One of the primary complaints in the 1917 Russian Revolution was that of the autocracy of the Tsar. From the inception of the role in 1533, where Ivan IV was named as the first Tsar of Russia, the position has been synonymous with terror. While there were several-loved Tsar’s e.g Peter II the great, people are more likely to recognize names like Ivan the terrible and remember the emperor like sovereignty demanded by the Tsar’s. Nicholas II moved Russia from a medieval state of autocracy to a constitutional monarchy (one under which he believed he ruled by divine right) where he legitimised his own role by introducing an elected Duma. In reality though, until the 1917 Revolution and the death of Nicholas II in July 1918 the Duma held no real power, and this was one of the fundamental causes of the February revolution.
It is important to consider the role of War within the revolution, I would argue while in a state where millions of people are oppressed and abused there will eventually be revolution, but that war is a revolutionary catalyst. The period in between the 1905 and 1917 revolutions hugely significant to the outcome of the 1917 revolutions, studies of this period have been refereed to as “quasi-constitutional” referring to the totalitarian dictatorship of the state and the attempts to “Europeanize” Russia. In a same way that the war between Russia and Japan and the pre war discontent caused the 1905 Revolution, I believe that the period of Tsarist autocracy between the revolutions and WWI were catalysts for the 1917 Revolution. Nicholas II secured the final nail in his coffin in terms of his legitimacy to rule in 1915 when he took personal control of the armed forces, and then instead of having scapegoats to blame, he was forced to take personal responsibility for the outcomes of the war.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 is in effect the upheaval of lots of different political parties and ideas all in conflict, Bolsheviks, Social Revolutionaries, Octoberists, Cadets, monarchists, Mensheviks, but it is really only the two main revolutions in February and October and the parties involved there that are central to most modern interpretations of the Revolution considered. In short, the two main Revolutions in 1917, while linked, are based on completely separate political goals.
The 1917 February Revolution was brought about through a mixture of social unrest and the immediate problems of a war-torn Russia, such as food shortages. It began in the streets of Petrograd where factory workers striked, the workers were then joined by soldiers, a nation outraged by lack of food and a seemingly never ending war meant that the revolution spread quickly through Russia and brought about the “Provisional Government” of the Duma. Nicholas II was forced to abdicate on March 2nd for the sake of national unity (and his brother refused the throne, ending the dynasty) and in his place was a Duma that while being dominated by Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks allowed the moderates to implement civil liberties and universal suffrage but the Duma failed to address the main issues of the period, the war and primarily the low food rations. The February Revolution sough to end autocracy in Russia, and to that end it succeeded but the provisional government achieved very little success, “The ease with which Lenin and Trotsky succeeded in overthrowing Kerensky’s last coalition Provisional Government revealed its inner impotence”.
In stark contrast, the Bolshevik October Revolution in 1917 stuck slightly longer, with the collapse of a communist USSR not happening officially until 1991. Lenin’s first Foreign Commissar, Leon Trotsky was at the forefront of the revolution and believed communism would spread throughout the world with ease, one of Trotsky most famous quotes is “What diplomatic work are we apt to have now? I will issue a few revolutionary proclamations to the peoples of the world then shut up shop”, referring to his false belief that communism would spread world wide given the right catalyst. In the famous communist manifesto this view is also expressed my Marx, “For how can people, when they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society”. By September 1917 the Bolshevik party had grown strong, created and led by Lenin, considered crucial in the party. The party began its armed insurrection on the 25th October 1917, issuing a proclamation to the people of Russia that “power had passed from the Provisional Government into the hands of the Military Revolutionary Committee of Petrograd Soviet, who’s aims are democratic peace, abolition of landlord property rights, worker’s control over production and creation of a Soviet Government”. The Bolshevik’s main achievement, and the main reason they managed to hold on to power was the fact that they solved the immediate political crises of the time, namely the war. On November 8th, 1917, only two weeks after seizing power Bolshevik Russia formally makes a declaration of peace to Europe.
The main political idea to look at when considering the October Revolution of 1917 is that of Marxism and Communism. While communism might not have taken so easily in western civilization, in a nation where workers have to protest in their thousands just for bread and for basic rights, then all of a sudden the basic ideal of communisms, that recognizes the workers as “the most suffering class” and offers a classless, democratic state, with common ownership instead of private property. Communism was a way to fight back at the bourgeoisie for centuries of oppression and laziness while the majority suffered.
