Source D is an estimate of the number of workers on strike in Petrograd during 1917 compiled by a British historian released in the 1980’s. As this source is by a British historian it immediately suggests that it could be biased and exaggerated, but it doesn’t mean that is unreliable. However it shows a huge rapid increase of support of the growing number of people who wanted down with autocracy. It shows that there are a lot of people on the verge of despair and that they are on thin ice towards revolting which supports the fact of major growing unrest. And In my opinion makes Source D more useful and reliable than Source C.
Source C is also less useful than Source E. Source E is from “The History of the Russian revolution” by Leon Trotsky who was a leading revolutionary at the time. As he is a revolutionary, we would know that Trotsky understood the people the best as he urged for the same demands which protestors wanted “Down with autocracy!” “Down with the war” he state this in the events which shows a sign of him understanding the people. This shows growing unrest as the slogans just mentioned, drowned the previous major slogan “Bread”. This shows that people careless about there hunger and more concern is attended to viciously sweeping away three hundred year of Romanov autocratic power. This makes source E useful as it is written by one of the protestors explaining how he and the rest of the protestors felt.
Overall all the sources are useful but in order of importance I would say it would be firstly Source D because it shows a huge rapid increase of growing unrest, secondly Source E because it is a view of one of the revolutionaries who knew the protestors demands very well, and finally Source C because it is not very clear about what is happening.
After studying sources E+F and using my own knowledge, I can understand that there are many factors fro the situation getting out of hand in late February 1917. Source E is by Leon Trotsky who was a leading revolutionary at the time. If he is a revolutionary this means the source will be potentially biased and exaggerated, but it does show the problems of growing unrest. We learn that Trotsky has a better understanding of the people. He knows what they want is ‘Down with autocracy!’ because he is one of the people. Him and the protestors wanted rid of the Tsar and they wanted imminent change. Some suggestions are that they would rather have a democracy, a constitutional monarchy like Britain so that they could have better ruling; however some protestors wanted a complete change and a new system of ruling. But the Tsar was poised to hold onto his autocratic power.
On the other hand Source F by the Tsarina portrays a very different, understanding of the situation. She calls all these violent, angry, and uncontrollable riots a simple ‘hooligan movement’ this being for a variety of different reasons. Two of the main reason being firstly the Tsar, to reassure him that everything is calm and that there is no serious danger and secondly, unlike Trotsky she did not understand or know the true feelings of the people. Further to this in addition, she wanted to create (or the Tsar to believe) that the real culprits for all these strikes & protests are the Duma. There is a suggestion of proof where she states “But this will all pass and become calm if only the Duma will behave”
It was clear from my own knowledge that the situation in Petrograd was out of hand. Both sources E+F give support of huge growing unrest.
They both suggest that the situation got out of hand in Petrograd because of food shortages, strikes & protests but the two sources show a different level of urgency.
Source E exaggerates the situations where Trotsky says “half the industrial workers of Petrograd are on strike”. This is inaccurate because we already know from source D that it was a considerable amount. But what we don’t know is how much the number of half the industrial workers of Petrograd is; which shows that Source E is exaggerated and biased.
However Source F plays the situation downwards, as the Tsarina states that instead of “uncontrollable riots” it is a simple “hooligan movement”. Source C shows that it is more serious than a “hooligan movement” as we see in the picture a large number of ladies protesting on International Women’s Day. We know from this suggestion that the situation is bad. She reassures herself and the Tsar that it is nothing serious. “It would all pass if the weather were cold and if the Duma would behave itself. Or maybe she and the Tsar do know the seriousness of the situation and can’t admit to themselves that they cannot deal with situation and that it is out of their reach.
‘Tsarism collapsed at the beginning of 1917 because Nicholas was a weak Tsar who did not listen to his advisors’ I think after studying all the sources, that there were other causal factors which forced the Tsar Nicholas to abdicate. Several situations occurred to the Tsar which had put him in a devastating position.
Firstly he was taking too much advice from the Tsarina, now if he had listened to his advisors just like he did in 1905 he would have been able to survive the February Revolution, This put him into a more difficult position as he was not. Through out his marriage it seemed that the Tsarina was in complete control because the Tsarina was in control of the Tsar like a puppet.
Secondly was the failure in the war (WWI). And because he realised the failures, he hesitantly and quickly appointed himself commander of chief; which meant that he was personally responsible for any failures, but the tsar did not make any improvements in the war, he just made it worse. And during his absence he left two people the Tsarina and Rasputin who he thought would have been able to keep Russia in control but it was far from that. Out of the two I think Rasputin made the situations worse, and the Tsarina allowed this because, he could stop her haemophiliac son from bleeding, which made the tsarina admire him and because she believed that he was curing her son she agreed with any decisions he made.
The war affected him in many ways, although he was losing, if he had not appointed himself as the commander of chief which was a major weak and bad tactical decision, things may not have been as bad as they had got him into during 1917.
The Tsar made three main errors which caused him to abdicate:
- Leaving Rasputin and Tsarina in charge while he was the commander of chief
- Appointing himself as the commander of chief allowing the Russian people to blame him with any failures in the war, which did happen
- Ignoring advice from expert advisors but choosing to listen to the Tsarina. And once he realised how bad the situation was, he couldn’t conquer it as he left it too late
Sources that show evidence of the Tsar being weak is Source B, where it shows that the rioters were pushed on to harsh violence and they’re problems of food shortages and so on, were occurring because of failures in the war, which shows the fact that the war made situations worse. This shows his weakness because he doesn’t really know his people. Through out his ruling he was more concerned about his family rather than his people; one of the reasons being his son suffering from haemophilia which attracted more of his attention that repairing numerous crises which occurred through Russia. This doesn’t mean that the other sources aren’t reliable. Source F shows a complete different view of Source B she describes it as “a hooligan movement” “If the weather were very cold they would probably stay at home”. The language that she uses indicates that she’s making it less serious. It doesn’t support the question, the idea of him being weak but she blames the Duma for all the riots and protests not the Tsar. However it shows a strong support of the Tsar listening to the Tsarina.
Another source which shows he does not listen to his advisors is Source A. The member of the Okhrana describes the workers on being “on the verge of despair” and that there are uncontrollable riots. The member makes very serious points but does the tsar listen no! Instead he listens to The Tsarina who is the worst person possible to give advice. Sources C, D and E all show support of growing unrest. My personal opinion is that Source D shows the best growing unrest fact as it is a table showing the rapid increase of protestors over a week which shows the seriousness of the situation we can then tell that Source F is biased as the tsarina says its “simply young people running and shouting about” Now I think that 350,000 isn’t just a couple of young people. Source E does show a good understanding of the situation but it is exaggerated massively.
So after analysing all the sources and using my own knowledge I can conclude to the fact that Tsarism did collapse because the Tsar was weak, and who did not listen to his advisors. But not listening to his advisors is not the only weakness he had as they’re many others, stated previously in the essay.
