Why Did the Tsarist Regime Survive in the Years 1881-1905

8/12/2019 Why Did the Tsarist Regime Survive in the Years 1881-1905

1/3

Katie

Why did the Tsarist regime survive in the years 1881-1905

It is possible to argue that the Tsarist regime survived because the various groups opposing the Tsar (the workers,

the peasants, the middle classes, etc.) 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 and as a result were not as strong as they

could have been, even actively being weakened by conflict within factions. On the other hand the fact that the army

remained loyal (despite a rash of mutinies) also contributed to the survival of the Tsarist regime. Once it had

received pay and changes to the conditions of service it supported the Tsar and could be employed in putting down

the revolutionary ideas and actions as they emerged in the cities and in the countryside. The importance of both of

these factors can be seen when we look at the Revolution that wassuccessful in 1917with a mutinous army and the

strong charismatic figure of Lenin who moulded all these elements in to a coherent force to be reckoned with.

Without the army however, even this uncoordinated unrest could not have been pacified and would have continued

to cause disruption. Revolutionary groups could possibly even have grown and developed into a force to be

reckoned with had they been left and given time.

A main cause of the survival of the Tsarist regime was the divided opposition. There were several social and political

groups of people who had issues with the regime in the years between 1881- 1905; groups of people who wanted

change; the problem was that this is really all they had in common. Everyone had different agendas, different things

they sought to gain; for the peasants, their main grievances focused around land and their right to reap the fruits of

their labour, the workers wanted rights and improved conditions, the middle classes were after a political voice

while newly emerged political groups like the SRs and SDs wanted full scale upheaval of the Tsarist system. The

problem of this is not how to start a revolution but when to stop. This played a large part in the failure of the 1905

revolt when a substantial group of moderate liberals professed themselves satisfied by the Tsars October

Manifesto and now changed sides in many cases supporting the government in suppression of those who still

fought for more. The Socialist Revolutionaries hoped for a popular uprising centred around the peasants and theSocial Democrats focusing on the working class. And even then there were disagreements on how this should be

done leading to factions within parties (take the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks). The Mensheviks wanted to help

alleviate the suffering of the workers but the Bolsheviks saw it as crucial to keep them as low down as they could so

as to encourage them to develop a class conscience as fighting tools. In this way these factions were actively going

against each other so you can see why there wasnt much progress or forward movement. As it was no group was

strong enough to succeed on its own and ,unwilling to co-operate, their spontaneous, badly co-ordinated efforts

under little organised leadership meant that they all followed their own separate rhythms that muddled with each

other and were much quieter than they could have been if they had combined. Between them there were

representatives of every social class and disposition if they had united, such a revolution would have beenmuch

harder to quell with repression.

But the Tsar and the whole tradition of Tsarism was very good at repression, in fact, it was partly because of

repression that the political parties were in such a mess- they had never been given a chance to develop and were

even illegal. Aside from that, Repression played a very important part in the survival of the regime. In 1881 the

Statue of State Security was passed (under Alexander III) giving the government powers to- prohibit gatherings of

more than 12 people (again making it difficult to form any co-ordinated political party), prosecute any individual of

political crimes (in this way removing any possible threats one at a time before the problem became too large),

introduce emergency policy rule where public order was threatened, set up special courts outside the legal system,

close schools, universities and newspapers (university students and teachers were dangerous as seen in 1905). Most

of these remained in force until 1917. In addition he brought in strict controls on the universities, reducing student

freedom; reduced the independence of the Zemstva (which had a role in the rise of political awareness), making

control more centralised; drastically cut voting eligibility, and abolished Justices of Peace to be replaced with Land

captains (members of the gentry who were chosen to control the peasantry and could keep them down). When


2/3

Katie

some form of weak revolt emerged in 1905 Nicholas II was able to squash it into the dust for 12 years through such

drastic, capital repression that it earned him the nickname Nicholas the Bloody. The St. Petersburg Soviet became

the main focus to begin with after they became more militant and the uncompromising reactionary minister

