Sunway College

A Level – History -9489/2

Russian Revolution – 1905 Revolution
Chapter 2
A. What were the causes of the revolution of 1905?
 Long Term Causes: Refer to Chapter 1
 Short Term Causes: Russo Japanese War

Rapid Economic Changes

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 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 intelligentsia were tired of this backward and cumbersome regime and began to 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. However, it would be wrong to think that the parties recruited
workers and peasants in large numbers. The workers were more likely to join trade unions set up by
the police. 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.

1
The Russo-Japanese War 1904–5
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.
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

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 ‘private’ events but really, they were political
meetings in which the liberal 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

2
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. 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. 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.
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.

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

3
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.

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 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.

4
Role of the national minorities, the army and the revolutionary parties in the 1905
revolution
The national minorities took advantage of government disarray in Russia to demand autonomy,
democratic government and the end of Russification. The Poles and the Finns demanded outright
independence. The Jews wanted civil rights. In many areas, particularly on the edges of the empire,
the struggle became very violent – for example in parts of the Caucasus where peasants ignored the
authorities and attacked officials. There was a strong nationalist character to demands, e.g. for local
language and culture to be taught in schools. There was a racial edge to demonstrations, e.g. in Tbilisi
and Odessa. Also, 10,000 troops were dispatched to Georgia to try to keep it under control. In Poland,
trouble started as early as January, where there were clashes between strikers and troops. In February
students and pupils joined demonstrations. It expanded to include professional groups and then to
smaller cities and the countryside. In a state of almost civil war, the tsarist regime had to keep a force
of 300,000 soldiers in Poland who were badly needed in the Russo-Japanese war. Popular unrest in
the Baltic states followed a similar pattern, where workers and peasants were in a virtual state of civil
war with the authorities by the summer of 1905.

The army
The role of the army was a crucial factor in the 1905 revolution. Most of the soldiers were peasants
and many were not happy about being used to suppress revolts in the countryside. From late October
to mid-December 1905, there were over 200 mutinies in the army. Mostly this involved holding
meetings, not obeying orders and talking back to officers. There was also trouble from soldiers in the
Far East anxious to be demobilised after the end of the war. About a third of infantry units were
affected by some kind of disturbance. It seemed that they felt that the old rules did not apply after the
October Manifesto. John Bushell maintains that soldiers mutinied when they believed the regime had
lost its authority but repressed civilians when they thought the regime was back in charge.
On 6 December military reforms seemed to meet the soldiers’ key demands. Their pay was increased
and their terms of service reduced, e.g. from four to three years for infantrymen and from seven to
five years for sailors. They had demanded better food and now, for the first time, they were promised
increased meat rations and tea and sugar. Also, they would no longer be required to do forced labour
in the civilian economy. So, although there were mutinies up to the summer of 1906, the army came
back on side and remained loyal. The élite army units and the Cossacks had not been touched by
mutinies and were rewarded with money and privileges. It was to these loyal troops that the regime
turned to restore order at the end of 1905.

What part did the revolutionary parties play?

The Socialist Revolutionaries had some influence among the newly urbanised workers, the railway
workers and students. Most of their activity was in towns and SRs bemoaned their lack of impact on
the peasants in rural areas. Their terrorist wing called for rural terror against landlords and advocated
violence and arson. The Social Democrats, especially the Mensheviks, were influential in the larger
factories among more organised workers. But the scope of the activity of SDs and SRs was very
limited.
All sources say that the revolutionary parties were unprepared for the revolt that broke out in 1905.
Workers and peasants were apathetic and sometimes downright hostile towards them. As late as
September, in St Petersburg and Moscow, socialist speakers were often interrupted, especially when
they squabbled over political methods and party ideology. Workers and peasants were irritated by this
and listened more to local leaders who reflected their needs, demands and attitudes.
The Mensheviks played a significant role in the creation of the St Petersburg Soviet and came to
dominate it although there were SR and Bolshevik representatives. The Bolsheviks distrusted
independent working-class bodies and Lenin, who returned from exile in early November, never
spoke in the Soviet. The supreme orator here was Trotsky, who became deputy chairman and was
looking to widen the revolution and challenge the government. At this point he was not firmly in
either the Menshevik or the Bolshevik camp. The Social Democrats played a much more active role in
radicalising the soviets in St Petersburg and Moscow in November, and the Bolsheviks were
particularly active in organising and taking part in the Moscow uprising in December.

