An Earlier Russian Revolution?

Onyx

Banned
Is it possible for an Earlier Russian Revolution to happen,say the year around 1905-1907
 
Is it possible for an Earlier Russian Revolution to happen,say the year around 1905-1907

Not as likely, but possible. Dissatisfaction over casualties in the First World War helped get a lot of people opposed to the Czar. Without that, it's less likely.
 
FWIW, in his work For Want of a Nail. Robert Sobel postulates a Russian revolution in 1905 as a function of Bloody Sunday. Don't recall any more details, unfortunately, and the book is not handy.
 
Is it possible for an Earlier Russian Revolution to happen,say the year around 1905-1907

Well, there was a revolution in 1905, and it did cause some major changes. However in all essentials it failed. The concessions made by NII were illusory and quickly undermined, and the Russian army staid in control.

So if you don't mind the revolutionary being mostly a failure, then you've already got it. If you want the Tsar to be overthrown, I can't see it happening without the circumstances of the war: total loss of trust and confidence among the general public and army, enormous economic hardship, the Tsar isolated and increasingly detached from reality etcetera. So my best suggestion is an earlier war giving rise to like conditions.
 
Perhaps if the Russian military had greater political ambitions, then its loss to Japan may have been mobilized into some form of a coup against the Tsar, backed by the budding political parties. But as others pointed out, 1905 did bring major changes to Russia, especially where it economy was concerned. In fact, as a result of the failed 1905 Revolution and subsequent reforms, Russia quickly begun to catch up to other major powers in its industrial output. If not for the WWI, Russia would quickly eclipse the rest of the great powers except maybe the United States. Prior to August 1914, German High Command was very concerned with Russia's rising GDP and its fast-growing population, thinking that if Russia were not stopped somehow, there would be no place in Europe for the German state and its people.
 
Well, there was a revolution in 1905, and it did cause some major changes. However in all essentials it failed. The concessions made by NII were illusory and quickly undermined, and the Russian army staid in control.

So if you don't mind the revolutionary being mostly a failure, then you've already got it. If you want the Tsar to be overthrown, I can't see it happening without the circumstances of the war: total loss of trust and confidence among the general public and army, enormous economic hardship, the Tsar isolated and increasingly detached from reality etcetera. So my best suggestion is an earlier war giving rise to like conditions.

What about a palace coup. After all, in 1905 only the military and some of the reactionary aristocracy (his wife) were supporting Nicholas. It looks like almost everybody wanted reforms in 1905, even Grand Duke Nicholay Nicholaevitsj, whom Nicholas wanted as a dictator to oppress the revolution. He threatened to shoot himself if there were no constitutional reforms. So perhaps a plot was made by the more sensible part of the aristocracy in cooperation with the commander of the St Petersburg garrison who arrest Nicholas and make Michael regent until Aleksei is old enough. With Michael, Russia may perhaps be more modernized. A young fresh look from the 27 year old Michael may make quite a difference.
 
What about a palace coup. After all, in 1905 only the military and some of the reactionary aristocracy (his wife) were supporting Nicholas. It looks like almost everybody wanted reforms in 1905, even Grand Duke Nicholay Nicholaevitsj, whom Nicholas wanted as a dictator to oppress the revolution. He threatened to shoot himself if there were no constitutional reforms. So perhaps a plot was made by the more sensible part of the aristocracy in cooperation with the commander of the St Petersburg garrison who arrest Nicholas and make Michael regent until Aleksei is old enough. With Michael, Russia may perhaps be more modernized. A young fresh look from the 27 year old Michael may make quite a difference.

Hmm. The Russian nobility certainly weren't enamoured of Nick. If he can be persuaded to do something truly stupid at the worst momnets of 1905, something like this might be possible.
 
Read the history of 1916-1917 and you will see that all of the Grand Dukes considered themselves honour bound to death by their oaths of loyalty to the Tsar. I don't see any reason why 1905 should have been any different

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Read the history of 1916-1917 and you will see that all of the Grand Dukes considered themselves honour bound to death by their oaths of loyalty to the Tsar. I don't see any reason why 1905 should have been any different

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

That's true, but I was thinking more about the lower nobility. I remember reading an article somehwere, which I'll try to dig up, suggesting that they were actually highly disconteed by 1916 and ready to see the back of Nick. It would be hard, but I don't think its beyond the realm of possibility to have a conspiracy within the Russian and army and civil service taht theyd ominate to compell Nick to abdicate.
 
Read the history of 1916-1917 and you will see that all of the Grand Dukes considered themselves honour bound to death by their oaths of loyalty to the Tsar. I don't see any reason why 1905 should have been any different

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Don't undrestimate the impact of the 1905 revolution. If Nicholas, after 3 days of tossing and turning, eventually didn't sign the October Manifest, things might very well go anywhere.

Please read the article under this url http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B00E4DE143DE433A25757C1A9649D946497D6CF

Of course it was not the Grand Dukes but the danger of rebellion was there.
 
Britain as revolutionary force!

I seem to remember suggesting that as Japan only asked for US mediation in 1905 because they were running out of credit, they might have insisted on greater concessions if the British had offered unlimited financial support. Why would the British have offered such support? I assumed that the government felt that a British-French-Russian alliance would be needed to prevent German naval expansion. However, they believed that British opinion would not accept an alliance with autocracy. Thus Britain wanted the Tsar to be forced into essential giving up power and used the Anglo-Japanese Alliance plus anger over the Dogger Bank Affair etc. to achieve their objective.
 
I seem to remember suggesting that as Japan only asked for US mediation in 1905 because they were running out of credit, they might have insisted on greater concessions if the British had offered unlimited financial support. Why would the British have offered such support? I assumed that the government felt that a British-French-Russian alliance would be needed to prevent German naval expansion. However, they believed that British opinion would not accept an alliance with autocracy. Thus Britain wanted the Tsar to be forced into essential giving up power and used the Anglo-Japanese Alliance plus anger over the Dogger Bank Affair etc. to achieve their objective.

Sorry, what?

Are you suggesting that if for some reason Japan was more succesful in 1905, the revolution would be more severe? I doubt it. The defeat shattered the prestige of the Tsarist regime and so unleashed the pressure that had been building up but I don't think any more pressure existed to be released.
 
Top