Why Did Russia Go To War with Japan?
1. Plheve, Minister for Internal Affairs, had told Nicholas that ‘a short swift victorious war’ would stem the growing tide of unrest against his rule
2. Russia wanted to ‘drive to the East’ to obtain more ports and coastline. Japan in turn wanted more land and resources.
What were the causes of the 1905 Revolution?
1. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War had shown (in a manner that harkened back to Russia's defeat in the Crimean War) her backwardness compared to Japan. Her army was defeated in a series of battles - including the sinking of the Baltic Fleet - and Russia had been shown to be militarrily and industrially inferior to Japan (a people that Nicholas had derided as 'monkeys'). Defeat led to further calls for reform from the Intelligentsia, demoralization of the army (such as the mutiny of the Battleship Potemkin), as well as dissatisfaction among reactionaries. A Conference of the Marshals concluded that Russia was on the brink of anarchy and needed constitutional reform
2. Linked with this, there were growing demands for political reform (especially freedom of speech and freedom of the press). The Congress of Zemstvo passed a resolution calling for constitutional reform. This was initially agreed by Nicholas, but then he changed his mind.
3. There was also growing unrest and agitation in the country as living conditions for the urban workers and peasants deteriorated. A wave of strikes began in Petrograd in 1904 and by Autumn 1905, 2.5 workers were on strike. Peasants also engaged in a campaign of looting and burning landowner's property.
All these issues came to a head at the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre (1905), where the army killed 200 workers (and injured a further 200) who were calling for constitutional reform and improvements in workers rights.
What part Was Played by the Different Political Groups in the Revolution of 1905?
1. Liberals continued to push for reforms (particularly a constitutional assembly) as a way of solving internal problems
2. Social Revolutionaries continued their policy of assassinations and attempted to stir up peasants (forming the All-Russian Peasants Union). However, they also also supported Liberals in the push for reform.
3. Social Democrats were active in encouraging strikes and forming workers’ councils
4. Nationalists (Finns, Poles, Latvians etc.) seized on the instability to make demands for independence. This led to a violent backlash from ‘Union of the Russian People’ (who were supported by Nicholas)
The Response of the Tsar: The October Manifesto
1. Realizing that anarchy was close, the Tsar attempted to restore calm by asking for ‘suggestions’ from populous on how to reform the country
2. Witte suggested concessions were the best move to stave of mass revolt AND to detach Liberals (who would settle for reform) from revolutionaries (who wanted widespread social change). It would also enhance his authority.
3. The October Manifesto (1905) granted “civil liberty on principles of true inviolability of person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association”
4. An Edict (1906) reformed the peasants position by allowing them to consolidate their holdings and set up additional farmsteads. They could also leave their commune without permission of the Mir. Crucially Redemption Payments were abolished, arrears cancelled and the Land Banks were strengthened.
What were the reactions of the various groups?
1. Moderate Liberals (Octoberists) saw it as an opportunity to work with Tsar to make Duma a success
2. Nicholas felt he had broken his oath to maintain autocracy.
3. The Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries rejected it. As Lenin wrote "we have been granted a constitution, yet autocracy remains. We have been granted everything, and yet we have been granted nothing". He reiterated the Call to overthrow the Tsar, which led to further strikes and a Bolshevik uprising in Moscow
4. The Peasants saw it as an opportunity to take more land.
4. Mutinies continued within the army
The Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire (1906) - met the promises of October Manifesto WHILE maintaining autocracy (a conservative constitution)
1. It established the Duma (lower house - elected by popular vote) and the State Council (which was 50/50 appointed by Tsar / representatives of public bodies - i.e. Church, Nobility & Zemstva)
2. The Duma allowed for public debate and had power over state budget
However, while the October Manifesto offered concessions, it still retained a great deal of power for the Tsar:
1. The Duma was to be consultative (Tsar could reject advice)
2. There was still no universal suffrage (women, domestic servants and agricultural workers were excluded), while landowners and nobles were given more votes
3. The Duma was not to be a ‘constituent assembly’ that would draw up a new constitution for the country
4. The State Council had not been mentioned in the October Manifesto (It was also disconcerting that it could veto bills)
5. The Tsar also retained the right to veto bills, appoint ministers and dissolve the Duma and rule by Emergency Decree, as well as the right to declare war. He also had complete control of foreign affairs.
In the aftermath of this, The Tsar also continued to use repressive means against those who opposed him. The Army fired on striking workers in St Petersburg, arresting and exiling members of the St Petersburg Soviet, and put down an armed uprising of the Moscow Soviet with artillery. Meanwhile, the ‘Black Hundreds’ continued to violence against opponents of the Tsar (peasants, revolutionaries, Jews, Nationalists, students, and intellectuals)
No comments:
Post a Comment