Background Information about The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905
By 1905, a revolution was immanent, Tsar’s power was to be challenged and the reasons for this are to be laid out here in this essay. Was the Tsar’s non-reformist attitude solely to blame or was the nature of Tsardom destined to destroy itself? We need to look at the foundations of the revolution in order to fully understand this and make an informed response to these questions.
The foundations are laid out into five main parts, including short and long-term factors. The two main long-term factors being that the Tsar alienated many of the classes within Russia and his policy of non-reform led to repression. As these factors developed, other incidents became short-term factors. The failure in the Japanese War was a huge blow to Tsardom and undermined their ethos that Tsardom was the right regime for Russia and the political spring that came as the Tsar relaxed censorship brought an avalanche of criticism for Tsardom. Finally, the humiliation at Port Arthur triggered the protest at the Winter Palace, which developed into Bloody Sunday and was the birth of the revolution.
Investigating the first of the long-term factors causing the revolution, it seemed necessary to go back to examine the structure of Tsarist Russia pre-1905 to get a fuller picture. This period posed a problem for Nicholas II. The regime itself reinforced any class divisions from the bureaucracy to the peasants and alienated them even further. As, “the truth is Nicholas was never in touch with the common people. He never knew what it was like to worry where the next meal was coming from. He never had to. ” He did not understand the way that Russia worked in practise. He could not, or would not, empathise with the peasants’ hardships of the land and his ideas of Russia’s troubles were laughable. Consequently, by 1905 he had estranged his subjects, including even some of the gentry’ folk that had been so loyal to Tsardom in the past. They were a class in decline and it was partly due to the Tsar’s incompetence. Owing to Russia’s economic backwardness, the landowners found it almost impossible to farm for a profit. The gentry had no market for their produce, as their target market was near penniless and thus could not afford to purchase crops from the landowners. The Tsar did little to rectify the situation and in fact took land off the gentry following the emancipation of the Serfs and issued bonds, which were effectively I.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.
While most of Europe had develop strong central governments and weakened the power of the nobles, Russia had lagged behind the times and still had serfs as late as 1861. The economic development that followed the emancipation of peasants in the rest of Europe created strong industrial and tax bases in those nations. Russian monarchs had attempted some level of reforms to address this inequality for almost a century before, and were indeed on their way to “economic maturity” (32) on par with the rest of Europe. But they overextended themselves and the crushing defeats of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 and the First World War in 1917 lost them the necessary support from their subjects and created “high prices and scarcity” which were by far “the most obvious factors in the general tension”
Tsarism during the period after the 1905 revolution and the March revolution of 1917 faced a ‘wave of social discontent’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). This was no surprise, as there was many who during that period had thought that there was a ‘straight road [to] a socialist future’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57). However many saw that there was not the means to happen in Russia at the time. Hobsbawm plants the idea of a Bourgeoisies revolution and the class struggles, combined with Karl Marx’s ideas about the impending revolutions. Centralised in Europe was the ideas of socialism and revolution. Hobsbawm reflects the ideas of the time, that they were ‘helpless’ by 1914 and by 1916 the majority followed. This was just the popular opinion of the time of the Russian public. Although he jumps between times, starting with the October revolution then jumping to the ‘overthrow(ing) of Tsarism’ (Hobsbawm, 1995, p. 57) then back to the post October revolution. This does not affect the readability of the section. It gives a well-rounded description of the period to form a good base for Part II.
