The Crimean War undoubtedly catalysed the need for change and, Emancipation which had been on the agenda for decades. Emancipation was evidently a momentous and outstanding event in Russian history and very significant in developing Russia as a nation. Although Emancipation failed in its aims, Alexander could not have acted sooner in attempting to implement change, and he did so very valiantly in a way in which none of his predecessors managed to do more than talk about. The fact that emancipation still left the empire far behind much of Europe should not obscure the very real and dramatic impact it had on contemporary Russia. No such attempt at change, can transform a large society at a stroke. Despite the many shortcomings of the emancipation decree the war contributed to the realisation that such change needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later, and even produced a resolute fear of future revolution that also contributed to the creation of Emancipation and other reforms.
The Russo-Japanese War was a disaster for Russia in many senses, not just military. The Russo-Japanese War showed up Russia as it was; as a nation living on past glories and blind to the chronic problems that were developing in agriculture and industry. The concept of diverting the Russian people’s attention away from difficult domestic issues with a successful war was not a new approach. This motive was described by the Interior Minister, Plehve who said ‘We need a small, victorious war to avert a revolution. This, again implies that it is not war alone that is locomotive for change, but also equally important is the fear of future war and revolution that leads to momentous changes. Ultimately, it was to create a divide between Nicholas and his people and again catalysed future reform as a result.
The war was never popular in Russia. The public had not been prepared for war. It occurred suddenly and it did not lead to an outbreak of spontaneous patriotism. The actual war was a disaster for Russia. The Russian’s naval ‘might’ was destroyed at Tsushima Bay and Port Arthur, Russia’s only all year naval base in the Far East was captured in January 1905. The Russian armies suffered a series of defeats in the battlefields because they were ill-equipped, badly-armed and poorly trained. The corruption and the inefficiency of the government were exposed in the conduct of the war. Transportation broke down and bread prices soared up. The Tsarist government was totally discredited in the eyes of the Russian people. In July 1904, shortly after the Russian defeat at the Yalu, the unpopular Minister of the Interior, Plehve, was assassinated by the Social Revolutionary terrorists. As war continued, discontent multiplied. The entire war was counter-productive in its motive to inspire Russian patriotism and divert revolution; the actual result of defeat seemed to promote the exact opposite of what it was trying to achieve, and this was to highlight the Russian Government as incompetent, and stimulate social unrest that victory was supposed to confine.
Years of repression combined with a failed military campaign could only be bad for Nicholas. A strong and decisive leader may have coped with this scenario. Nicholas appointed Prince Mirsky to be Minister of the Interior. It was a disastrous appointment. He believed in his own importance – he must, in his mind, be able to be appointed by the tsar to such an important position. In Mirsky’s first press conference, he asked for the people to be confident in the government and to those present seemed to offer the chance of reform. This led to him being reprimanded by the tsar but the damage had been done. Many now expected reform and would accept nothing less. In fact, Mirsky’s lack of political experience was exploited here. In the past, a tsar had refused all calls for any form of a national meeting to discuss “issues”. Such a meeting might lead to calls for a national assembly. The fact that Mirsky did allow such a meeting to go ahead, was a sign that autocracy was starting to be challenged.
The Russo Japanese War had clearly lead to Revolution in 1905, and for the first time in October the Tsarist regime was faced with its most united opposition in Tsarist history. Concession seemed inevitable in an attempt to divide opposition. An attempt to try and appease the Liberals lead to the creation of the ‘October Manifesto’, which was the effective establishment of a legislative Duma, which was to act as a Parliament with law making powers. The manifesto also contained a promise to introduce a wide range of civil rights such as free speech and the legalising of trade unions. The liberals were, for the time being satisfied and their thirst for reform, temporarily quelled. The peasants were also seduced by the eventual abolishment of redemption payments. The liberals and the peasants were easily satisfied by bribery, however industrial workers would not be so easily convinced and it was clear a more violent approach was indispensable. By the spring of 1906, revolution had again been narrowly avoided by a combination of appeasement and force. The revolution as a direct result of War, managed to unite all classes and yet still not be able to end Tsarism. The manifesto seemed to grant concessions; however these were expedients rather than real reforms. The Duma was not intended to and did not become a restriction on the Tsars autocratic ‘G-d given powers’.
After the war with Japan was brought to a close, Nicholas attempted to reverse the new freedoms, and his government became more reactionary than ever. Popular discontent gained strength, and Nicholas countered it with increased repression, maintaining control but worsening relations with the population. In 1912, the Social Democrats split into two camps; the radical Bolsheviks and the comparatively moderate Mensheviks. In 1914, another disastrous war once again brought on a crisis. If the Russo-Japanese war had been costly and unpopular, it was at least remote. The First World War, however, took place right on Russia's western doorstep. Unprepared militarily or industrially, the country suffered demoralizing defeats, suffered severe food shortages, and soon suffered an economic collapse. By February of 1917, the workers and soldiers had had enough. Riots broke out in St. Petersburg, then called Petrograd, and the garrison there mutinied. Workers soviets were set up, and the Duma approved the establishment of a Provisional Government to attempt to restore order in the capital. It was soon clear that Nicholas possessed no support, and on March 2 he abdicated the throne in favor of his brother Michael.
