeated at Mukden. The final humiliation was the naval
defeat of the Russian Baltic fleet in May. It had sailed almost half way around
the world to join the battle, a journey which took over six months, and on the
way firing on British fishing trawlers thinking they were Japanese warships.
When they finally met the Japanese navy in the Tsushima Straits, most of the
ships were destroyed or put out of action in under an hour. These disastrous
defeats on land and sea led to Witte being sent off to negotiate the Treaty of
Portsmouth under the auspices of the USA. The Russians agreed to withdraw
from Manchuria and ceded control of Korea and Port Arthur.
Abraham Ascher suggests that Russia might have avoided revolution in 1905
if it had not provoked a war with Japan – the catastrophic defeats, he says,
justified the opposition claims that the autocratic government was ‘irresponsible,
incompetent and reckless’. The war acted as a catalyst for meltdown in 1905.
 n 2B The main causes of the 1905 revolution
32
LONG-TERM DISCONTENT
1905

GOVERNMENT POLICY
Alienated intelligentsia
· Middle-class liberals wanted to
participate in government; wanted
some form of elected national
assembly
· Students protested against
repressive government controls
Tsarist regime

· Weak, indecisive Tsar

Revolutionaries · Repressive government
· Socialist Revolutionaries – wanted
peasant revolution to create · No moves towards
socialism based around peasant CATALYST
constitutional government
communes
· Social Democrats (Marxists) – · Denied basic freedoms, SPARK!
wanted urban working classes e.g. free press, freedom to
to stage revolution to create a form political parties Outbreak of
socialist state, then Communism Russo-Japanese War, REVOLUTION!
· No concessions to February 1904
nationalities – any protests
repressed · Defeats on land and
at sea shocked Russian
National minorities public
e.g. Finns, Poles, Jews Tsar ‘at war with his
· Wanted more autonomy and · January 1905 – lost Bloody Sunday own people’ for most
independence Port Arthur Sunday of 1905 – strikes,
· Wanted an end to the policy 9 January 1905 – peasant uprisings,
of Russification · War caused shortages Tsar's troops petitions, riots,
of food and fuel, high fired on peaceful demonstrations
prices and demonstrators
unemployment
Peasants Witte’s economic policy
· Grievances included: poverty, need · Huge upsurge of
for more land, high taxes, · Under Witte’s discontent as Tsar’s
redemption payments on land industrialisation policy, urban government perceived
· Suffered periodic famines workers and peasants to be incompetent
· Increasing peasant population was squeezed very hard by high
putting more pressure on land indirect taxes and low wages

· Economic slump after 1900

led to high unemployment
and social tension in towns
Workers
· Grievances included: long hours,
· Poor harvests in 1900 and
low pay, terrible working and living
1902 led to starvation and
conditions
violence in countryside
· Wanted more political power

B The 1905 revolution

Some historians maintain that the 1905 revolution really started at the end
of 1904. In the summer of 1904, Plehve, the Minister of the Interior, was
assassinated by the Socialist Revolutionaries. Deeply unpopular, he was
not much mourned by the public or even, it seems, by his colleagues. The
assassination seemed to be a turning point and released a flood of criticism
against the government. This was largely to do with the disastrous conduct
of the war but it also reflected disenchantment with the regime. Activity by
opposition groups increased dramatically in the last four months of 1904 and
the autocracy started to look fragile.
When, in early November, the liberals decided to hold a national zemstvo
congress, the government allowed it to go ahead. Over 5000 telegrams poured
in urging the delegates to press for fundamental changes – and they did. They
called for civil liberties, the rule of law, an extension of voting rights, and
a representative body that would participate in the running of the country.
This was accompanied by a series of ‘banquets’ around the theme of reform
organised by the Union of Liberation. The banquets could be passed off as 33
‘private’ events but really they were political meetings in which the liberal

