Source four also acknowledges the “openly voiced complaints about the corrupt government.” After the Tsars decision to join the troops on the front line the totally inexperienced Tsarina was left to rule the government. Along with the unsavoury, “holy man” Rasputin. These two figures brought about rumours of corruption and incompetence. Figes believes that these two figures undermined the Tsarist system, both were unpopular with the public, and even more so with the Aristocracy. This unpopularity led to great paranoia, which resorted in constant cabinet reshuffles in order to prevent minister plotting against the two unpopular figures. Prince Yusupov and other aristocratic conspirators, who believed Rasputin was discrediting the regime, eventually, murdered Rasputin. Alexandra remained unpopular, often referred to as “that German women”, this xenophobic attitude encouraged by the Great War is acknowledged in source 4 in the clause: “It is difficult to ignore the possibility that German agents are operating here.” The Tsarina, who remained in contact with the Tsar, played down the disastrous scenario the regime faced allowing the situation to spiral out of control. The aristocracy and Elite who became increasingly annoyed with the actions of the Tsar and Tsarina as their country collapsed into anarchy witnessed this situation. The Elites, who were formerly a fundamental corner stone of the regime, and had propped up the system, removed their support meaning the regime lacked any support during a revolution, which due to the actions of the Tsar and Tsarina were increasingly more likely.
Although the emerging bourgeoisie are not specifically acknowledged in either of the sources their role cannot be underestimated. As industrialisation swept over Moscow and Petrograd a new middle class developed, they had formerly been beneficiaries of the system however the limited reforms that were made in the October Manifesto as a result of the 1905 ‘revolution’ failed to satisfy their desire for political inclusion. Which there western European counterparts were already enjoying and had been for centuries.
Source five states that: “The immediate factor that led to the collapse of the regime was…a failure of the Tsar’s own supporters to carry on propping up a regime in which they had increasingly lost faith.” This statement summarises the views and actions of the groups in Russia who withdrew their support for the regime. However it can be argued that the withdrawal of support by former pillars of the regime was not the only or the most influential reason for the collapse of the Romanov dynasty.
The Orthodox Christian faith, dominated the lives of Russian people since the age of the Tsar’s. The faith was extremely important in holding the autocratic system together, it advocated the Tsar was not just a King who ruled with divine right as in western Europe, instead that the monarch was in fact “God on Earth. The faith had great political importance as it allowed the Tsar to punish those who opposed him with God’s law. However in the late 19th Century divisions emerged within the church between liberal and conservatives, meaning the churches influence, unity and most importantly power within Russia was weakened and although the church had not withdrawn its support from the regime it did not fulfil the role as a one of the fundamental pillars of Tsarism that it once did.
Both sources acknowledge the strains of the Great War, shown in the following statements: “The war had resulted in hardship that had affected peasants and industrial workers.”(Source 5) and the “unbelievable burdens of war and the unbearable conditions of everyday life” (Source 4). From these statements two factors that arguably led to the downfall of the regime can be detected. The first of which is the affect of ‘total war’ on the infrastructure of Russia. By the winter of 1916 the infrastructure of the World’s largest country had collapsed, oil shortages and poorly managed distribution of food as well as awful weather conditions meant subjects of the Tsar were extremely dis-satisfied. Workers were laid off at the Putilov Steel Works and women joined three hour-long bread queues. This led to the demonstrations. The proletariat were not the only social group (which had existed as one o the pillars of Tsarism) who were dis-satisfied. The peasants who made up the mass of the population had suffered during the war. The decision to enter the war automatically meant that the fittest and most-able males in the farming communities were sent to the front line; depriving the agricultural communities of their most able farmers therefore reducing productivity. As the war dragged on an increasing number of men were sent to the front line meaning those remaining were over-worked and exhausted. To make matters worst the food that the peasants produced was prioritised for those in the failing army, meaning that often the peasants went short on food. This situation was made even worse as although the reforms of 1905 brought an end to the debts due to emancipation the issue of land hunger due to rapid population growth remained unsolved. In order to pay for industrialisation in Petrograd and Moscow the peasantry were taxed on surplus grain meaning economically the peasants were being punished and came to increasingly resent the proletariat.
It can also be inferred from the statements that the living and working conditions had not improved, these grievances which were voiced in 1905 had not been acknowledged by the Government and members of the proletariat were forced to work up to twelve hours per day and live in squalor in conditions where disease was rampant. This argument that the mass discontent and actions of the proletariat and peasantry were essential in the collapse of the regime is significant. The ball of revolution was set in motion by the proletariat by the strikes triggered in February 1917 in Petrograd, which led to the general strike, which brought the country to a standstill.
The fourth Duma, which became increasingly out spoken is also an important factor in the collapse of the dynasty. The assembly voiced great concerns about the running of the country, which is implied in source 4: “complaints are openly voiced about the corrupt government.” Alexander Kerensky who called for the Tsar’s abdication, which doubted for the first time in Russia doubted the idea that the Tsar was “God on Earth”, made the most famous of these grievances. A call for the dissolution of the Duma was made however around ten of the members of the body defied the constitution and refused to step down showing the open opposition that was beginning to emerge towards the ever crumbling regime.
In conclusion although the Tsar’s supporters did desert the regime in its hour of need it can be argued that the actions of the aristocracy, army and the middle class were a reaction to the immense power that the proletariat were voicing. It can be argued that although the groups who supported the Tsar had grievances they were only prepared to act upon them due to the openly rebellious attitude of the proletariat whom along with the Duma first openly threatened the regime set the ball of the revolution in motion.