One month after the official declaration of peace made by Russia Trotsky met German and Austrian delegates in Brest-Litovsk to fully negotiate a peace but progress was slow on both sides, Trotsky wanted time for the revolution to spread, and Germany had what Trotsky referred to as “monstrous demands”. It only really became clear after Christmas what the Germans really wanted. Trotsky and Lenin decided that rather than signing the treaty they would be neither at war or peace, they would refuse to sign the treaty, but also refuse to take part in the war, this was formally declared by Trotsky on January 28th 1918 “At the same time we declare that the terms proposed to us by the governments of Germany and Austria-Hungary are in fundamental conflict with the interests of all people…..We cannot put the signature of the Russian revolution under a peace treaty which brings oppression, woe and misfortune to millions oh human beings”. Trotsky was however wrong to assume the German’s wouldn’t resume military action against Bolshevik Russia, they did and by the time a peace treaty was actually agreed upon it was early March and the conditions were far worse than before and caused Russia to surrender the Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic provinces, the Caucasus and Poland
It was a mixture of pragmatism and ideology that characterized Russian foreign policy over the next few years, in 1918 they changed their name to the ‘Russian Communist Party”. The Bolsheviks were excluded from the Paris peace talks but the fear of communism haunted the negotiations to the point where separate peace talks had to take place on the island of Prinkipo in the Marmara sea between the west and the Bolshevik delegations. Over the next several decades this fear of communism grew, with Russia operating a twin track approach to foreign relations, with the official diplomacy of the government and of the comintern (third international). Ironically, during WWI the allies actually sought to help induce a Russian Revolution, in the hopes that it would revitalize the Russian war effort on the eastern front, not realizing the problems it would bring in later years. It was gradually accept that the only way to deal with the communist problem was to integrate them into the international community and not exclude them, which led to their entry into the League of Nations in 1934.
It seems to me that the Russian Revolution was caused by a mixture of political idealists and political opportunists taking advantage of a state of turmoil and upheaval that existed in World War One to move the Russian nation away from its feudal autocracy and towards a system of communism. While the political ideas of the parties at the time varied significantly, the outcome of the revolution was the same and without the political ideas of communism, democracy, suffrage and civil liberties and without the work of Trotsky and Lenin Russia might still be in a state of poverty today.
Bibliography
- “The Globalization of World Politics – An Introduction to International Relations” 4th edition – John Baylis, Steve Smith & Patricia Owens
- “The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917” – Alan Wood
- “The Russian Revolution of 1917” – Von Mohrenschildt
- “The Provisional Government” – V. D. Nabokov
- “The Ebbing of European Ascendancy – An International History of the World 1914-1945”– Sally Marks
- “The Communist Manifesto” – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (With an introduction by Gareth Stedman Jones)
-“The Octover Revolution” – Roy Medvedev
- “Trotsky – profiles in power” – Geoffrey Swain
-
-
-
-
-
-
- - Dr . White, Glasgow University
“The Globalization of World Politics” – Baylis & Smith – Pg.56
“The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917” – Alan Wood - ix
“The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917” – Alan Wood – pg5
“The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917” – Alan Wood – pg32-33
- Dr . White, Glasgow University - accessed 19/11/09 -
“The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917” – Alan Wood – pg35
“The Russian Revolution of 1917” – Von Mohrenschildt – pg41
“The Provisional Government” – V. D. Nabokov – pg4
Leon Trotsky as quoted in “The Ebbing of European Ascendancy” – Sally Marks – pg66
“The Communist Manifesto” – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – pg255
Bolshevik poster/proclamation – quoted from “The Octover Revolution” – Roy Medvedev pg1
“The Communist Manifesto” – Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels – pg254
Trotsky as quoted in “Trotsky – profiles in power” – Geoffrey Swain – pg80
Trotsky as quoted in “Trotsky – profiles in power” – Geoffrey Swain – pg82
“The Ebbing of European Ascendancy” – Sally Marks – pg75
“The Ebbing of European Ascendancy” – Sally Marks – pg63