1905
intelligentsia discussed their ideas for changing the tsarist regime. That the
government let them go ahead unchallenged shows its weakness. The press,
uncensored, reported the meetings and was becoming increasingly hostile
towards the government.
The Russo-Japanese War had been a disaster for the economy, which had
been emerging from depression. Trade to the East was curtailed as the use of
the Trans-Siberian Railway for military purposes meant that other goods could
not be carried on it. Industries such as silk, cotton and chemicals were hit hard
and factories, short of raw materials, closed. Large numbers of young peasants
were mobilised into the army and so agricultural work and production suffered.
The overall result was a rise in food prices and high levels of unemployment. In
the winter of 1904–5, there was growing discontent.

1905
In the capital, St Petersburg, a charismatic priest named Gapon took on a
leading role. Father Gapon ran the Assembly of Russian Factory Workers, an
offshoot of a Zubatov union. The police allowed this because they considered
him loyal and indeed he was a monarchist who believed in the bond between
the Tsar and his people. However, despite his police links he was becoming
more radical and his association was becoming dominated by skilled workers,
some of whom were ex-Social Democrats. A strike at the giant Putilov
engineering works on 7 January, sparked by the sacking of four members of
Gapon’s association, led to a strike of over 100,000 workers. It was an economic
strike with demands for minimum wages and a limited working day. Other
large industrial enterprises joined in and tens of thousands were involved.
The situation in the city was becoming tense.
Beryl Williams has argued that Gapon ‘had a real conviction of his destiny to
improve the lot of the Russian working class . . . but he had no political strategy
other than a reliance on the Tsar to help him’. Gapon decided to do just that
– ask the Tsar for help. This was to have a dramatic impact and kick start the
events of 1905.
1905 was a tumultuous year and events pushed the regime to the edge of the
abyss. You can see the course of the revolution through 1905 in Chart 2C on
page 37. Four events, which were particularly significant, are described in more
detail below. These are Bloody Sunday, the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin,
the formation of the St Petersburg Soviet and the October Manifesto.
1 Bloody Sunday
Gapon, urged on by the more radical workers in his union, organised a petition
to the Tsar and a march to the Winter Palace. The petition is a moving document
(see Source 2.3, page 34). It called for an eight-hour day, minimum wages and
more dignified treatment. More radically, it also called for freedom of speech and
assembly, the right to form trade unions and an elected parliament. Although it
contained radical demands, it was not aggressive in tone and did not attack the
Tsar.
The march set off peacefully on the morning of 9 January, a Sunday. The
crowd, estimated at between 50,000 and 100,000, included women and children
and everybody was in their best clothes. They were carrying icons and pictures
of the Tsar. In fact, the Tsar was not even in St Petersburg. It seems that the
authorities, who were well informed about the march, assumed that it would
disperse before it got to the Winter Palace. The troops guarding the Palace had
orders to stop the marchers reaching it. As the crowd approached they were
charged by cavalry and the troops opened fire. It is difficult to know how many
were killed and wounded. Ascher puts it at 130 killed and 300 seriously wounded
although Soviet sources put deaths at up to 200 and the wounded up to 500.

