Assess the claim that the Russo-Japanese war was the main reason for the 1905 Russian

Revolution
I disagree to the claim that the Russo Japanese War was the main reason for the 1905
revolution. I believe that it is an unfair narrow perspective to accommodate to the complexities of the
issues that had predated the revolution. I do not dispute the significance of the war in the events of the
Russian revolution. However, I believe that the buildup of the tension brewed by long term social
discontent drove Russia into its revolution. My essay will primarily assess the validity of the claim before
progressing to analyze the various issues that caused the 1905 Russian Revolution.
The Russo-Japanese War led the Russians to question its Great Powers status that eventually led
to the events of the 1905 Russian revolution. Russias dismal performance in the war outraged many
particularly since the war caused shortage of food, high prices and unemployment through the excessive
usage of the Siberian Railway Network for military purposes. This severed many workers motivation
levels as they were servicing their souls to a government incapable of winning to a supposedly inferior
nation. The duration of the Russo Japanese war provided a consistent reminder of the government
incompetency as it took place in the span of months from the Japanese takeover of Port Arthur through
to the defeat in the Battle of Tsushima. This was enough to sustain the flames of unrest that was
prevalent throughout Russia for a revolution. Russias complacency in the war led to a devastating blow
to its public reputation after its humiliating defeats. Moreover, many troops were assigned to the army
during the outbreak of the war, leaving inadequate supplies of troops to dampen the strikes and social
unrest happening on the streets. The lack of Tsars concerns to improve the economic realities of the
people on the ground due to the distractions by the war further exacerbated this situation. This scenario
gave birth to a vacuum of leadership and influence leading to an inability to improve his tarnished
image. Nicholas 2 is an indecisive, weak willed character allowing his subordinates to make military
decisions at such a crucial time. His lack of demonstration for leadership incensed by his inability to
reach sound decisions caused poor inadequate planning had eventually led to the catastrophes of the
war. However, I argue that the Russo-Japanese War was not mutually exclusive event to the 1905
revolution as it acted solely as a catalyst agent. This was so because the aggressions that accompanied
the war played a significant role in highlighting the woes and plights of the people rather than creating
new ones. I proceed to argue that a revolution was bound to happen anyways with the preceding events
despite the possibility for a prolonged revolution. I am willing to concede however that the failures of
the war allowed the revolution to happen as the Russo Japanese War created a sense of urgency for the
people to reconsider whether a revolution was the best course of action to take.
Wittes economic policies had breathed revolutionary spirit in many parties, revealing signs to
the 1905 Russian revolution. As the economy grew, peasants flooded into overcrowded cities and towns
in large factories allowing the people to congregate and coordinate effective strikes against the regime.
As a result, strikes became commonplace and many more people felt empowered to demand social
change, causing the regime to be highly volatile. Moreover, this led to an increase in militancy among
workers as Wittes policies implied long hours, low wages and terrible working and living conditions as
an effort to use labour efficiently. This was threatening as the urban workers now viewed themselves
as slaves instead of workers, causing a distraction of focus from working to grieving over the
oppressions caused by the Tsarist regime. Worse, working was now perceived as redundant as Russia
owed 8 billion roubles, being more in debt than any other European country. This pressure caused
workers to seek alternative political perspectives, becoming more receptive to revolutionary ideas,
through access to political literature as they now viewed an inherent problem in the government, one
that needs to be resolved. Wittes deliberate increased taxes on the peasants added hostility towards
the government. Not only did they feel betrayed by the forced yearly redemptions under the false title-
hood of emancipation, periodic famines were pervasive throughout the many communes in the whole
of Russia as the economic reforms lacked practicality. This radicalized the peasants as they had nothing
to lose as they lead destitute lives suffering a slow tragic death. Since the peasants constituted the 80%
of the society, their increase in uprisings rendered the Tsarist regime to be unstable as they had to
consistently deploy troops to pacify the peasants. Russia was modernizing from a position that was
further behind the economies of the other countries it had initially sought to overtake. The people now
begin to question their support for the economic pursuits of the country as it has not shown any signs of
fruit. Wittes economic reforms were significant to the 1905 revolution particularly because it
highlighted the lack of humanitarian concerns in Wittes policies that had led to the downfall of the
regime. This made the people more inclined to abuse their very privileges- using large factories to
coordinate strikes- as they did not perceive any emotional attachment to the nation. Not only did it fail
to outgrow other European nations, it ended up creating a litany of problems that oppressed some
communities, adding the fuel to the fire that eventually lead to the 1905 Russian Revolution.