The outbreak of the War in August 1914 inspired in Russian cities a surge of patriotism and decline in strikes, protests and revolutionary activity. The peasants, who comprised the bulk of the Russian army, were less enthusiastic about the war, but were willing to fight nonetheless. Although the steady German advances and massive Russian losses in the War did not significantly dampen the jingoistic fervour of the educated classes, they did create discontent throughout the country. The government was blamed for the setbacks. At first it was accused merely of disorganisation and incompetence; as the War dragged on, the unfounded belief that there was treachery at the highest levels of the Government became widespread. In 1916, Pavel Miliukov, a moderate Duma leader, asked rhetorically if the government's policies were “folly or treason.” Although he himself would have answered 'folly,' much of the public was convinced the Tsar's closest advisers were traitors. This eroded what little loyalty they still felt to the Tsar and his government and helped disconnect support for Russia as a country from support for the Imperial government itself.
The Duma itself, which was periodically dissolved and recalled throughout the war years, adopted a critical stance toward the government as early as 1915. The Duma, led by a 'Progressive Bloc' of moderate and liberal parties formed in July 1915, was determined to save the government from itself. Bloc leaders were convinced that if Nicholas did not follow their advice and set up a competent government that had the confidence of the public, the mismanagement of the War effort would spark a disastrous revolution.
The Provisional Government set up by the Duma attempted to pursue a moderate policy, calling for a return to order and promising reform of worker's rights. However, it was unwilling to endorse the most pressing demand of the soviets--an immediate end to the war. For the next nine months, the Provisional Government, first under Prince Lvov and then under Alexander Kerensky, unsuccessfully attempted to establish its authority. In the meanwhile, the Bolsheviks gained increasing support from the ever more frustrated soviets. On October 25, led by Vladimir Lenin, they stormed the Winter Palace and deposed the Kerensky government. The Russian Revolution was a product of the First World War. It was the extraordinary conditions of the War – the food shortages in the cities, the belief that the Tsar and his advisers were sabotaging the War effort and betraying the country, the demoralisation and breakdown of the Army – that prevented the government from snuffing out the Revolution that broke out in February 1917 in the same manner as it had extinguished all rebellions and uprisings in the past. However, when it first began, the War seemed to have the opposite effect.
The War also had important economic effects. The developing Russian economy was not adequately prepared to cope with the disruption of international trade and massive material requirements of the armed forces. Severe shortages of equipment plagued the War effort and contributed to Russian setbacks. The loss of foreign trade and conversion to military production also reduced the availability of consumer goods. This discouraged the peasants from selling their produce, since they would have had no use for the income from such sales. Aided by the administrative incompetence of the government, this resulted in shortages of food in the cities of a country that had been a major exporter of grain before the War. A food shortage was the spark that lit the Russian Revolution. On International Women's Day in late February 1917, women workers in Petrograd went on strike, calling for bread. The strike spread over the course of the next few days, but only became a serious threat to the regime when soldiers in the capital mutinied after receiving orders to open fire on the demonstrators. The final nail in the coffin of the old regime was the acceptance of the revolt by many of the elite. Although troops from the front most likely could have suppressed the disturbances in the capital with little difficulty, Duma members and the leaders of the army convinced the Tsar to abdicate for the good of the country and the War effort. Many of them hoped that the Tsar's brother Michael would inherit the throne and establish a constitutional monarchy capable of gaining the confidence of the public and winning the war. Michael's refusal to accept the throne marked the end of Imperial Russia.
Russia’s participation in war, and more significantly defeat that left the nation in tatters, again proves Trotsky correct. The defeat resurfaced rife discontent that had been omnipresent in Russia after each and every war. War was the outlet for the discontent, and allowed Russians to unite and force change by means of revolution. Defeat in World War One had had the same impact as the previous two wars of 1856 and 1905, however this time there was no defence and the result was the collapse of autocracy and Romanov rule. War was the main ingredient that catalysed the need for change and granted the opportunity for this change to occur.
War in Russia had brought to the surface the underlying issues that had always been close to erupting and were finally allowed to do so again by the impact of war, which indeed again, succeeded in being the locomotive for change and history. However, change cannot be merely identified as measures introduced and carried out by the Tsars, but change must also be identified as the changes in the attitudes and mindset of the population. Obviously change was introduced on a practical level, such as the concessions granted after 1905, but many many attitudes were changed in the aftermath of the wars that were very significant because every time a war arose, changes were implemented which influenced peoples opinions and attitudes to the regime. The constant wars and revolutions that riddled Russia always influenced peoples’ judgments and this definitely lead to the eventual over throwing of the Tsarist regime. So all in all, it is fair to conclude that Trotsky’s statement is indeed very true, and significant to understanding the impact of war upon a nation. However, it can be argued is it war that causes change, or the defeat in war that leads to change. Either way, war can be highlighted as the principal component in creating change, and I believe this would happen whether a country benefits from victory or suffers defeat.
