Source 5 is an extract from the October manifesto. It shows us the promises made by the Tsar to the public, to avoid a reform, after the 1905 revolution which he survived. It tells us that the Tsar looked like he was heading towards democracy, Civil Freedom and Political Stability. Although the source tells us little, from my background knowledge I know that this was obviously just a way to appease the middle classes. The Tsar gave the public a false impression of change by issuing the October Manifesto which not only said that Russia could have an elected parliament but also allowed people basic rights, such as the right to form political parties. This Manifesto was merely made by the Tsar in order to maintain the little respect the public had for him and he did this in a way which allowed him to keep his absolute power. He ensured he had absolute power by issuing the Fundamental Laws, one of which said: “To the emperor of all of the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power”.
In other words, as far as Nicholas was concerned nothing much had changed. Duma or no Duma, Russia was still an autocracy. In fact he dissolved the Duma twice until he was content with a Duma that would not reform. This therefore tells us although the Tsar wrote up a manifesto; he did not keep his promises and refused to modernise which would eventually bite back and cause the fall of Tsarism. This source links to source 6 as they both talk about change in the political system. Source 5 shows the Tsar’s new October Manifesto which grants new civil freedoms and introduces a Duma which gives a feeling of change to the public however in Source 6 Alex Guchkov says; “ a painless transition from the old system to a new order has failed” which suggests that the change attempted by the Tsar has failed and that although there is now a Duma, the Tsar still has absolute power as per the Fundamental Laws.
Source 6 supports Tolstoy’s opinion as it is a comment made by Alexander Guchkov in 1913. He was as mentioned in the source, “the leader of the Octobrist party”, a party which supported the October manifesto. He talks about how the Manifesto made by the Tsar has failed and that no change had been made. This is shown when he says: “to bring about a peaceful, painless transition has failed”. The failure of a peaceful transition refers to the fact that the Okhrana were still being used by the Tsar in order to enforce his authority through violence. This demonstrates that Modernisation had failed and that Russia had lost faith in the Tsar. The Tsar’s manifesto was in such shambles that even the leader of the Octobrist party and former supporter of the Tsar, had lost faith in him and his promises.
It is from the year 1913 which was before the war and even then the “painless transition from the old condemned system had failed” which suggests that despite there being no war Russia’s system was still failing and autocracy still remained. This source supports Tolstoy but also contradicts Kokovstov’s argument because it suggests that Russia still had problems before the war due to the Tsarist system and that the pressure of war simply made it worse. This source can be linked to source 5 as it suggests that the transition to a new order failed which means that the Tsar’s autocracy still dominated. This is similar to source 5 as the ideas of the October Manifesto were cancelled out by the Fundamental Laws therefore keeping autocracy as well. Overall I think Source 6 is reliable because it is a comment made by a leading figure in the Duma who actually admits the failure of his party. However, it can also be seen as being unreliable because Guchkov may simply be trying to put the Tsar down in order to gain power himself as he was already the chairman of the Duma(the parliament of Russia) which wasn’t far off the Tsar’s position.
Another source which supports Tolstoy is Source 10 which shows the impact of the war and how it simply revealed the flaws in the Tsarist system. It’s a report made to the Duma by Rodzyenko. In it he describes how the conditions in the army are worsening due to lack of ammo and equipment. The source shows that the army was unable to cope with the pressure of war due to the autocratic system which lacked proper planning and organisation. The problem would have been resolved if the zemstvos were asked to co-operate with the Tsar. However, the Tsar resented to that as he did not like the zemstvos, due to their demand for reforms in the past. This shows that because of the Tsar’s lack of co-operation the army had to suffer in the battlefield eventually causing the Tsar to abdicate and create the fall of Tsarism. From this source I think that the war simply intensified the problems the Tsarist system already had and it also highlighted the faults in it which led to its fall.
Count V.N.Kokovstov was a Minister of Finance for the Duma who became Prime Minister from 1911-14 by the Tsar. Although he quotes that Russia would have prospered if it were not for the war, he was still an opponent of Autocracy. He believed that the Tsar should have modernized and delegated some power to his ministers.
Kokovstov says that the war was the catalyst that caused the fall of Tsarism. This can be shown by Source 7. It shows what a modern historian thinks about the Tsar’s position in 1914. The source shows that the Tsar and his system wouldn’t have suffered as much pain if the war had not occurred and that the Tsar would always be in a safe position as long as the army was on his side. This is shown when the historian says: “the regime could always win the last trick as long it could rely on the army” Although it is only the view of only one historian it tells us the processes of modernisation and industrialisation would have been less painful without the war as far as the Tsar’s position and power is concerned. This source can be linked to Source 11 as they both suggest that the feelings of hostility towards the Tsar are because of the burden of war. I feel this source has a weakness and it is the fact that it can be used for both Tolstoy and Kokovstov as the historian says: “and perhaps not” which suggests that he is not certain that “the most painful stages would have passed”.
Another source which supports Kokovstov’s point is Source 3 which shows statistics comparing Russia’s average annual industrial growth rate with that of other nations involved in WW1. It depicts that Russia’s growth rate was 3.5% which is superior to that of USA and UK who had 2.75 and 1.00 respectively. This suggests that perhaps the Tsarist system was actually industrialising the country and when compared to the other nations who had lower industrial growth and yet were prospering leads us to think that it wouldn’t be long before the Russian public also start enjoying the fruits of industrialisation. In my opinion the source strongly suggests that Tsarism was starting to pick up momentum in terms of its effectiveness on the nation’s economy and had it not been for the war it would have survived and flourished. This source is reliable because it is from a recent history textbook however Russia’s growth could have been due to the pressure of the war as it was a time of need where the nation needed to start producing more, therefore this challenges Kokovstov’s belief and is a weakness of the source.
Source 11 is report made in October 1916 by the Petrograd Okhrana. The source describes the situation the war was causing. It explains to us the fact that the burden of the war and the conditions it was providing led to strong feelings of hostility and opposition to the government. “Neglect of the home front is the most important cause of disorganisation everywhere”. This quote suggests that disorganisation was due to the effects of the war which meant that resources couldn’t be delivered to where they were needed. Although this was due to the neglect of the home front, it showed that the war was putting great pressures on the government and to Russia causing impossible conditions of everyday life. This source links to source 12 because it also shows strong feelings of hostility towards the government as the soldiers are shown to be rebelling in Source 12. Conversely, source 11 and 12 could be interpreted to show that war highlighted only Russia’s weaknesses. Source 11 is reliable as it is an extract directly from an Okhrana file. The Okhrana were able to get a first hand experience of the situation in the Russia and in particular the army.
In conclusion I feel that Tolstoy’s view is correct despite there being signs that Russia was modernising. There were signs of economic growth and improving living conditions. Nonetheless, the Tsar’s selfishness negated the country’s political solidity. In contrast to this I think if the Tsar had been willing to share his power, Russia would have continued to grow and prosper in spite of the war. It is difficult to say whether the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsarism however it was simply another hurdle which the Tsar couldn’t handle. Source 1 showed that all the classes were openly hostile due to the autocratic system which according to Tolstoy was “hopelessly outdated” therefore supporting his point that it was not suited to 20th century Russia. Overall I feel that because of the war Russia’s problems were intensified however they existed before it due to the failing autocratic system.