34 WHAT HAPPENED TO
FATHER GAPON?
1905
When the firing started, Gapon
was thrown over a fence by his
bodyguards and then was hidden
in different locations, including the
apartment of Maxim Gorky. Shocked
by the violence, he is reported to have
shouted: ‘There is no God! There is
no Tsar!’
Gapon later fled abroad where
he declared himself a Socialist
Revolutionary. He returned to
St Petersburg in the autumn of
1905 and attempted to resurrect his
workers’ organisation. This was
unsuccessful and he seems to have
become caught up in a conspiracy
to betray the SRs to the secret police,
the Okhrana. This resulted in his
murder in March 1906. The strange
thing is that the leader of the SR
combat organisation, Evno Azef, who
probably ordered his murder, was in
fact an Okhrana agent. (For more on
Evno Azef, see page 58.)
SOURCE 2.4 A painting of the
Bloody Sunday massacre, Makovsky
(1846–1920)
The response to this event was dramatic. Strikes broke out in St Petersburg and
quickly spread to other cities and towns. By the end of January, over 400,000
people were out on strike. Order broke down and Russia descended into chaos –
the 1905 revolution was under way. For the rest of the year the government had
little control of events. Strikes, demonstrations, petitions, terrorist acts and peasant
uprisings were commonplace – the Tsar was ‘at war with his own people’.
The importance of Bloody Sunday cannot be overestimated. It not only sparked
the uprisings of 1905, it also broke the bond between the Tsar and his people.
The people had gone to the ‘Little Father’ for help and they had got bullets in
return. They would never trust him in the same way again (see Source 2.5).
SOURCE 2.3 Extracts from the workers’ petition to the Tsar
Sire,
We, the workers and inhabitants of St Petersburg, of various estates, our wives,
our children, and our aged, helpless parents, come to You, Sire to seek justice and
protection. We are impoverished; we are oppressed, overburdened with excessive
toil, contemptuously treated . . . O Sire we have no strength left and our endurance
is at an end. We have reached that frightful moment when death is better than
the prolongation of our unbearable sufferings . . . We ask but little: to reduce the
working day to eight hours, to provide a minimum wage of a rouble a day . . .
Officials have brought the country to complete ruin and involved it in a
shameful war. We working men have no voice in how the enormous amounts
raised from us in taxes are spent . . . We are seeking here our last salvation. Do not
refuse to help Your people.
ACTIVITY
1 What message do you think the artist
intended to convey in Source 2.4?
2 What does Source 2.5 tell us about
changing attitudes towards the Tsar
and the impact of Bloody Sunday?

