Russia In Revolution 1904-06 24 Mark Questions Flashcards
How successful was the tsarist autocracy in reasserting its authority by the end of 1905?
Definition: successful reassertion of authority would involve the tsarist position being maintained and opposition being weakened or removed
Line of argument: there was remaining opposition, however, the tsar ultimately kept his position and therefore can be seen to have successfully reasserted authority by the end of 1905
Successful:
-Oppressive methods and support
-October manifesto in some ways
Not successful:
-Division in the opposition helped authority to be maintained, not tsarist action
-Loss of some long term military support
-Opposition ideas still circulated
Conclusion:
When evaluating the evidence, it is clear that the tsar did face considerable challenge to his authority, but was mostly successful in marinating his position.
To what extent should the October Manifesto be considered a sham?
Definition: a sham would involve the promises of the manifesto not being fulfilled and a lack of progressive change afterwards.
Line of argument: although in principle the October Manifesto was progressive, the limitations of this and the ability of the tsar to interpret it in the way that best suited an autocratic regime, it was overall a sham.
Sham:
-Universal suffrage not granted fully, separate elections for different groups
-Not clear if Dumas could initiate legislation, tsar could dissolve them and they still needed his assent for laws
-Open to interpretation
Not sham:
-No law without the consent of the Duma, more progressive as change in political structure
-Civil liberties, relax on censorship
-Universal suffrage
Conclusion:
The limitations restricted the promises being fulfilled which limited the change that it could create, thus making it a sham
How far should the events of 1905 be considered ‘revolutionary’?
Definition: the events being revolutionary would involve severe social unrest and this bringing about a significant change in the political structure of Russia.
Line of argument: although the events did bring about a degree of change to the political structure and there was severe unrest, it was too limited to be deemed ‘revolutionary’, particularly the political changes.
Revolutionary:
-Bloody Sunday
-Strikes
-October Manifesto
Not revolutionary:
-Theoretical constitutional monarchy
-Manifesto limitations
-Still hesitation about opposing tsar, not always severe social unrest
Conclusion:
Overall, the events were extremely significant but not revolutionary
How successful was political opposition in bringing about the revolution in Russia in 1905?
Definition: to be successful in bringing about revolution would involve being the main influence behind the revolutionary action and organising it in some way, it would also involve the revolution being successful and initiating a change in Russian political structure Line of argument: relatively successful in bringing about revolutionary action but not necessarily a revolution Successful: -Bloody Sunday -Mutiny -Strikes Not successful: -Hesitance about disloyalty -Only slight change in system -Tsar maintained position Conclusion: Successful in encouraging action but social discontent initiated it
How important was pressure from the Zemstva in persuading Nicholas II to grant the October Manifesto in 1905?
Comparative structure
Line of argument: the pressure from the Zemstva was influential in persuading Nicholas II to grant the manifesto, however, other, often more long term factors, were also significant and perhaps exacerbated by the Zemstva. Important but not most important.
Zemstva:
-Had influential people involved
-Good forum for debate and could present ideas
-Increasing influence meant they were a potential threat to tsar, persuaded him to sign for his best interests
Other factors:
-Bloody Sunday and General Strike
-Government incompetence, inability to deal with unrest
-War
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Zemstva did have influence but other factors also persuaded the tsar into granting the October Manifesto.
To what extent was the political unrest of 1905 the result of the defeat in the Russo-Japanese war?
Comparative structure
Line of argument: there is an inextricable connection between war and political unrest and much of the unrest of 1905 did emanate from the military defeat. However, domestic factors were more heavily involved in creating the unrest and their long term nature increased the significance of the war to trigger disruption in 1905
Was the war:
-War aimed to increase patriotism and distract from internal problems, defeat=humiliation and loss of lives
-Tsar was absent
Other factors:
-Lack of representation
-Working and living conditions blamed on tsar
Conclusion
Was mainly the other factors however they were exacerbated by the impact/consequences of war
