Jan Tovary

Russia
Analyse the causes and consequences of the 1905 revolution in Russia?
Russian revolutions of 1905 were an escalation of long term socio-economic problems, which the
empire was unable to tackle and which were triggered by events such as Bloody Sunday and RussoJapanese war. Although the empire wasnt in the best economic or political shape, the autocratic
regime was still under sovereign control of the state. It was only due to the short term events and
economic downturn that created a possibility for opposition groups to exploit the situation for their
gain. But since the opposition was not united and also since it had no precise long term aim, it was
easier for the Tsar to deal with such movements and by combining repressive measures and
compromises from the government, the situation was stabilised. The revolutions of 1905 ended with
no vast success and although some more democratic measures such as Dumas were introduced, they
had only very limited competences and could not severely limit powers of the Tsar. On the other hand
the situation after the revolutions wasnt exactly same as some positive changes had been made and
especially the lives of peasants were improved by several reforms introduced by Stolypin.
By 1905 Russia had already undergone a massive industrialization and economic development.
Production of raw materials such as oil and coal rose spectacularly, this development was further
supported by large railway expansions, which grew by more than 100% between the 1880 and 1900.
Overall the economy was also supported by a large increase of foreign capital inflow from just 100
million roubles up to 900 million roubles by the end of century. But Russia was still far from complete
transformation into fully industrialized state, although the achievements were major they must be
understood in the context of very low starting position. Also Russia was still suffering entrepreneurial
class which could drive the industrialization and probably most importantly it was still very backward
in social issues involving any appropriate representative government. During the turn of century the
poor internal situation was exposed through the series of poor harvests and massive population
growth, which further escalated the attacks on the landlords and their property. Furthermore the
economic growth fell steeply from 8% to only 1% after 1899, thus replacing a time of prosperity with
huge unrest. The situation was becoming worse with rising interest rates and its impact could be
demonstrated by over 90,000 stoppages in production during 1904 in comparison to 17,000 in 1894.
Another problem was a relatively larger literacy rate which further increased influences of opposition
groups especially in the rural areas where soldiers literate from army returned. The rural areas posed a
huge problem as they were distant and therefore Tsar relied mostly on the local officials and army, but
these often chosen the side of local peasant thus complicating the situation for the Tsar. Overall the
socio-economic issues were present for longer time and were an inevitable part of industrialization, yet
the short term crisis and economic downturn managed to destroy the fig leaf of prosperity and created
an environment of dissatisfied and unemployed people, which could be easily exploited by various
oppositions.
The short term economic distress served as an opportunity for the Social Revolutionaries (SRs) and
Social Democrats (SDs), both groups gained massive support after 1900 and managed to create many
unrest in both rural and urban areas. The SRs very much appealed to the peasants and created an AllRussian Peasant Union. The word revolutionary in their name wasnt unjustly used as their common
practises included assassinations of officials, which included even tsars uncle. Furthermore the Social
Democrats gained more support in the cities among the workers and with them they organized strikes,

on the other hand they begun to adopt revisionist policies, which could potentially made them a
traditional Marxist party, similar to the German Social Democrats. Yet this idea wasnt approved by all
members and some regarded the Marxist revolution as the only solution, this could be demonstrated in
Lenins What has to be done?. The lack of party organisation and long term program showed to be
vital as they limited the actual outcome of these parties. Probably the most successful of the opposition
were the Liberals, which preferred a moderate liberal reform and they were able to force Nicholas II to
make concessions on religion toleration, censorship and the zemstva but werent able to push
forward the plan to create a fairly elected National Legislative Assembly. To their proposition of such
government the Tsar responded: I will not agree to the representative form of government, because I
consider it harmful to the people, whom God entrusted to me. Consequently the Tsars disagreement
to such conditions led to further escalations, resulting in Bloody Sunday. On the other hand
considering the opposition movements as the most important factors in causing the revolutions is
simply not true, as it was mainly the short term externalities, which gave more power to those
movements, which simply exploited the opportunities. Furthermore the lack of organisation and long
term aims, affected the autocratic regime only by a manageable amount and it were mainly the wrong
doings of the government, which escalated the revolutions.
Between the short term causes behind the revolutions in 1905 was also the Russo-Japanese war. This
conflict, which escalated through Russian and Japanese expansionistic tendencies in China, was a
major misjudgement from the Tsar, which didnt unite the nation as he hoped, but the exact opposite.
The economic downturn was supported by the war and the consequences on the nationalistic feelings
were even larger. The Tsushima battle in 1905, during which the Baltic Russian fleet was destroyed,
was Russian biggest naval defeat in history and more importantly provided a backdrop for further
political disturbances. Also the fact that the most skilled and loyal troops were send on the other side
of the world was working for the revolutionaries, as there was not enough soldiers to supress the
revolutions. But even the military wasnt reliable and Tsar had to deal with several mutinies, which the
most well-known, was the one on battleship Potemkin. With the tensions running high abroad,
tensions at home were not different. On the 9 th January 1905 a priest and a union organiser led
peaceful demonstration towards the Winter Palace, the demonstration became later known as Bloody
Sunday. Although the demonstration was peaceful and wanted solely present a petition to the Tsar, the
military and the police misjudged the situation and started firing into unarmed crowds. It was a
slaughter, which created a massive opposition to the Tsar, as Lenin later wrote: Even those St
Petersburg workers who believed in the Tsar started to call for immediate overthrow of the regime. It
was a trigger, which started so far the largest strikes, these involved over 400,000 workers in St
Petersburg and later that year, these strikes included around 2.5 million workers. It was a paradox as it
was the government, which actually created the best possible backdrop for revolutions, through
suffering a major defeat in expansionistic war and disregarding the needs of the people. Further
exploitation of governments weakness and mass unhappiness was successful due to creation of
Soviets, which were set up in major cities and co-ordinated protests and distributed arms to the
workers. Overall it was mainly the short term causes, including the misjudgement from the Tsar, which
created a perfect ground for revolutions, rather than an organised opposition movements. On the other
hand the socio-economic problems, which came with industrialization couldnt have been disregarded
for ever and the revolution was inevitable only with government disregarding the needs of the people.
The immediate consequence of the revolutions was the October Manifesto which was issued by the
Tsar and which promised full civil liberties and constitutional democracy, consisting of State Duma,
which was to be voted on by a universal manhood suffrage. But the Tsar was a firm believer of his god
given right to rule and pressed the opposition movements by power as he crushed the St Petersburg
soviet by power. Although the State Duma was a revolutionary change its implication for the future