In the late 19th century Russia had been notably behind Europe economically, they weren’t in possession of the modern farming technologies that could efficiently provide for a large country. As a result 90% of the Russian population were peasants (Massey, 4). The serfs lived in deep poverty; they didn’t have the appropriate apparatus to produce enough crops and most of their landlords had unbelievably high demands. In an effort to reform the economy’s recession tsar Alexander II liberated the serfs. However this created more bad for both the serfs and the nobles. In the beginning the serfs saw this is a great victory and another reason to be thankful for their tsar. But as timed pass by the peasants saw this life of liberty and freedom to be increasingly difficult. The government directly compensated the nobles, while the less desirable land was sold to the peasants at a much higher price. They monthly rent they paid the nobles was replaced with paying the state (Massey, 5). And while the population nearly doubled between 1861-1917 poverty increased not only with the peasants but with the nobles as well. Nobles found it hard to assimilate them to a new life style where they would have to trade their lavish goods with farming tools and as result many of them acquired a large amount of debt. This period signifies a time where the people of Russia opened their eyes to the deep poverty and lives of oppression they were living. This is the point where the feelings of peasants who previously worshiped the tsar turned bitter. After consistent resistance to industrialization the tsar had finally given in, aggressive approaches were put in place and railroads grew more than 15,500 miles in 1880 (Massey,6). As the Industrial production con...
The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. The causes of the revolution were very critical and even today historians debate on what was the primary cause of the revolution. The revolution began in Petrograd as “a workers’ revolt” in response to bread shortages. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, replacing Russia’s monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Before 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation. The Russian working class had been for many years fed up with the ways they had to live and work and it was only a matter of time before they had to take a stand. Peasants worked many hours for low wages and no land, which caused many families to lose their lives. Some would argue that World War I led to the intense downfall of Russia, while others believe that the main cause was the peasant unrest because of harsh living conditions. Although World War I cost Russia many resources and much land, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was the peasant unrest due to living conditions because even before the war began in Russia there were outbreaks from peasants due to the lack of food and land that were only going to get worse with time.
future leader of the Soviet Union as a “dress rehearsal” for the 1917 revolution. The most important difference is that the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy in Imperial Russia. A combination of reasons can explain why this revolution failed at overthrowing the Tsar Nikolas the Second. The revolutions participants were not revolutionaries that wanted to overthrow the Tsar, it was not started by revolutionary groups. The military and military context played an important role to the revolution’s failure, and the autocracy’s reforms gave compromise to the protestors who could be satisfied with the changes. These factors show why the 1905 revolution failed to destroy the autocracy.
The Russo-Japanese War The Russo Japanese war was a conflict between Russia and Japan in 1904-1905. The cause of the war was because Russia wanted to expand into Asia and ran into Japanese plans for gaining a foothold on Asia main land. In 1898 Russia leased Port Arthur from china, with the intention of making it into a great Asiatic port and the headquarters of Russian naval power in the pacific. Russia already had troops in Manchuria during the boxer rebellion in 1900, but Russia had to face the anglo-japanese alliance of 1902, which promised to leave Chinese territory.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
"The Russian Revolution, 1881-1939." DISCovering World History. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Centre Canadian Edition. Web. 28 Oct. 2009.
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.
Conditions gradually improved for the peasants, for example in 1864 judicial reforms were made in order to make the system fairer and end class privileges, and in 1882 the Peasant’s land bank was set up enabling enterprising farmers to acquire more land. Reforms were also made under the rule of Nicholas II who bettered conditions for workers by introducing a reduction in the working day to eight hours, an increase in wages and improvement in working conditions. Also in October 1906, the Tsar’s Chief Minister, Stolypin introduced legislation that enabled pe... ... middle of paper ... ...
The need to modernise in Russia was a problem that the tsar had to face between the years, at the time in question, Russia was very backwards in the way that it farmed its lands, its economy was behind that of the rest of Europe, this meant that action had to be taken, in this area the tsar did have some successes.
In examining the comparison of the 1905 events with the similar situation in 1917, it is vital to look at the backdrop circumstances in order to directly compare the revolutions. The combination of the social disruptions generated by the Russo-Japanese War effort caused unrest and several uprisings to take place in the period 1904-1905. In 1905 Russian armies suffered repeated defeats in the Russo-Japanese war leading to low morale, food shortages and bread prices soaring throughout Russia. Discontentment lay the foundation to political ferment amongst the Proletariat. The mobilisation of the working class accompanied the war effort, revitalizing the threat of a strike movement such like the one in 1905. The circumstances that Russian society found themselves in, in 1905 can be directly compared to the situation of 1914-1917.