• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How Stable Was the Tsarist Autocracy in 1914? Nikita Turkin ATL "The Russian Empire was a powder keg waiting to explode." Robert Service By the beginning of the Great War, Russia was already deeply divided, and the political structure so fragile, overstrained and vulnerable, that "it is hard to imagine that it could have survived even without war..." (Fitzpatrick) Soviet historians, who, at the time of writing, were seeking to justify their regime, would agree with Sheila Fitzpatrick that by 1914, Russia's regime was already dead and it was inevitable that the forthcoming revolution of 1917 would take place. However liberal historians, with the aim of destroying the image of the Communist regimes, have tended to usually agree with Service's equation, "No war. No revolution" and that the four year conflict was like a thunderbolt which prevented Russia from following the democratic path to modernisation as her Western allies had done. However, it is the Revisionist point of view that stands in equal balance stating that "...war should be seen as a kind of 'Final Judgement'" (Figes) to produce a verdict on all the events that have occurred in Russia prior to that. "The overthrow of the Romanovs grew likelier as year succeeded year..." (Service) but it was the war that was the final nail in the coffin for Russia's liberal and democratic hopes to equality, freedom and peace. "Students of revolutions have observed that, as a rule, the grievances of the people look backward not forward. Rather than clamour for new rights, people complain of being unjustly deprived of ancient rights, real or imagined..." (Pipes) and in Russia at the time the peasants continued to express the paternal and unequivocal economic demand for the abolition of noble land ownership. And as "Russia's stability depended on the peasant" (Pipes), any uncertainty in the peasant's life had far reaching consequences for the stability of the whole of society. ...read more.

Middle

The peasant became more politically conscious without the aid of the Socialists, in what ever form they came. The peasants were independent, and this would prove correct in February 1917, when they finally did seize land without much help of socialist parties. Although we know, by looking at the last two Duma compositions, that the peasants were more favourable towards the socialists. When this combined with the peasant's declining respect for established authority especially the nobles, the trend of demands accelerated. If "noble landownership, the prime source of peasant resentment, was far from fading peacefully away" (Acton), then the hope for stability had disappeared as the peasants clamoured for improvements both economically and politically. Stolypin's policy did little or nothing to restrict or halt the ferocity of the peasants' attack upon the nobility. 1905 was a prime example. Despite increases in standard of living and wages, the revolutions went ahead. This shows the peasants were in fact more aware politically and the fact that it was impossible to have economic modernisation without political liberation, such as the right to own all land. While Revisionists rightly agree that peasants could have been better off and perhaps this would have prevented revolution, they stop short of the extremities the Soviets choose to say. Revisionists contradict the central features of the Soviet camp, by stating that the situation wasn't as bad as the Soviets say it was, and that there was hope and revolution was certainly not inevitable. There was at least hope for stability. While on the other hand both currents of Revisionists likewise show opposition to liberal optimism by playing down the significance of reforms that liberals place, and question whether those reforms would actually lead to social stability. According to Service, the conventional wisdom and feeling has been that some kind of revolution was on the way and highly likely, just no one knew when. ...read more.

Conclusion

His landed nobility support was too narrow a political base to keep him in power, the police force too small, corrupt and ill- trained to keep control of the towns and the Army refused to co- operate with the Tsar's wishes when it itself wanted reform. The Autocratic regime was becoming more and more unstable, and "the writing was on the wall before the war broke out" (Acton). Tsarism was "a deadlocked political system, drifting helplessly towards destruction" (A. K. Wildman). War only speeded up the regime's demise, as Gorky said, one thing was clear and that was that with the entrance to the 1st World War, Russia was entering the 1st act of a worldwide tragedy. There are many points on which the Revisionists and Soviets agree, namely that by 1914 the regime was already on the road to revolution, but where as the Soviets explanations for that route take is due to the fantastical determinist highly inevitable socialist theory and the great genius of its leaders, the Revisionists point more towards personal experience being the key to the radicalisation of peasants and workers. The liberal view of gradual recovery by Russia if not for the "bolt form the blue" World War One seems just as unlikely as the Soviet claims. The Revisionists seems to offer a realistic explanation of the fall of one the greatest Empire's of history, through a mixture of balanced arguments, analysis and a substantial examination of facts. We know that Russia was on the path to annihilation, but the Revisionists in detail provide a sensible answer, accommodating for the war being the last kick in the backside and how it proved to be the Empire's undoing. "The old regime had been lucky in 1904- 06... It was no so lucky in 1914- 1917" (Sheila Fitzpatrick) 1 Figures published by the Ministry of Trade and Industry for strikes in workplaces covered by factory inspection. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Why did tension increase in Europe between 1900 and 1914?

    * In October 1915 the Germans invented a synchronised machine gun that enabled the pilot to point hi lane at the enemy and fire a machine-gun through the propeller. This gave the German pilots a big advantage. In July 1916, however, improved British planes like the Sopwiths and the SE5, enabled the Royal Flying Corps to take control.

  2. Khrushchev's attempts at modernisation.

    Indeed the total amount of new land given over to cultivation was equal to all the cultivated land in Britain, France and Spain combined! The collective farms were also amalgamated into gigantic farm cities so that peasants could enjoy some of the amenities of urban life.

  1. Khrushchev's Decline and Fall.

    in his message to President Kennedy over the ill-fated attempt to overthrow Castro at the Bay of Pigs in April. At the meeting of the two leaders in Vienna in June he convinced the new President that he was ready to provoke a new US.-USSR confrontation, and followed up tough

  2. UNIT 6: PAPER 6b: THE SOVIET UNION AFTER LENIN

    * New industrial centres - like Magnitogorsk - were built from nothing. By 1938 it was producing 5,000 tons of steel a day. There were many other examples like this. * The fact that Russia was able to resist German invasion in 1941 - just - and then go on

  1. American History.

    - Esp. initially, the mill managers adopted a paternalistic approach towards their young women workers, promising good living conditions and occasional evening lectures in order to lure NE farm daughters to the factory. This Lowell System soon spread to all the NE river mills.

  2. Mao Tse-tung, who began as an obscure peasant, died one of history's great revolutionary ...

    an optimistic interlude when Washington hoped to bring Mao and Chiang together to fight the Japanese, inevitably were impressed by Mao's obvious earnestness and by his willingness to sacrifice personal comfort for the pursuit of an idea. In these he contrasted all too clearly with the corruption and indifference of most Nationalist leaders.

  1. Why was there a revolution in Feburary 1917?

    Moreover repeated mobilisations disrupted industrial and agricultural production. The food supply decreased, and the transportation system became disorganised. As a result, goods became scarce, prices rocketed, and by 1917 famine threatened the larger cities. In the trenches, the soldiers went hungry and frequently lacked shoes, sometimes even weapons; some soldiers went into battle without weapons and were told to pick up rifles from their comrades who were killed.

  2. Political Analysis.

    This became apparent when America encouraged Musaddaq to rebel against Britain and proceed towards nationalising the oil companies. Eventually Britain submitted to America and allowed her to have 60% of the shares in the oil companies. America went on to collaborate with Britain in crushing this revolution once she gained what she had wanted.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work