The Russo-Japanese War was

the MOST SIGNIFICANT factor

causing the 1905 revolution.
How far do you agree?
The 1917 revolution was seen by Lenin as a dress rehearsal for 1917, a
spontaneous revolution led by the people. Many historians argue that, without
provoking war with Japan over the Manchuria region, Russia could have avoided
a revolution in 1905. These include A Ascher, who believes the war simply
highlighted their oppositions beliefs that they were incompetent and reckless,
thus generating irrepressible resentment. More likely though is that deep-seated
grievances, present from the aftermath of Alexander IIs reforms, accumulated in
a spontaneous revolution. Events such as the Russo-Japanese War and Bloody
Sunday were simply triggers, exacerbating the grievances already felt by much
of the urban and rural population. These gripes were a result of an autocratic
system attempting the modernise whilst maintaining political absolution. Without
reforms to the ineffective regime, revolution seemed inevitable.
The Russo-Japanese War was symptomatic of the autocratic mentality that
persisted, despite economic modernisation under Witte. Naturally imperialistic,
Russia sought to unite the nation in an expansionist war, feeding off its ever-
present nationalist ideology Russification. Their belief of Russian superiority
was soon defeated after the exceeding Japanese armed forces maltreated the
inferior Russian military, notably with the destruction of the whole Baltic Fleet in
under an hour. The argument that this War was the catalyst of the 1905
revolution upholds that it highlighted the governments ineptitude and their lack
of care for the lower orders within Russia. It did certainly make the government
unpopular, shown through the increase in strikes and revolts, as well as the
assassination of key government officials namely the Minster of Interior,
Vyacheslav von Plehve. Whilst this certainly was the case, this disenchantment
with the government exacerbated pre-existing feelings which had developed
from as early as the 1860s, further incentivising opposition to organise
themselves into workers association and unions; it would be these organisations
who would ultimately negotiate the terms of the concessions delivered through
the October Manifesto.
In the early twentieth century the main organised opposition to the regime was
an ideologically ranging, loose collection of the gentry, intelligentsia and the
third element professionals; the Liberals. Their creation as opposition was caused
by the reforms of Alexander II which ultimately devolved power, leaving
autocracy open to scrutiny and challengers. The judicial reforms not only made
law an independent check on autocratic actions, but created - more significantly
- a group of lawyers committed to uphold the rule of law against the arbitrariness
of the government. The local government reforms, with the creation of elected
zemstva, created a new class of professional employers who would inevitably
assist the increased local social responsibilities in health care and education. The
intelligentsia from areas of national minorities created educated opposition who
opposed Nicholas IIs policy of russification and sought change ranging moderate
demands of a constitutional assembly to outright independence. These teachers
and doctors alike became among the first to seek political change, frustrated
with the conservative bureaucracy hindering meaningful progression. The drive
for economic modernisation had created new social groups who clashed with the
political immobility of the regime. Their frustration grew larger with reactionary
policies from both Alexander II and his son, Alexander III. Reigning in the
progressive measures was ultimately counterproductive, fuelling the liberals
determination that a regime with such arbitrary powers needed reform.
Opposition began unifying in 1904 with the creation of the Union of Liberation,
and with the Unions banquets, they were able to propose the political changes
they sought; freedom of speech, association and press, as well as an elected
constitutional assembly. The Russo-Japanese War was a key topic of the liberals,
who never failed to highlight the governments incompetences. Such scrutiny
was most damaging to the regime when the banquets were reported on by the
press, including the hostility towards the government. As the revolution began
to develop, the liberal movement began to split. Moderates began fearing
anarchy and attempt to stop reform as a constitutional assembly, whereas the
more radical intelligentsia moved further left. Whilst the Russo-Japanese War was
significant in allowing opposition to call attention to the need for change, it is
instead that existing grievances had already created substantial opposition to
the regime. This opposition became increasing agitated as modernisation
persisted with no political concessions, with the peasants and workers bearing
the brunt of industrialisation.
The growth of liberal opposition led to the gradual politicisation and increased
consciousness of particularly the urban population. With the urban population
doubling from 1867 to 1897, discontent expressed in the form of strikes seemed
inevitable. Beginning with more localised unrest, the 1896 textiles strike in St
Petersburg proved to be a turning point in the scale and unification of the
workers. With little success in relieving economic demands, protests increasing
took a political nature, resulting in necessary political concessions from the
government in order to appease protestors and retain autocratic control. The
destitute in the towns and cities was the leading cause of such unrest; the
government services were insufficient for the growing population, rooms catered
for up to ten people in appalling condition. Disease was rife, with one in three
deaths in Petrograd due to disease and a syphilis endemic occurred as a result of
the increased number of prostitutes catering for the sexual desires of the influx
of young, unattached men. The control workers were subject to was, to many of
the migrated peasants, reminiscent of serfdom; arbitrary fines and long hours.
