(5) What was the impact of the 1905 Revolution on Nicholas’ control? ( Aims and Methods)
Description
A level Russia History ((4) Nicholas II) Mind Map on (5) What was the impact of the 1905 Revolution on Nicholas’ control? ( Aims and Methods), created by Marcus Danvers on 09/18/2014.
(5) What was the impact of the
1905 Revolution on Nicholas’
control? ( Aims and Methods)
Political impact - Duma,
Civil rights, Tsar’s powers,
Opposition groups.
Strengthened the Tsar’s control
October Manifesto 1905
Split revolutionary forces
Spring 1906 Details
of Constitution
Power of Duma weakened as:
now two chamber to agree new laws, ie
Duma and reformed State Council, half of
whom were appointed by the tsar, the
other elected by the Church, noble,
Zemstva, universities and business groups
Duma elected in separate electoral
colleges depending on class/property
Duma's Power clipped
even before it met
Duma only had control of one
third of government income
Formal constitution, but not
parliamentary government
Fundamental Laws. Tsar still had
"supreme autocratic power"
Tsar appointed and dismissed ministers
who were not responsible to Duma
Tsar could dissolve Duma,
but had to call another
June 1907 Electoral
Law Change
Duma and State Council HAD
to approve electoral changes.
Only 3.5 million Voted in 1907;
only 16% of adult male population.
Turnout averaged about 50%
Franchise restricted to
favour gentry and urban rich
Secured far more moderate Third
Duma which lasted full five years
The Government interfered in the 1912 elections to
ensure satisfactory candidates were elected
The finns, too, became victims of Russian chauvinisim. Support by the Duma, the
government began to retract the concessions made in 1905, and even to under
Finland's special granted on her acquisition in 1809. Poles, Armenians, Baltic
Germans, Georgians and the vast range of minority groups suffered similarly.
There was a renewed concentration on Balkan affairs
Increase in national pressures in the Duma,
but chiefly due to the growth of tensions in
that area as Slav nationalism grew, and
Austria-Hungary became more concerned
These Diplomatic humiliations made Russia less prepared to accept
a further setback in 1914. Nicholas eventually, reluctantly, mobilized
his troops which triggered off war with Germany.
Weakened the Tsar’s control
Feb/Aug 1905 Bulygin
Proposals 1905
Feb 1905 Nicholas told Interior Minister
Bulygin to draw up to create elected assembly
Failed to reduce discontent
October
Manifesto 1905
Duma now to have
legislative power
Moderate liberals accepted
and formed Octobrist Party
Franchise broadened so as to include "those classes
which are now completely deprived of electoral rights"
Promised civil rights, ie free meetings,
free speech, liberty of conscience.
Spring 1906 Details
of Constitution
Peasants dominated first two Dumas, and
surprised government by their radical demands.
Great gulf between
government and Duma
Criticism grew as the quality of Nicholas's appointed deteriorated. Nicholas appointed a
series of nonentities of government posts. The most notorious was the aged notorious
Goremykin, re-appointed as Chairman of the Council of Ministers in January 1914
Such polices served to discredit tsarism in liberal
circles aboard, and also to stimulate the growth of
revolutionary parties amongst the national minorities. A
disproportionate number of Social Democrats, for
example, were Jews or from other races.
In Central Asia thousands of Muslims were dispossessed
of "surplus" land by Russian migrants, backed by the
army. The resultant resentment led to a massive rebellion
in 1916 in which thousands were killed.
The government came to agreements with Japan
and Britain over spheres of influence in the Far East.
Russia was aware of her military weakness after 1905 and back down
over the Balkan wars 1908-9 from Austrian and German pressures
Nicholas II anti-Semitism and political naivety in openly approving the extreme
right-wing Union of the Russian People, his stubborn belief in upholding the autocracy
and his military adventurism have also been viewed as disastrous for the monarchy
Impact in the countryside - Economic impact
of land reforms, Social impact of land reforms,
Peasants’ attitudes towards the Tsar.
Strengthened the Tsar’s control
It is difficult to asses the political effects of the reforms. Stolypin hoped his
reforms would create a prosperous, conservative peasantry, but in the meantime
he reduced peasant representation in the Third Duma. Official statistics show a
decline in peasant riots fro over 3000 in 1905 to only 128 in 1913.