were very limited, because the Tsar was still in charge as he could veto all the Dumas decisions as
well as completely dissolving it. Furthermore the change towards democracy was merely a dream as
the Tsar could act as an absolute ruler when the Duma was not in sessions and the freedom of speech
was also limited. As Sergei Witte recognized: too little, too late. The first Duma was a huge failure,
which although it contained mainly moderate ministers was unable to work with Tsar towards changes
regarding the peasantry. This was a strong evidence that a more radical reform is needed to achieve a
better socio-economic situation. The second, third and fourth State Duma was also a failure and
showed the inability of the Tsar and Stolypin to give up bigger concessions. With each new Duma
Stolypin tried to increase influence of more moderate and Tsar friendly ministers, but the lack of trust
and responsibility, which were put into the Dumas automatically deemed them to failure. Furthermore
the ongoing persecution of opposition groups from the side of government, demonstrated by frequent
use of gallows, which later became known as Stolypins necktie, showed that the Dumas achieved
nothing. Overall the Duma experiment failed, and Russia wasnt much more democratic than before
and the main outcome of the revolutions of 1905 was that Dumas might not be the right solution and
that a more severe and more revolutionary steps must be undertaken to change the system, as from
now the initiative moved from the top to the common workers.
Although the government wasnt changed, there were several changes made by Stolypin regarding the
peasants, which could have make some part of the Russian population better off. The changes
introduced by Stolypin included abolition of redemption taxes and also redistribution of the land into
private ownership as well as creation of further peasant banks, which were made to stimulate the
economy. The overall agriculture outcome was improved by further subsidising the journey to the
Siberia, which undergone more than 3.5 million and which helped to create more land for agriculture
and also helped very overpopulated areas of European Russia. These changes made by Stolypin were
absolutely game changing as for now the peasants could finally develop on their own and had the
possibility to improve the efficiency of the agriculture in general. The privately owned farms
stimulated the economy as the peasant were now full initiative to develop their land and maximize
their outcome, but also by the fact that their surpluses could be used by them to purchase consumer
goods, the economy could be further stimulated and a bigger local market could be developed. This
basic change was a major step towards modern free market economy and created a better starting place
for further development, but also included some problems. Between the main problems with creation
of privately owned land were that many peasant lacked the education to improve the farming
themselves, also some of them enjoyed the security, which the communes offered and lastly the
peasants needed time for the changes to actually bring its fruits. Stolypin stated that such reforms
would need at least 20 years of peace to improve the situation. Already by 1915 there were 50% of
privately owned farms in contrast to only 20% in 1905 and thus the changes must be consider as
highly influential. Overall the Stolypins changes could bring a positive change to Russia, but time
would be needed for them to take positive action, this assumption wasnt met and with outbreak of the
First World War the dream of economic prosperity of Russia was destroyed.
After the situation was stabilised Russia begun a slow economic recovery. After 1905 the factory
output grew by 5% a year and the agriculture reforms proved that they can solve Russia biggest
problems of overpopulation and backwardness. But still Russia had a long way to go. The literacy rate
was around 40% and poverty was widespread both in the cities and in the country. Probably the
biggest flaw of the whole Russian dream was the Tsar himself as he even in the future years couldnt
effectively work with the Duma and thus limit his own power in favour of the people. During
following years after the revolutions the opposition was deeply divided with pro-revolutionaries being
severely weakened and the liberals no longer revolutionary. It was a combination of the internal
problems of the opposition movements and the strong repressive measures, such as was the Lena

Goldfield Massacre, which made the opposition movements weaker. But this doesnt mean that the
trend of strikes ended, while in 1914 there were over 1 million strikes, and although these were mainly
short term outbreaks a Bolshevik influence in the trade unions was rising as well as their propaganda.
The stability during the following years after the revolutions was strictly dependent on short term
strikes and problems, but in general the autocratic regime could sufficiently destroy any potential
threat working towards destruction of the whole system, rather than some parts, which could be
partially achieved through the strikes. Only an externality on a larger scale could now trigger another
uprising and it did in form of a First World War.
In conclusion the revolutions were mainly caused by externalities, which arise from many
governments misjudgements on both internal and external affairs and exposed how deeply flawed the
Russian system was and that there is also a price for industrialization, which cant be undelivered. The
stability of Russia showed to be absolutely dependant on the economic cycles and the nature of
winters. The call for change was therefore mainly created by an incompetence of the government
rather than by the want of the people for representative government, although that was true in some
cases. Consequently the regime proved to be strong and very able to destroy opposition movements,
this was made simpler by the fact that they were often divided and lacked precise plans. The
concession made by Tsar certainly had some effect, but were too little to affect the absolute rule of the
Tsar or to calm down the revolutionaries, thus the effects were limited and the only considerable
consequence of the revolutions remained the Stolypin changes. These were the only major changes
that concluded the times of the revolutions and that could bring a potential prosperity for Russia, at
least on the economic scale, as for now representative government was not in question.