The ex-peasants traditional nature of violence certainly influenced the scale of
the strikes and unrest, whilst them being the more literate peasants left them
susceptible to the influence of radical ideologies. This growing pressure on the
government from the urban population was certainly intensified during the
Russo-Japanese War as the workers were put under unimaginable strain in an
attempt to supply the demand of total war. January 1905 saw unrest approaching
its zenith. After the sacking of four members of Father Gapons Association at the
Putilov works, some 100,000 workers paralysed Petrograd in support. Momentum
continued up to Bloody Sunday, an arguably decisive event influencing the 1905
revolution. Gabon led tens of thousands of men, women and children holding
icons of the Tsar to the Winter Palace pleading for his help in assuring better
conditions for these impoverished people. The massacre which followed shifted
the general consensus of the Tsars role, as Orlando Figes notes, the popular
myth of a Good Tsar was suddenly destroyed. Demands became increasingly
radical and political, some urging the overthrowing of autocracy altogether.
Unrest sky-rocketed as a result of Bloody Sunday up to October when Nicholas
finally allowed Witte, then Finance Minister, to introduce proposals to appease
the people.
Late 1905 saw the organisation of workers like never people. During the General
Strike in October, the Petrograd Soviet was created in order to protect and
provide provisions for the striking workers Trotsky would play a significant role
in its running. Factory committees, unions and soviets flourished. It is clear both
the War and the Bloody Sunday massacre exacerbated the disenchantment felt
in many towns and cities, however they were not decisive factors. Pre-existing
unrest incentivised the workers to march to the Winter Palace on that Sunday,
and the impact of the War simply aggravated the workers more so than before.
Unrest wasnt just concentrated in urban Russia however as it was arguably for
acute in rural Russia. The conditions of peasants had deteriorated for most even
following Alexander IIs reforms, with the population of Russia doubling in the 19 th
century leaving the amount of land per head less than desirable. Industrialisation
led by Witte also seemed to neglect the peasantry, with little investment
compared to the scale of state sponsored capitalism in the cities and his indirect
taxes punishing peasants greatly, forcing them to produce more grain than ever.
Peasants sought an end to the redemption payments which had crippled them
since 1861, and the redistribution of land for they believed God granted land to
those who worked it. The scale of destitute varied regionally, worse in the central
agricultural regions. In Tambov, for example, two-thirds of households couldnt
feed themselves without getting into debt. Such conditions inevitably led to
uprisings and violence. They began localised and spontaneous, involving attacks
on landowners and government officials; particularly towards the detested Land
Captains who exercised brutal arbitrary powers, acting as individual despots in
many regions. The Years of the Red Cockerel from 1902-3 were among the
worst for peasant uprisings in Russia. The famine coupled with the increase in
grain exportation infuriated much of the peasants, informed by the more liberal
counterparts of the local governments. With the assistance of the radical
intelligentsia, the peasants, alike with urban Russia, began organising
themselves. The All Russia Peasants Union formed local branches to direct
activism accordingly in the form of protests and boycotting taxes. When
nationalist sentiment coincided with general discontent, unrest proved
particularly ferocious. This was certainly the case in the Polish kingdom and
much of the Caucasus. The War again did intensify the problem, increasing the
demand of grain to feed to army as well as the workers in the cities. However, as
with urban unrest, discontent had been brewing for decades previous and the
War was only another reason for peasants and workers to pursue harder for
political change.
From as early as Alexander IIs reforms, a want for political reform became
increasingly apparent through a growth in uprisings, strike and general unrest.
Unpinned by the increase in political consciousness as a direct result of
Alexanders education, censorship and local government reforms, liberal
intelligentsia were able to organise all sections of the population into demanding
change. The accumulation of unrest and uprisings forced the governments had to
introduce increasingly liberal concessions. There were other contributory
influences which exacerbated the negative sentiment, however alone these were
not decisive and forced change was inevitable with an autocratic regime
attempting to modernise with no political changes. The Tsar himself contributed
to the revolution; his weak and indecisive leadership through repression and
belated concessions intensified the want for reform. The assassination of the
conservative Minister of the Interior Plehve in 1904 can also be argued incredibly
significant as his repressive measures were soon replaced, through the influence
of his own mother and other conciliators, by co-operation with the liberal
opposition to avoid a complete collapse of autocracy. Bloody Sunday, also a
trigger to revolution, certainly influenced the turn from economic to political
demands, however again the pre-existing discontent which accompanied the
regimes attempt to modernise prevailed as the cause for this specific protest. As
well, the Russo-Japanese War exacerbated the already dire position much of the
lower order were in. Alone it didnt cause the revolution, however it did
contribute in present the regimes incompetence and lack of concern for the
lower orders of society. The significant factor which sets the revolution apart
from that which led to the collapse of autocracy in February 1917 was the
maintenance of support from the army. Despite a slight deviation with the
Potemkin mutiny, the army were able to be successfully utilised to suppress
unrest and uprisings, reducing the need for more radical constitutional reform.
To conclude, the Russo-Japanese War was a significant factor when determining
the causes of the 1905 Revolution, however it was only one of many contributory
factors. The underlying cause was the discontent which inevitably accompanied
the modernisation of a regime who were committed to political absolutism.