SOVIET
The word ‘soviet’ in Russian simply
means ‘council’. Factories sent
representatives to the council to
look after their interests and put
their point of view to the wider
community. In principle any deputy
could be recalled at any time if he
failed to satisfy his constituents and
he could be replaced by someone
else.
At the time, the word ‘soviet’ did
not have the political connotation
that it later assumed under the
Bolshevik regime. It provided a
model of working class organisation
for the revolution of 1917.
SOURCE 2.5 O. Figes, A People’s Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924, 1997, pp.
177–78 35
‘I observed the faces around me,’ recalled a Bolshevik in the crowd, ‘and I detected
1905
neither fear nor panic. No, the reverend and almost prayerful expressions were
replaced by hostility and even hatred and vengeance on literally every face – old,
young, men and women. The revolution had been truly born, and it had been
born in the very core, in the very bowels of the people.’ In the one vital moment
the popular myth of a Good Tsar which had sustained the regime through the
centuries was suddenly destroyed. Only moments after the shooting had ceased an
old man turned to a boy of fourteen and said to him, with his voice full of anger:
‘Remember, son, remember and swear to repay the Tsar. You saw how much blood
he spilled, did you see? Then swear son, swear!’
2 Mutiny on the Battleship Potemkin
In the final analysis, the Tsar’s fate depended on the loyalty of the armed forces.
If they went over to the side of the peasants and workers, the regime would
fall. On 14 June, the Tsar and his regime got a huge shock – the crew of the
Battleship Potemkin mutinied. Conditions in the Russian navy were harsh and
morale was low following the recent naval disasters. When the crew of the
Potemkin found that they were being given rotten meat to eat, they complained.
An officer shot one of the complainers whereupon he was thrown overboard.
The crew killed several officers and seized control of the ship. They sailed to
Odessa, which was in a state of turmoil with strikes and demonstrations taking
place daily. The arrival of the ship was warmly received and radicals were
invited on board. The police and troops had to withdraw when the Potemkin
threatened to open fire on them. Crowds gathered and this degenerated into
looting and arson with large parts of the harbour set on fire.
The Tsar ordered troops to go in and they opened fire indiscriminately,
killing perhaps as many as 2000 citizens. Odessa was brought under control.
Meanwhile the Potemkin escaped hoping to stir up mutiny on other ships.
But failing to find support, the sailors surrendered the ship in a Romanian
port in exchange for safe refuge. The episode was an embarrassment for the
government and a matter of grave concern.
3 The St Petersburg Soviet
On 17 October 1905, prompted by Mensheviks, the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies
met to co-ordinate the activities of workers in the general strike, which had
started in September. It was mainly made up of representatives elected from a
variety of factories. It tried to be neutral and non-partisan. The St Petersburg
Soviet, as it became known, not only directed the general strike, informing
workers what was going on through its newspaper Izvestia, but it also sorted out
food supplies and other essential tasks. The most famous revolutionary leader
involved was Leon Trotsky who became deputy chairman.
Soviets, which had sprung up elsewhere even before October, spread to a
number of cities and into the countryside – there were around 80 in operation
by the end of November. The creation of the soviet was a strong indication of the
power of the urban workers to develop an effective form of organisation and run
their own affairs.
36
1905
SOURCE 2.6 A painting of a barricade in
a Moscow street, 1905, artist unknown
SOURCE 2.7 O. Figes, A People’s
Tragedy: The Russian Revolution 1891–1924,
1997, p. 191
Nicholas remained unconvinced and
asked his uncle, the Grand Duke
Nikolai, to assume the role of dictator.
But the Grand Duke, an excitable and
outspoken man, took out a revolver
and threatened to shoot himself there
and then if the Tsar refused to endorse
Witte’s memorandum . . . The Grand
Duke was the one man capable of
playing the role of dictator and it was
only when he took the side of reform
that it finally dawned on the Tsar that
repression was no longer an option and
he agreed to sign the manifesto.
4 The October Manifesto
The general strike put the Tsar and the regime under an enormous amount
of pressure. Nicholas’ first reaction was to suppress it but the people defiantly
occupied the streets. Witte, recently returned from successful peace negotiations
following the war, now presented Nicholas with a choice – to put down the
uprising in bloodshed or introduce reforms. Nicholas was not against the
former, preferring a military dictatorship to constitutional government. But his
main advisors agreed with Witte and Nicholas was dragged, very reluctantly,
as Source 2.7 shows, to make concessions in what came to be known as the
October Manifesto. This conceded:
• freedom of speech and conscience
• freedom of association and unwarranted arrest
• an elected duma (parliament) which could block laws coming into force
although it could not enact laws.
It seemed that the principle of autocracy had been abandoned. The liberals
hailed it as the first step towards constitutional government and for them
the main aim of the campaign had been achieved. The St Petersburg Soviet
also voted to end the general strike since most workers were suffering severe
hardship. The revolutionary groups and some left-wing liberals dismissed the
Manifesto as a trick. Witte had achieved what he had set out to do – isolate the
radicals by accommodating the liberals.
n 2C The course of the 1905 Revolution
January, February
• 9 January – Bloody Sunday: a wave of strikes soon spread
to other cities and towns.
• Censorship collapsed and newspapers became increasingly
hostile towards the government.
• 4 February – The assassination of the Tsar’s uncle, the
Grand Duke Sergei, shocked the government. The Tsar
invited petitions containing suggestions for reform.
Thousands poured in over the following months from all
sectors of society.
• Workers started forming factory committees to represent
them. Their demands were mainly economic rather than
political.
• Right-wing groups and hooligans known as the Black
Hundreds, supporting the Tsar, attacked people deemed to
be anti-government.
March, April, May
• The police were becoming increasingly ineffective. Citizens
formed militias or vigilante groups to protect themselves
from roving bands of criminals.
• 10 March – The Russian army was defeated at Mukden.
• April – At the Second Zemstvo Congress there was
a growing demand for civil freedoms and a legislative
assembly elected by universal adult suffrage.
• May – The Union of Unions was formed – a non-party
organisation that acted as an umbrella group for a range of
trade and professional organisations. All sections of society
were united against the government – liberals, workers,
students, lawyers and professional groups – to force
reform.
• 14 May – The Russian Baltic fleet was wiped out at
Tsushima.
June, July, August
• In the countryside, peasant disturbances started rising
significantly in June and July (there had not been much
activity in the spring). They fell in August at harvest time.
Incidents included: peasants seizing land, grain and animals;
burning landlord’s houses; illegal cutting of timber; and
refusal to pay rents and taxes. Their general demands were
land, the end of redemption payments and a reduction
in rents. There was no co-ordinated peasant movement.
It was largely spontaneous and a response, in part, to
economic distress, including food shortages in the summer
of 1905.
• 14 June –The mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin.
• 31 July – The All-Russian Peasants Union met secretly near
Moscow – the voice of the peasants was taking shape
demanding the handover of land and a constitutional
assembly.
• 27 August – Universities and institutes were given
autonomy to control education within their institution and
37
run their own affairs. They became focal points for political
1905
meetings.
• 29 August – The Treaty of Portsmouth was signed between
Russia and Japan. This released Russian troops who could
be returned to European Russia to re-establish control.
September, October
• Labour unrest reached a new level of intensity in the
autumn, putting a lot of pressure on the government. In
September, a strike in Moscow called by railway workers
caused chaos since Moscow was a railway hub. The strike
spread to other areas of Russia as other railway workers
joined it. This then turned into a general strike attracting
support from industrial and utility workers, shop assistants,
bank employees and staff from government offices – up to
two million from almost every area of employment. The
strike caused real hardship in cities and towns: food and
medical supplies ran short and unburied bodies piled up.
• All opposition groups – workers, students, liberals and
revolutionaries – united in demanding radical change.
The middle classes, even some industrialists, supported
the strikers and gave money. The regime did not dare use
violence as the strike was supported by so many different
social groups.
• 12–18 October – The Kadet Party (liberal) was formed.
• 13 October – The St Petersburg Soviet was formed. The
urban workers had emerged as an organised and dynamic
force confronting the autocracy.
• 17 October – The Tsar was persuaded that concessions
were necessary and agreed to the October Manifesto,
granting civil liberties and an elected assembly. Liberals and
the middle classes felt they had achieved their main aims.
• There was a short period of freedom in which opposition
groups and anti-government newspapers flourished.
Political meetings and celebrations were held in the
streets. New political parties were formed.
• At the end of October there was an explosion of violence.
Much of this was initiated by supporters of the Tsar angry
that the liberals and left had won the Manifesto. There was
fighting between right and left on the streets. It seems that
the police, and possibly elements in the government, were
involved in organising violent revenge attacks.
November, December
• Throughout November tension was building as the
soviets, particularly the St Petersburg Soviet, became more
militant. It had an armed militia of over 6000.
• 3 December – Leaders of the St Petersburg Soviet were
arrested.
• Armed uprisings were common, particularly in Moscow,
where the Bolsheviks took the lead. The army moved into
cities and towns to re-establish control.

