Secondly, another short-term factor that influenced the outcome of 1917 February revolution was, the Pultilov steel factory strikes on the 21st of February 1917. Thousands of dismissed workers where on the streets of Petrograd. This was the start of the February revolution and as historian Edward Acton contends, “the revolution was not centrally organized but it was consciously willed.”
Thirdly, on the 23rd of February thousands of women marched the streets of Petrograd for international women’s day, demanding equality and more bread. They were joined by around 100,000 workers who also were protesting for more bread. By the 25th of February, virtually all the Petrograd factories where closed and around 300,000 workers were on the streets. This resulted in the abdication of the tsar. Richard Pipes argues that, “the record leaves no doubt that the myth of the tsar being forced from the throne by rebellious workers and peasants is just that. The tsar yielded not to a rebellious populace but to the generals and politicians, and did so from a sense of patriotic duty.” Even though liberal historian Michael Lynch backs Pipes argument, it is still flawed, as historian Peter Kenez explains the situation, arguing that, “no Pipes is mistaken when he attributes the collapse of Tsarism to the superior patriotism and inherent good will of Nicholas II. It is not that he did not have the brains and the character to survive, he also lacked the means.” Kenez’s point is backed up and supported by historian E.N. Burdzhalov who insists that “the revolution had overthrown Nicholas II, and only after was this presented as a voluntary resignation. Nicholas II had not stepped down in the first days of the revolution when he had still intended to drown the unarmed people in blood with the help from troops from the front. The tsar abdicated when the reliability of these units became manifest when the revolution had spread to Moscow and other cities, when the tsar’s cause had failed and all options had closed. The dissatisfied people had dethroned Nicholas themselves.” All these short term factors where imperative in the out come of the February revolution.
There were many long-term problems, which contributed to the February revolution in 1917. Firstly a long-term factor that helped summon the end of tsarist Russia was the crisis of modernization and industrialization. The industrial boom of 1890s, which saw many of Russia’s factories established, drew many peasants to the cities in search for work and an escape from famine. This provided a pool of workers for the ever-expanding industrial sector, yet working conditions where atrocious and overcrowding put the cities under severe stress. From this, a new class emerged, the proletariats, an industrial working class. Historian, Steve Smith, contends, “The collapse of the autocracy was rooted to a crisis of modernisation. The government hoped that it could carry out modernisation whilst maintaining tight control over society. Yet the effect of industrialization, urbanization, internal migration, and the emergence of new social classes were to set in train forces that served to erode the foundations of the autocratic state.” The tsar wanted to modernize economically, but was unwavering and unwilling to grant any political rights and privileges that come hand in hand with citizenship in a modern industrialized nation. The tsarist regimes, “modernisation”, was an attempt to partly economically reform. Albert Nenarokov says, “The general backwardness of the country could not be overcome by half measures or reforms of any kind. It was a reflection of the whole system and called for its reorganization.” Whilst Western Marxist historian Christopher Hill agrees, saying, “the fundamental cause of the Russian revolution, then, was the incompatibility of the tsarist state with the demands of modern civilization.”
Secondly, another long-term factor, which contributed to the February revolution, was Bloody Sunday. Bloody Sunday gave birth to a continual contempt for the tsar. This disrespect sprouted from the 9th of January 1905, where 150,000 peaceful workers and families, asked the Tsar, for protection and justice. The workers and families received on the contrary to “justice and protection”, being fired on by police and troops. “On that day the workers received a bloody lesson. It was their faith in the tsar that was riddled in bullets on that day. They came to realize that they could get their rights only by struggle. ” Bloody Sunday shattered the peoples faith in the tsar, as Father Gapon said, “There is no god any longer. There is no tsar.” Bloody Sunday was never forgotten, and on the 9th of January 1917, 150,000 workers demonstrated in Petrograd in commemoration of the 1905 Bloody Sunday. The distaste for “Nicholas the bloody” reemerged in the hard time of February 1917 and helped bring an end to autocracy in Russia.