5
Why did the Tsar survive the 1905 revolution?
Restoring order

In the period of freedom after the October Manifesto, the soviets became more militant and a little too
overconfident. The St Petersburg Soviet interfered in the running of the railways, supported strikes
and organised an armed militia of some 6000 men. This led to a showdown between the Soviet and
the government. The new Minister of the Interior, P. N. DiNovo, an uncompromising reactionary, was
determined to re-establish government control. The government made the first move on 3 December
by arresting the leaders of the St Petersburg Soviet and hundreds of its deputies.
This caused an armed uprising in Moscow led by the Social Democrats and barricades were erected.
On 15 December, troops bombarded the workers ‘district of Persia, the centre of resistance. The
uprising was crushed, followed by a brutal crackdown with mass arrests, beatings and summary
executions. This proved to be a turning point. The violence of November and the Moscow uprising
had split the opposition movement. The liberals felt that the aims of the opposition had been achieved
in October and withdrew from further action. The middle classes, terrified of further violence and
frightened by the coarse proletarians interprets, wanted order restored. The government now
secondment to take control. From mid-December the government decided to move against any
civilians defying authority. In the cities, the Khorana and the police arrested hundreds of people. Peter
Struve, an ex-Marxist remarked: ‘Thank God for the Tsar, who has saved us from the people’. In the
countryside it took longer to bring things under control. A wave of peasant unrest and violence had
reached its peak in November. For instance, in the Tambov region, 130 estates had buildings that were
burned down. The deterioration in economic conditions in the countryside (the harvest of 1905was
poor) played a role in this but the peasants were also angry that they had not received any land deal in
the October Manifesto The government did promise to cut redemption payments in half by January
1906and end them completely by January 1907; it also announced the setting up of the Peasants’
Bank to help them buy land. But this was not enough and peasant disturbances broke out again early
in 1906. For much of that year the countryside was in revolt. There was widespread lawlessness and
hundreds of government officials were assassinated by the Socialist Revolutionaries. Troops were sent
out on punitive expeditions to re-establish order. Brutal and repressive measures – beatings, rape,
flogging and executions – were employed to intimidate the peasants and beat them into submission.
Between-October 1905 and April 1906, as many as 15,000 people were executed and 45,000
deported. The prisons overflowed with political prisoners. The troops worked their way through the
Baltic provinces, the Ukraine and the Caucasus. In the summer of 1906, field court martials were
introduced to deliver fast trials and fast executions (within 24 hours of sentencing). Peasants were
hanged in their hundreds. The noose used in the hangings became known as ‘Stolypin’s necktie’, after
Peter Stolypin, the new Minister of the Interior This cold-blooded repression had its effect and the
resistance to the authorities was everywhere in retreat. The old order was back.

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.

6
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.

Interpreting 1905
Traditionally, historians have seen the 1905 revolution as the result of the 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
growthratherthan 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. 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.

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. 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

7
the expansion of civil rights –alternatives to autocratic rule. We might, more generously, call it a
genuine but uncompleted revolution

KEY POINTS FROM CHAPTER 2

1905
1 At the beginning of the twentieth century Russia was undergoing rapid social and economic change
and old societal relationships were breaking down.
2 A deep depression starting in 1900 made life worse for workers and peasants leading to industrial
discontent and peasant revolt.
3 There was growing opposition from the liberal intelligentsia to what they saw as an incompetent and
out-dated style of government.
4 When the war with Japan went disastrously wrong, the government began to look increasingly
vulnerable.
5 Bloody Sunday sparked off a series of strikes, uprisings, demonstrations and disturbances. The Tsar
and his government lost control of the country for most of 1905. By October, a general strike put the
regime under a lot of pressure.
6 In the October Manifesto, the Tsar agreed concessions, notably an elected duma and civil rights,
whereupon the liberals stopped supporting revolution, as did the middle classes, frightened by the
violence on the streets.
7 The government arrested leaders of the workers’ movement in St Petersburg and crushed an armed
uprising in Moscow.
8 Throughout 1906, troops were used to suppress the peasants in the most brutal way in the
countryside and the national minorities on the periphery of the Empire.
9 The events of 1905 marked a watershed in which attitudes towards the Tsar and the tsarist regime
changed. The tsar had lost a lot of respect and different sections of society wanted to see change.
10 There is a debate over whether 1905 deserves to be called a revolution. But it did open up different
possibilities and alternatives to autocratic rule.