42
1905
Note: Mukden and Tsushima were Russian
defeats in 1905 in the Russo-Japanese war.
Khodynka is a reference to the deaths of over
1350 people in a mass panic that occurred
on Khodynka Field in Moscow during the
festivities following Nicholas II’s coronation
(see page 13).
Nicholas the Bloody
Before the revolution of 1905, Nicholas II had been called ‘Nicholas the
Unlucky’. Following the repression after 1905, he was called ‘Nicholas the
Bloody’. He wore the Union of Russian People’s badge and supported the attacks
on the Jews. He gave his full support to the punitive expeditions and executions.
The Tsar said he was delighted by one campaign in the Baltic States where
about 1200 people were executed, and he praised its commander for ‘acting
splendidly’. He thoroughly approved of the field court martials and officials were
instructed to make sure that no pleas for clemency were sent to the Tsar.
SOURCE 2.15 Konstantin Balmont’s poem, Our Tsar, written in 1906
Our Tsar means Mukden; our Tsar is Tsushima.
Our Tsar is a bloody stain,
A stench of gunpowder and smoke.
Black is his soul.
Our Tsar, sickly and blind,
Is prison and knout, shooting and hanging,
Tsar! You are the gallows-bird . . .
The hour of retribution awaits you,
Tsar, who began where? At Khodynka.
And will end where? On the scaffold.
Why was the Tsar able to survive the 1905 revolution?
1 The crucial factor was that the army remained loyal, despite a rash of
mutinies. Once it had received pay and changes to conditions of service,
it supported the Tsar and could be employed in putting down the revolution
in the cities and later revolts in the countryside.
2 The various groups opposing the Tsar – the workers, the peasants, the liberal
middle classes, students and wider public in the cities and the national
independence movements – did not combine to provide a co-ordinated and
effective opposition. They had different aims and purposes and did not act
together to bring him down.
3 The October Manifesto split the liberals and socialists. The liberals wanted
political reform and movement towards a constitutional democracy; the
socialists wanted a social revolution. Many liberals felt they had got what
they wanted out of the Manifesto and urged that the Tsar be supported.
4 The middle classes feared the continuation of violence and disorder. They
wanted the revolution to stop and a return to authority and control.
5 The government used brutal, repressive measures, especially punitive
expeditions, to bring the populace into line and beat them into submission.
These methods were effective in re-establishing government control across
the Empire.
6 By the end of 1905, the government was in deep financial trouble. The cost
of the war and falling tax revenues were driving the government to the
brink of financial collapse. However, Witte secured a huge loan, largely from
French bankers, in April 1906. This loan stabilised the economy and gave the
government money to pay for its functions for a year. It paid for the troops
who were needed to put down uprisings and restore order.

