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 was successful in 1917 with 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 the Social 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 been much 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

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 it was 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 but repression 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 army who 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 fathers reforms 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 to realise 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 was promise of genuine land reform.

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.