Thirdly, the 1905 revolution, which was born from the nation wide outbreak of shock and unrest caused by Bloody Sunday, saw 400,000 workers in St. Petersburg strike in January alone. The 1905 revolution resulted in the promise of important civil freedoms and reforms, due to the October manifesto. The October manifesto, while effective as a short-term fix, soon became a cause of rather than a cure for, revolutionary sentiment in Russia. As revisionist historian Alan Wood puts it, “ …the notion of a ‘constitutional autocracy’ was not only impractical, but it was clearly a political absurdity which was doomed to fail.” These failed reforms of the October manifesto, Richard Malone argues, were worse than no reform at all. Not only did they give people a glimpse of a better life that was unsustainable, they undermined the power of reform to achieve any lasting chance. As Orlando Figes says, “1905 had changed society for good. Many of the younger comrades of 1905 were the elders of 1917. They were inspired by its memory and instructed by its lessons.” The 1905 revolution set up the stage for the later revolution in February 1917, teaching revolutionaries about order and the need to direct and unite social grievances into an merged opposition to Tsarism. Lenin called the 1905 revolution a “dress rehearsal” for the February revolution, while Trotsky agrees, asserting that “the events of 1905 were a prologue to the two revolutions of 1917, that of February and of October.” Richard pipes concludes that after 1905, “Russia gained nothing but a breathing spell.” Although Pipes does not think that the end of autocratic rule was inevitable in Russia, they still acknowledge that some sort of political and social crisis was in the making and would emerge in the not to distant future.
Revolutionary leaders and groups contributed to the collapse of the tsarist regime, as by definition a revolution must have some leadership. Yet, firstly, if it were not for the poor leadership of Nicholas and his weak choices there would not have been a revolution in February 1917 as revolutionary leaders would have not had a chance to act. Tsar Nicholas II took command of the Russian army and his penalty for assuming control meant that any defeats at the front held him directly responsible. As liberal historian Richard Pipes says, “Nicholas II fell not because he was hated but because he was held in contempt.” By 1917 Russia had lost 1.7 million troops, eight million were wounded and 2.5 million were taken prisoner. There were massive grievances and the blame was placed squarely at the feet of the Tsar, like Pipes implies, he lost all respect. Many soldiers saw him as the man who was sending them to their deaths, unlike previously when they could direct there grievance and anger in the course of their officers. In addition, further tensions and unrest was added by leaving the capital in the hands of Tsarina Alexandra, who was oblivious to social conditions, calling the revolutionary chaos, “A hooligan movement”. Nicholas was foolishly gambling with the future of Tsarist Russia in front of the faces of revolutionaries such as Lenin and Kerensky. Furthermore, seeing the Tsar had engaged Russia in WW1 and had literally and symbolically left Petrograd, many of the proletariat saw this as a time for radical change. As they made up 82% of the population, with out their support Nicholas was forced to abdicate and make an end to 300 years of Romanov era.
The cause of the 1917 February revolution, had different long and short-term factors. The most radical left wing view is the soviet view, arguing it was Bolshevik leadership that brought about the February Revolution. The soviet perspective believes that the party leadership from Lenin played a major role in the revolution. It embraces the idea that the revolution was a continuity of the change of reaction from 1905 and that the revolution was the peoples response, a “class struggle”, to the oppression by the Tsarist autocracy. Others may credit the cause of the revolution to economical problems and therefore also acknowledges the roll of short-term factors, such as WW1 as they brought about many economic troubles. This viewpoint highlights the role of the “ordinary people” rather than leaders, and believes that the revolution was “from below”, meaning that it was the 82% lower class that brought an end to autocracy, “It was caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the politically radicalized masses.” Historians such as Richard Pipes, Bernard Pares, Michael Lynch and Richard Conquest blame the poor leadership of the Tsar for the collapse of the Romanov era and believe that the revolution was the result of a dedicated elite few, like Trotsky and Lenin, who were focused only on the achievement and maintenance of power”. The decisions and actions from Tsar Nicholas, the Petrograd protesting masses, the revolutionary leaders, the crisis of modernisation, the remembered grievances from Bloody Sunday and the resulted aftermath, the 1905 revolution, all played their part in the out come of the February revolution.