Durnovo was determined to re-establish control. The government made the first move on the 3rd

of December by

arresting the leaders of the Soviet and hundreds of its deputies. Following an armed uprising in Moscow troops

bombarded the workers district of Presnia, the centre of resistance. The uprising was crushed, followed by a brutal

crackdown with mass arrests, beatings and summary executions. This repression was the turning point here and itwas repression that made the liberals decide their aims had been met in October and withdrew from action while

the middle classes, terrified of further violence gave up on the idea of rebellion. After this the government now felt

confident to take control. From mid- December the government decided to move against any civilians defying

authority. In the cities, the Ohkrana and the police arrested hundreds of people. In the countryside it took longer but

cold blooded repression had its effect and the resistance to the authorities was everywhere in retreat; troops were

sent out on to re-establish order with brutal and repressive measures- rapes, beatings, floggings and executions- to

intimidate the peasants and beat them into submission. 10s of thousands were executed and deported, the prisons

filled with political prisoners butrepression was having the effect that compromise had failed to achieve and order

was restored.

But this repression could not have happened if it werent for the loyalty of the armywho carried out these actions

and did the dirty work. The troops worked their way throughout all of Russia- the Baltic provinces, the Ukraine, the

Caucasus, silencing the unrest with the brute force described above. It is easy to see just how important they were;

when the troops were loyal, revolution failed (1905), when they werent it succeeded (1917).

Of course a lot of credit is due to the Leadership of Alexander III and minister Witte. Nicholass father Alexander III

was a master of repressive tactics as shown above. He rejected his fathersreforms as ill-advised tantamount to

revolution and pushing Russia on the wrong road. It was his precautionary measures described in great detail above

that meant that attempts at revolution were much weaker than they could have been. With a country as large as

Russia the potential strength of the people is astonishing, Alexander made sure that they never had a chance torealise that potential. Wittes role on the other hand was in the handling of revolutionary attempts when they

happened. He reigned in Nicholas II (a huge feat as Nicholas was extremely reluctant to listen to anyone) and

stopped him from steering the country into a train wreck. Witte understood with the 1905 revolution that repression

at this point would have terrible consequences, concession was necessary and it was he who fought tooth and nail to

have Nicholas sign the October Manifesto. By satisfying a large group of moderate liberals immediately (the

Octoberists) and then later pacifying more, the manifesto diminished the opposition enough for Nicholass

repression to be able to crush what was remaining. Nicholas II was an exceptionally weak leader with deluded ideas

on how to run a country; without the support of these critical figures (Alexander to save Nicholas from a situation he

couldnt have handled and Witte to help him handle what he had)he most certainly would have lost Tsarism much

earlier.

A final, crucial cause of the survival of the regime was that there was still support for Tsarism. Many revolutionaries

just wanted their grievances seen to by their Tsar (whether it was land for the peasants of better conditions for the

workers) and still had the upmost respect for him. They never intended to overthrow him and so the survival of

Tsarism was natural. Gapon, the leader of the march on the winter palace in 1905, was described as having no

political strategy other than a reliance on the Tsar to help him (Beryl Williams). In fact his marchers were carrying

icons and pictures of the Tsar who wasnt even in St. Petersburg. The real trouble erupted after the Bloody Sunday

massacre in an unorganised shock of passion and outrage and bloomed out of control but a revolution was never

intended and many argue that as such, it cannot be labelled as one. After the October Manifesto, the Octoborists

and some other liberals decided that the reforms were a compromise; the middle class were largely happy and after

the November Peasants Manifesto there waspromise of genuine land reform.


3/3

Katie

Overall, the main cause of the survival of the Tsarist regime was the loyalty of the army. Without army action to

stamp out revolutionaries, their ideas and their meetings; the divided and unorganised opposition could have

merged and developed into something much more threatening, co-ordinated and with a strong leadership. The

support for Tsarism could have been lost in the chaos and people given revolutionary ideas by figures who went

unchecked. While the Leadership of Alexander III and Witte was important, army support of their policies was

necessary to retain order and though it was the repressive tactics that were used by the army, the army made them

successful (as we can see when repression failed to prevent the 1917 revolution) and carried them out effectively.

Documents

Why Did the Tsarist Regime Survive in the Years 1881-1905