ACTIVITY
What do Sources 2.16 and 2.17 tell
us about the significance of the 1905
revolution in Russian history?
D Interpreting 1905 43
Traditionally, historians have seen the 1905 revolution as the result of the
1905
impoverishment and increasing misery of workers and peasants, exacerbated
by war, leading to an explosion of popular discontent. According to Beryl
Williams, recent evidence suggests that it is more complicated than this. She
maintains that it was a popular protest, but one stemming from a period of
economic growth rather than increasing misery, and from a period when some
individuals and areas benefited but others did not. Also, this was a time when
attitudes and society were undergoing rapid change. In her view it was initiated
by sudden depression and war rather than fundamental economic causes and
was more to do with freedom and dignity than the policies of political groups
or socialist parties whose activists were often seen as outsiders divorced from
local concerns. There was a huge demand for reform and institutional change.
Liberals, progressive landowners and nobility, businessmen and entrepreneurs
wanted more freedom of action, civil rights and to escape the heavy hand of
the tsarist state. Some wanted more self-government and local autonomy and
some, in the case of the nationalities, wanted independence. Workers were
looking for fundamental improvements in their living and working conditions
and, importantly, dignity. Peasants wanted the land and relief from redemption
payments and local bureaucracy.
The tsarist regime had managed to survive 1905 with its institutions intact.
But society had changed in many ways, as Source 2.16 indicates. The brutal
way in which the protest had been suppressed had broken the bond between
the Tsar and his people – he lost their affection. Fear and respect for the Tsar
had been replaced by fear alone. The people had also experienced political
freedoms – the growth of free speech and critical newspapers, the formation
of political parties, the soviets and the forthcoming dumas – which could not
just be put back in a box. The attitude of the workers and peasants had also
changed. They were more inclined towards social revolution than liberal
reform; the liberals had let them down after October. After 1905 appalling living
and working conditions and lack of dignity seemed even more intolerable to
workers. Landowners noticed that the mood of the peasants had changed and
that deference had been replaced by sullen resentment and hatred. Much would
depend on how Nicholas acted and whether he would take the chance to restore
relations with the people.
SOURCE 2.16 Peter Waldron, Between Two Revolutions: Stolypin and the Politics of Renewal
in Russia, 1997, p. 184
While the troubles of 1905 should have alerted the state apparatus to the deep
crisis that faced it, the regime’s ability to come through the year relatively
unscathed served to reassure the Tsar and his advisers that they were secure. They
had vanquished the most serious threat to their position for generations. This
was, however, a superficial view of the security of the tsarist state. The experience
of 1905 served to accelerate the disillusionment of much of Russian society and
government. The regime had not flinched from setting its troops against the
population when revolt threatened and had used great brutality to put down
rebellion in both city and countryside. Society’s sympathy with tsarism was rapidly
diminishing as its patriarchal structures disintegrated. The emancipation of the
serfs had severed the link between noble and peasant and the rapid decline in
noble landowning after 1861 had accelerated the process. The inhabitants of the
growing cities of the Empire felt little loyalty to any other social group.
 SOURCE 2.17 A. Ascher, The Revolution of 1905, 2004, pp. 216–7
44
If one takes a long-range view of Russian history, then the Revolution of 1905 can
1905

