The State Duma had been created after the 1905 Revolution but its powers remained limited. (a) What restrictions did the Tsar place on the Duma after 1906? ...

The creation and subsequent frustration of the Duma is a crucial example of the Tsarist regime's inability to reform itself, and the question of whether 1905 was a 'dress rehearsal' for 1917 is one of the classic debates in Russian history.

(a) Restrictions the Tsar placed on the Duma after 1906 [4 marks]

• The Fundamental Laws, issued in April 1906 (before the first Duma even met), reaffirmed the Tsar's autocratic power. He retained the right to dissolve the Duma at will and to rule by decree (Article 87) when it was not in session.
• The first two Dumas (April-July 1906 and February-June 1907) were dissolved within months because they demanded radical reforms, including land redistribution, that the Tsar found unacceptable.
• Prime Minister Stolypin changed the electoral law in June 1907 (the 'Third of June Coup') to weight votes heavily in favour of wealthy landowners and conservative voters, ensuring that subsequent Dumas would be more compliant.
• The upper chamber (State Council), half of whose members were appointed by the Tsar, could veto any legislation passed by the Duma. The Tsar also retained personal control over foreign policy, the military and ministerial appointments.

(b) Why the Progressive Bloc criticised the Tsarist government during the war [6 marks]

• Demand for competent government: The Progressive Bloc, formed in August 1915 by moderate and liberal Duma members (including Kadets, Octobrists and Progressists), demanded a 'government of public confidence' that would cooperate with the Duma rather than ignore it. They did not seek revolution but responsible government.
• Ministerial chaos: The Bloc criticised the rapid and seemingly random turnover of ministers, driven by Rasputin and Alexandra's influence. Between 1915 and 1917, Russia had four Prime Ministers, creating administrative paralysis during wartime.
• Supply failures: The government's failure to manage food supply, transport and industrial production effectively angered Duma members, who could see the war effort being undermined by incompetent administration.
• Military defeats: Continuing defeats on the Eastern Front suggested that more competent civilian leadership was needed to coordinate the war effort.
• Mainstream credentials: The Bloc represented mainstream political opinion, including conservative landowners and moderate liberals, not radical revolutionaries. This made their criticism impossible to dismiss as extremism.
• Nicholas's refusal to cooperate: The Tsar's rejection of the Bloc's reasonable demands alienated his last potential allies and pushed moderate opinion towards the conclusion that the autocracy was incapable of reform.

(c) To what extent was the 1905 Revolution a 'dress rehearsal' for 1917? [10 marks]

Similarities (supporting the 'dress rehearsal' argument):

• Both revolutions involved mass strikes, particularly by industrial workers in major cities. In 1905, the October General Strike paralysed the economy; in 1917, strikes in Petrograd triggered the February Revolution.
• Both featured military mutinies. The Potemkin mutiny (June 1905) and the Petrograd garrison mutiny (February 1917) demonstrated that the regime could not rely on the armed forces to suppress revolution.
• Both saw the formation of soviets (councils of workers' deputies) as alternative centres of power. The St Petersburg Soviet of 1905, led by Trotsky, was the model for the Petrograd Soviet of 1917.
• Both were triggered by military humiliation: the Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) and the First World War (1914-17) exposed government incompetence and created popular anger.
• Both featured the loss of government control in the capital city.

Key differences (limiting the 'dress rehearsal' argument):

• In 1905, the army remained largely loyal, allowing the Tsar to use the Semenovsky Guards to suppress the Moscow uprising (December 1905) and restore order. By 1917, the army had disintegrated and would not fight for the regime.
• The 1905 Revolution was geographically dispersed and lacked coordination between workers, peasants and soldiers. The February 1917 Revolution, though spontaneous, was concentrated in Petrograd and moved quickly to a decisive outcome.
• The October Manifesto (1905) offered enough concessions (a constitution, civil liberties, a Duma) to divide the opposition: liberals accepted the reforms while revolutionaries continued fighting alone. In 1917, nothing the Tsar offered could save the regime.
• In 1905, the revolutionary parties were relatively small and unprepared. By 1917, the Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries had larger organisations and deeper roots in the working class.
• The 1905 Revolution revealed the regime's vulnerabilities but did not fundamentally change the political system. The Duma had limited power, and autocracy continued. In 1917, the regime was destroyed entirely.

Conclusion: The term 'dress rehearsal' has some validity: 1905 demonstrated the methods (strikes, soviets, mutinies) and the social forces (workers, peasants, soldiers) that would destroy Tsarism in 1917. However, the outcomes were fundamentally different because the circumstances were different, above all the First World War, which destroyed army loyalty and made the regime's position untenable. 1905 was a warning that the regime failed to heed, not an inevitable precursor to 1917.