Saturday, August 3, 2019
Why Nicholas II Survived the Revolution of 1905 but Not that of 1917 Es
 Why Nicholas II Survived the Revolution of 1905 but Not that of 1917       When Father Gapon and his followers marched peacefully on the Winter     Palace on 22nd January in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday due     to the extreme reaction leading to the massacre of the protestors, it     sparked the revolution of 1905, consisting of workers' strikes and     protests in addition to terrorising the wealthy and important upper     classes. As well as being a response to Bloody Sunday, the 1905     revolution was a result of pent up dissatisfaction with the autocracy     in Russia and with the vast social inequality. However, in spite of     the unrest within the country, the tsar managed to retain power after     this revolution. In 1917, when the people revolted again, he was not     so lucky, and the autocracy fell.       There are many reasons why the Tsar was able to survive the 1905     revolution, not least of which was the benefit of good ministers to     advise him well. Stolypin tried to have a moderating influence on the     Tsar and to help him make concessions to the people which would     promise to improve their lives enough that the revolution would die     down. However, by 1917 both Stolypin and Witte were dead, and the     Tsarina Alexandra was in charge of the running of the country due to     the Tsar's absence to the front to fight with the army. During the     time in which he was away, Alexandra replaced many of Nicholas'     ministers with her own personal favourites, most of whom were poorly     equipped to hold such influential positions at such an unstable time.     Due to this, the Tsar had few capable ministers to advise him through     the crisis when revolution broke out and help him emerge unsca...              ...es stipulated therein played a large part     in his downfall in 1917. The emergence of the free press after 1905     granted the right to express opinions by publication meant that the     Tsar was widely criticised to the public for the first time, whereas     previously none of his wrong-doings had ever been made known, and he     was viewed as ordained by god. Now however the Russians began to see     him as fallible and to question his actions, leading to further     unrest.       Similarly, and perhaps most importantly, the Duma in 1917 provided a     viable alternative to the autocracy which had not been present in     1905. Ironically, just as freeing the serfs had led to them wanting     more and assassinating Tsar Alexander II, Nicholas' grandfather, so     granting the people their Duma in 1905 in part led to the eventual     downfall of the Tsar in 1917.                        
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.