be seen not simply as a failure or as an event that was important because it led
inexorably to 1917. On the contrary, 1905 should be viewed as an upheaval that
opened up new possibilities for the country that was suppressed by the Bolshevik
revolution of 1917. Seventy-four years later, in 1991, it turned out that even that
cataclysmic event did not introduce a political system of very long duration.
Over the last thirteen years, the country has found itself in the throes of yet another
upheaval, inspired to a large extent by the same ideals that had animated much
of the opposition of 1905: the rule of law; government by the people; individual
rights; and respect for the ethnic and religious minorities. Though aborted, the
Revolution of 1905 left an enduring legacy: it initiated a process of political,
economic, and social change that even now still has not run its course.

Was 1905 really a revolution?

There has been a tendency for historians to see 1905 as simply part of the build
up to the revolution of 1917. This is partly due to Lenin’s description of 1905 as a
‘dress rehearsal’ for the main event. Some would say it does not really qualify as
a ‘revolution’ at all because no fundamental changes took place in the political
and social fabric of Russia; the old order remained and was largely intact. But
some historians, including Abraham Ascher, claim that there is a good case
for considering it as a revolution and that it deserves consideration in its own
right (see Source 2.17). The challenge to the established order in Russia came
from mass movements and popular protest affecting most parts of Russia and
there was a real chance that if all the unrest had occurred simultaneously the
government could have fallen. Ascher makes the point that the people who
participated in 1905 were trying to bring about real and far reaching changes
then and there, not preparing for a future event. The happenings of 1905 opened
up several paths and possibilities including more democratic government
through elected dumas and political parties and the expansion of civil rights –
alternatives to autocratic rule. We might, more generously, call it a genuine but
uncompleted revolution.

ACTIVITY
Essay: What were the causes of the 1905
Rapidly changing society –
revolution and why did the Tsar survive? unsettled and volatile
This is a straightforward essay where you
are asked to deploy the information in a Depression after 1900, poor
harvest 1901 – industrial
direct way. You could put the points in Bloody Sunday unrest and peasant revolt
order of importance or chronologically. CAUSES
Use the information you have collected in OF 1905
the Focus Route tasks for this section. REVOLUTION
Introduction – set out very briefly your
main line of argument mentioning some
of the major points but not going into any Growing opposition from Russo-Japanese War
liberal intelligentsia 1904–5
detail about them.
Conclusion – sum up the main points
of your argument for the first part of the
Loyalty of army
essay, bringing in issues of interpreting
1905. For the second half, stress the most Government suppression
Securing vital loans of opposition
important factors in survival.

WHY DID
THE TSAR
SURVIVE?
Opposition not
Middle class fear co-ordinated,
of violence lack of unity

Split between liberals

and socialists