The killing of the demonstrators became known as and it has been argued that this event signalled the start of the 1905 Revolution. That night the Tsar wrote in his diary: "A painful day. There have been serious disorders in St. Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded. God, how painful and sad." (15)
... urban workers by allowing trade unions to operate and the liberals by conceding to a national Duma. After 1905, there were considerable changes in Russia. For one, there were improved communications due to the completion of the Trans-Siberian railway ...
In the years leading up to the Russian Revolution of 1917, the country had a succession of wars. These were, The Crimean War (1854-56), The Russo-Turkish War (1877-78), The Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905), and World War I (1914-18).
The Revolution of 1905 had shown Tsar Nicholas II that his people were not going to put up with his oppressive ruling forever, and that a quantity of change had to happen. With “Bloody Sunday” sparking a series of nationalist and peasant revolts across Russia, and the war with Japan continuing to go badly, the Tsar was eventually prepared to accept some change. Between 1905 and 1914, Russia underwent several creations of a new Parliament, various reforms through Stolypin, the Tsar’s Minister of the Interior and later ‘chief minister’, and a wave of strikes throughout the latter years. However, this appearance of change was largely superficial and was not enough to prevent revolution in years to come.
Read this essay on Causes of the 1905 Revolution in Russia
Finally, a true revolution was avoided because the government made, against the wishes of the Tsar, intelligent concessions to two of the main opposition groups thus isolating the third; the industrial working class. The middle class were granted the October Manifesto, which established fundamental civil and political rights, extended the franchise and set up an elected parliament, the Duma that would have to agree all future laws. The peasants were eventually quieted by the declaration that payment of redemption dues was at an end. With the peasants and middle classes bought off, the army and police were set on the workers in towns. At the danger of running ahead of the scope of this essay, it must also be noted that even these concessions, which would have ended autocracy and might, therefore, be seen as revolutionary; were later withdrawn and the Fundamental Laws of 1906 largely restored the primacy of the Tsar over the Duma. Yet another way in which the events of 1905 can be shown to have yielded little in the way of long term revolutionary change.
FREE The Russian Revolution of 1905 Essay - Example Essays
To conclude, a variety of short term and long term factors contributed to the outbreak of revolution in 1905. Bloody Sunday was the trigger to widespread unrest but a number of ongoing problems were also significant. In the final analysis, 1905 may be seen as a potential revolution, or as Lenin said: ‘a dress rehearsal for revolution’ but as it did not bring about lasting revolutionary change it must be seen as a failed revolution at best.
The conflict between aesthetic autonomy and revolutionary or national legitimation lies at the heart of Kenneth Moss's "1905 as a Jewish Cultural Revolution? Revolutionary and Evolutionary Dynamics in the East European Jewish Cultural Sphere, 1900-1914." Addressing the central theme of the present volume, Moss offers a key revisionist argument regarding the controversial role of 1905 as a turning point in modern Jewish cultural history. The revolution's ambiguous outcome, he suggests, did not so much the tension between aesthetics and politics as a trend already well under way at the turn of the century, a trend best characterized as evolutionary rather than revolutionary. Dissatisfied with explanations of Jewish modernism (such as Brenner's) as a form of psychic compensation for failed revolution, Moss argues that the main function of 1905 was to force the tension between art and ideology to the surface of Jewish cultural life and, indeed, to transform it into "the central organizing conflict of the Yiddish cultural sphere for the rest of its pre-Holocaust history." Thus Moss subtly recasts Jonathan Frankel's own reading of 1905, concurring in Frankel's assessment of 1905's essentially additive rather than transformative impact on the Jewish world but shifting the frame of analysis from political culture to the relationship politics and culture.
The 1905 revolution in Russia ..
The post-1905 prominence of voluntary associations, as Vladimir Levin and Jeffrey Veidlinger show, was characteristic of both the Jewish and Russian worlds. Bundists and Zionists—like their Social Democratic and Socialist Revolutionary counterparts—found themselves on unfamiliar terrain, often disappointed that amateur theaters, orchestras, choirs, and literary discussion groups were uninterested in serving as legal covers for underground political work. Such associations threatened, moreover, to expose Jewish workers to the "bourgeois" influence of traditional Jewish society. And yet, Levin argues in his "The Jewish Socialist Parties in Russia in the Period of Reaction," voluntary associations quietly fostered a kind of internal Jewish revolution in the wake of the larger Revolution of 1905. Threatened with a loss of influence among the Jewish masses, Jewish socialists of all stripes were forced not only to cooperate with nonsocialist (i.e., "bourgeois") activists but also to work within traditional Jewish communal structures that many had previously criticized or shunned altogether.