It was this increase in the levels of industrialisation and modernisation in Russia that prompted greater social forces and levels of opposition that threatened the Tsarist regime from within. The small yet growing middle classes felt they should have more say in the way the country was run, in direct contrast to the autocratic regime of the Romanov dynasty. Liberal opposition, in the form of the Kadets, clamoured for inclusion in the political establishment as their equals had been in the nineteenth century in other countries like Britain. Other social groups such as industrial workers were continually unhappy about working conditions, working hours and pay, turning to the Social Democrats and after 1903 choosing between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and the terrorist activities of the SRs appealed to the continuing concerns of the peasants. Each group in society appeared to have a set of grievances that were failing to be addressed by the Tsar and his government.
Ironically it was a war that prompted the first mass showing of discontent from these various groups within Russia in 1905. The attempt to hand in a loyal petition on ‘Bloody Sunday’ and protestors being gunned down prompted strikes from workers and peasant violence spread alarmingly; thus opponents from different classes were united. At this point the Tsar’s concessions in the form of the October Manifesto enabled him and the regime to survive – the collapse from within was not apparent at this stage. Although Liberal historians emphasise the impact of WWI, it would be wrong to agree as they do, that Russia had been making solid progress from the beginning of the twentieth century. The Dumas, although a clear step forward that pleased some Liberals, in comparison with the previous Imperial Council, did lead to some feeling betrayed with the publication of the Fundamental Laws. To support the Liberal view that reforms were introduced pre WWI; peasants were permitted to leave the land and could try new agricultural techniques; trade unions had been legalised and educational reform was introduced. However, Nicholas was deeply suspicious of the policies introduced by Stolypin. Some had been far too liberal for the reactionary Tsar and following Stolypin’s assassination, Nicholas reasserted his overall control. A situation that all opposition groups were unhappy with.
This dissatisfaction could have resulted in all groups being thrown together, all be it reluctantly, as they had done before in 1905. However on the outbreak of WWI, patriotic feeling towards a common, external enemy, took over. These feelings were shortlived with the Russians being heavily defeated at Tannenberg, losing over 4 million men in the first 12 months of the war. The Tsar’s fateful decision to take command of the troops made him directly responsible for any defeats from that point and left his German wife and Rasputin, who had already damaged the prestige of the royal family, in control. The war also began to produce hardships which fed previous discontent. The radicalisation of the peasants, industrial workers and soldiers was only going to increase the potential for serious unrest. The war had made the movement more political rather than focused on economic issues such as wages and jobs, specific to one group. Such a view is highlighted by the revisionist school who see that the wave of protest came from below.
By the end of 1916, as in 1905, this revolutionary upsurge, (as described by the revisionists) meant that political discontent had merged with military defeat and economic and social grievances, resulting in a critical situation for the government and the Tsar. The already poor living standards of the population plummeted after 1914. Inflation destroyed the buying power of wages and with prices dropping peasants saw little incentive in selling their food products. Grain stocks were not getting to the cities and this prompted further strikes and rumours of bread running out altogether. Food shortages were compounded by a lack of fuel which prevented factories opening and bakeries in Petrograd closed. The numbers and demographic of demonstrators rose to a high of 250,000 in February when a strike at the Putilov works coincided with International Womens’ Day.
As in 1905 when thousands of Russians had protested, the role of the army was crucial. Unlike 1905, many of the soldiers refused to obey the Tsar and actually joined the demonstrators. At least half of the Petrograd soldiers made a conscious decision for political change. This class had provided most of the army officers and had suffered directly from the military failures. Their landed estates were dropping in value and they had been given no role in running the country. Any reasons they had for supporting the regime had disappeared.
WWI placed significant strain on the government, forcing all potential opposition groups together. Although the pressure from without was significant the responsibility must also be placed on Nicholas’ shoulders. In agreement with the Liberal school of thought much of the blame for the collapse of the regime must lie with him. He had been urged on many occasions to make compromises with the Duma long before 1917 and if he had appointed a government acceptable to moderate opinion, the regime could have been saved, in the short term, at least. His firm belief in Russian autocracy made any compromise impossible and perhaps a more flexible man could have amended his principles in the given circumstances. For Nicholas II, 300 years of history, his upbringing and personality prevented him from making that imaginative leap and thus prompted a collapse from within.