The Tsarist regimes oppressive policies made the government irrelevant, flaming the peoples
enthusiasm for the 1905 revolution. Russification and Anti-Semitism were ill judged policies that served
no other purpose than to further the personal agendas of the Tsar. At a critical stage when cohesion and
unity was needed, Russia chose to treat half its population as inferiors and political enemies. These
policies severely disengaged the national minorities support to the regime. The Tsarist regime also
denied basic freedoms and showed no interest in including other parties in its decision makings and
nation building. This particularly alienated the intelligentsia, a class that played important roles in
contributing to the stability of the rulers in other European countries. The intelligentsias were not able
to self-actualise as it was not able to exercise its abilities to its maximum. Their educational background
further alienates them as they were able to make political comparisons between the successes of
European countries and backwardness of Russia yet not being immobilized from any ability to change.
Nicholas 2s inabilities to demonstrate flexibility in changing times made the regime very unpopular.
Concessions were never given, frustrating the people into believing that Russia will never move out of its
slump. Because no concessions to the people and nationalities were given, protests were repressed; this
led to large formations of opposition groups that were now deemed by society of capable of
representing the peoples needs. The birth of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats
empowered people into demanding political change. Some may argue that the split in the Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks fragmentalized society leading to a lack of cohesion. However, my initial counter is that
both parties already concede that the Tsarist regime should be lawed out. I argue that because each of
these parties tries to become the more persuasive party, they become more competitive in nature to
outstrip the other party, eventually conglomerating into a hot mess of dissent for the Tsarist regime.
People no longer argued the image of the Tsar instead concentrating on how best to topple the
government. The oppressive government policies consolidated the premise that the Tsarist regime had
chosen a revolution upon itself as it had deliberately polarized the people when they could have opted
not to do so. This itself was a stab to its own foot leading to the 1905 revolution.
The Bloody Sunday event completely destroyed the credibility of the Tsar, challenging the
Tsardom to a point of revolution. The major population of Russia is deeply religious. The link between
intimacy between the peoples faith and the Tsar was established through the Tsars ordainments by the
church. The fact that the Tsar was an extension of Gods responsibilities rewarded him the authority and
fear that he did not deserve. This complicated events when the marchers peaceful intentions to
demand basic pleas from the Little Father were met with brutal inhumane shootings by the police
forces. If the government was not willing to respond to basic pleas, it exposes that the Tsar was in fact
merely an impotent weak human being who had exploited religion for political benefits. Moreover, it
barred leeway for people to discuss more potent issues such as political autonomy and reform. This
tarnished the Tsars image and demolished the legacies of the Romanov monarchy passed down by the
many generations before. The Bloody Sunday was important to the Russian Revolution despite the
Tsars absence during the event. If the Tsar had been principled in terms of resolving conflicts, the police
troops would have naturally assumed the orders that could have better managed the catastrophe,
steering away the revolution. Not only has the Bloody Sunday event desecrated the holy image of the
Tsar, it moved the many hearts across Russia as even the young, old and women were victims of the
massacre. Surely the government views them as enemies of the state.
In conclusion, this essay sought to decide to effectively distinguish between the catalyst and the
long term discontent that escalated into the 1905 Russian Revolution. While the events of the Russo-
Japanese war had its strength which compelled the people to move into action, the challenging factors
such as the events of the Bloody Sunday, Wittes ill-judged policies, was more compelling in driving the
forces towards a revolution as elaborated in the essay. The line to draw here is that the majority of
events described in the essay happened on the grounds. Human beings are visually stimulated. They
respond intuitively better to the harsh treatments that they can see with the eye. The Russo-Japanese
war took place thousands of kilometers away from the major cities. It was absent from public view; the
only way of getting news through newspaper and word-of-mouth. Therefore, the notion that Russo-
Japanese war was the major reason of the 1905 revolution disregards the series of political events
hitherto. I believe that the Russo-Japanese war was merely a catalyst that incentivized the revolution to
happen.