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 started the fall of Tsarism. This can be shown by Source 7.It shows the assessment of an historian about the Tsar’s position in 1914. The source tells us that Russia and the Tsar would not 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. However, this is the solitary view of only one historian. Nevertheless, it tells us that the process modernization and industrialization would have been less painful had it not been for the war.
Source 11 is report made in October 1916 by the Petrograd Okhrana. This source tells us about the situation being caused due to the war. It distinguishes that the burden of the Great War and the conditions that this was providing for the people led to a general feeling of hostility and a decrease in the support of the government. Disorganization meant that resources could not be delivered to where it was needed in time. 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. The war produced a situation which needed special and immediate attention. This source is reliable as it is an extract directly from an Okhrana file.
Source 4 is a table of statistics showing the number of people that lived in St. Petersburg and Moscow from 1880-1914. It depicts a definite increase in the number of people which is a strong sign of Urbanization, meaning that more jobs are available in the cities. Even though Natural Increase is not into account and that these cities are not compared with other overseas cities, it identifies that Russia was gradually modernizing up till 1914 when the war broke out therefore demonstrating that the war was the eventual cause for the downfall of Tsarism. This source is reliable but selective as it only offers statistics for certain years in between 1880-1914.
Count Leo Tolstoy was an aristocrat who believed in reform even though he owned a lot of land and was an upper-class citizen. He was a strong figure across Europe therefore he could talk against the Tsar and not be arrested. He was also a Pacifist which meant that he did not believe in violence. His quote informs us that Autocracy and the leadership of one overall supreme leader is a form of government which is not acceptable in the modern 20th Century.
Tolstoy believed that mistakes made by the Tsar before the war was the cause of the fall of Tsarism. Source 2 is a table of statistics showing Russia’s industrial output with that of other countries involved in the First World War. It depicts that Russia was producing much less than the other 4 major countries and much more less than USA, which is of similar size to Russia. The figures that they are producing are just below the rate of France, a country 40 times smaller than Russia. This shows that the Tsar was not modernizing and not producing enough. This source is reliable but selective as there is no starting base or history. Therefore, we don’t’ know their growth rate over the years, which would be more useful, rather than just one figure.
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 sham. The Tsar gave Russia a false statement of intent as he quickly tried to regain as much power as he could from the Duma. The Tsar still had the Fundamental Law which allowed him to have supreme power over the country and allowed him to pass and reject laws made by the Duma at his wish. 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 modernize which would eventually bite back and cause the fall of Tsarism.
Source 6 is a comment made by Alexander Guchkov in 1913. He was the former 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 demonstrates that Modernization 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, arguably the most loyal supporter of the Tsar, had lost faith in him and his promises. This was a sign of a revolution and an eventual fall of Tsarism. This source is a strong source as it is a quote made by the leader himself and not from someone who heard him say it.
Source 10 is a report made by Rodzyenko, who was then the president of the Duma. In this source, he is commenting on the conditions in the army. It deduces that the army were struggling to deliver ammunition and other equipment to the men in the army. It was not a problem of production but a problem of organization. This shows that if the country was run better, then organization would have improved and the soldiers would have been able to fight properly. The comment ends with that the problem would have been resolved if the zemstvos, who were the local councils in Russia, 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 selfishness to co-operate with the zemstvos as well as a chance to unite Russia, the army suffered in the battlefield and could not fight properly, eventually causing the Tsar to abdicate to create the fall of Tsarism.
Tolstoy’s view is correct although there were signs that Russia was evolving into a more modern country. There were signs of economic growth as well as better living conditions and more rights to the people. However, the Tsar’s greediness and selfishness brought an abrupt end to what was left of Russia’s political stability. If the Tsar was willing to modernize and delegate power, then the country would have continued to grow, no matter the situation of being a war on or not. It is impossible to say how much effect the war had of the fall of Tsarism, but the war was merely the final test which the Tsar had failed to cope with causing the downfall of Tsarism.