Weakened the Tsar’s control
In Novermber 1905, at the height of the Revolution, Nicholas had
promised to cancel redemption payments. This was the first part if a
major reform programme designed to improve agriculture by
liberating enterprising peasants from the restrictions of the commune
Between 1907 and 1916 two and a half
million households left the commune
By 1916 approximately one quarter of all peasant land was privately
owned outside the commune, though most was still in strip form
Helped by State Bank loans, the land held by the peasantry continued
to increases as they bought land, often from frightened gentry
There is considerable evidence that the Stolypin reforms did not bring peace to
the Russian countryside. Gatrell has described them as "conflict-ridden", as
they fostered new bitterness, now directed at those "separators", who took
advantage of the reforms and government support, to set up individual farm.
In this, opinion, far from solving agrarian
problems, Stolypin created new ones.
By 1909 troops were increasingly used to quell unrest, and the inexorable
populations rise increased peasant covetousness for the noble's estates
which they eventually seized in 1917. These peasants revolts were largely
stimulated by news of the overthrow of the Tsar in February
Impact in the cities - Economic impact of
industrialisation, Social impact of industrialisation,
Workers’ attitudes towards the Tsar.
Strengthened the Tsar’s control
Gatrell and others, however, have disputed this interpretation. Although agreeing that
state supported railways were far less important in this period, they argue that the state
still played the dominant role in industrialisation through its armaments programme.
Though the production of consumer goods did rise, its proportion of
total industrial output actually fell from 52% to 45%, and it was heavy
industry that was still central to the pre-war economic boom.
The St Petersburg strike of 1914 ended just before the outbreak of
war which inspired a mass patriotic rallying to the government
The revolutionary groups only had real infuence in the few major industrial centres.
They had no effective national organisation. The Bolshevik leadership could not control
the rank and file. Revolutionary party, did not pose much of a threat to tsarism.
The concession of greater university autonomy granted in 1905 was
gradually withdrawn, and in 1910 Stoylpin ordered a new wave of
repression against universities, and non-academic meetings were banned
Where trade union were now legal, many were stamped out.
Whilst the number of newspaper grew rapidly, nearly a thousand
publications were closed, and other suffered from deletions by the
censor and the threat to editors of being fined or arrested.
Weakened the Tsar’s control
Economic Historian
Gerschenkron argues:
He contrasts the early dependence on state backed railway
development in the late 19th century, with the more
self-sustained economic growth of the last years of tsarism,
which was based on a growing natural internal market.
These, together with a rise in agriculture prices, produced a
growing domestic market, and a more consumer-based,
Western style of industrialisation, with the state playing a far
smaller role than in the initial stages.
The comparative lack of medium sized factories, with large scale works of over 1000
coexisting with a mass of small handicrafts, indicated the unbalanced nature of
Russia's industrialisation, and probably contributed to increased social tensions
As well as creating discontent amongst urban workers, Russia's rapid industrialisation,
by putting burdens on the peasantry, also caused discontent in the countryside. Another
potential adverse effect of industrialisation was the growth of a middle class.
Unrest in the growing towns was always likely to be more politically significant than rural
discontent, and here too the same pattern seems evident. Rapid development of large scale
industry inevitably produced of large scale industry inevitably produced social tension, due
to overcrowding and long hours, low pay, fierce discipline and numerous accidents.
This was seem in 1912 when troops were called into a strike in the lena
goldfields, and 270 strikers were killed. There was a wave of sympathy strikes,
and the Okhrana warned that the situation was similar to that in January 1905
In July 1914 a general striking broke out in St
Petersburg, with virtually all workers striking
Growing Bolshevik influence, directed into more political and revolutionary directions. In the
Duma and in elections for workers' representatives the Bolsheviks were gaining over the
Mensheviks, and their "Pravda" newspaper reached a circulation of about 40,000
Relative passivity should not be confused with support for the regime.
Stability had been secured on the basis of coercion, not contract and
consent. This might not suffice if the regime were put to new tests.