However with the October Manifesto, the Tsar had acted in bad faith because as soon after the situation had improved, Tsar Nicholas II was determined to recover as much power as possible. At first he moved against the St Petersburg Soviet and arrested its leaders. Then in late 1905, an uprising by the Moscow Soviet was crushed. This all occurred before the Duma met in 1906. This proves the Tsar was still an autocrat, i.e. nothing had changed.
In conclusion, the October Manifesto had no benefit for the Tsar, although the Tsarist government hoped that it would generate less unrest in Russia. They used the Manifesto to persuade people to bring back peace, which is critical for the survival and prosperity of the Tsarist government. The number of strikes in 1905 was a good example for this. In general, it seems that Russia was gradually modernizing and this supports Kokovstov’s view.
An event that shows Tolstoy the Pessimist might have been right was Bloody Sunday. 500 demonstrators were being led by a priest but later shot at by Tsar Nicholas II’s troops. While the Tsar was in power, people could not have a peaceful protest without fear of being killed. In other such countries, these actions would not have been allowed. This shows that autocracy is an outdated form of government.
Source B shows that during 1905, there were more strikes being held in comparison to previous years. Striking is a modern form of conduct and so with Russia using it, it shows an example of the country trying to modernise.
In 1905 was the year of ‘General Strikes’ where there were 13,995 strikes taking place. Shops, schools and hospitals were closed. This shows that during this period, many Russian citizens were extremely dissatisfied with the system of government. In spite of this, from the year 1881 to 1914, the population in St Petersburg had risen to 2,217,500. The Moscow population had also risen to 1,762,700. These figures are an indication that Russia is modernizing as it is clear that there is a migration from rural to urban areas. This supports Kokovstov’s optimistic view; Russia is modernising and would have prospered if it weren’t for the war.
During 1908 to 1911 there is a significant reduction in the number of strikes by as much as 10,000. This indicates one or two ideas. It was possible that the Russian people were now happy with the Tsar’s way of running the country. It is also possible that the Tsar used his armed forces to crush strikes and stop a revolution by destroying any signs of communism. It is more likely that Tsar Nicholas II tried to control Russia’s strikes, their ‘modern conduct’. This shows that he was trying to restrict the Russian people from get too confident and openly thought. The Tsar was trying to demonstrate that Russia was still an autocratic country and strikes cannot weaken the Tsar. This suggests evidence for Tolstoy’s idea; Tsarism is out of date. One year after this, in 1912, the strike count started to rise to 3574 in 1914. This shows that Tsarism was not going to prevail and thus argues against Kokovstov’s idea.
Source A is a table of statistics comparing Russia’s industrial development to other countries involved in the First World War in 1913. The sheer fact that the source states at the beginning ‘From a recent history book’ indicates that it is likely to be reliable.
The statistics in source A show that in comparison to other leading countries, Russia’s production of various resources was very poor. Russia had the least quantity of coal and pig iron production in the table. In these two areas, Russia has significantly less than any other of the great powers. Its steel production just exceeded France’s steel production with 5.2%. However, its industrial growth rate was high with an average of 3.5% per annum, second to Germany, which arguably indicates that Russia was succeeding. This supports Kokovstov’s optimistic view. It is likely that Tolstoy would disagree and explain that it is wrong to compare Russia to these other countries as Russia was having a late industrial growth spurt and this did not reflect on what happened in previous years. Source A is not complete because the statistic for France’s Industrial Growth Rate has not been filled in.
This source indicates that Russia is emerging as an industrial power. This evidence suggests that during the Tsar’s reign, Russia was kept industrially behind other leading countries such as the U.S.A. and Germany.
Source A does not show any evidence for the optimistic view, Kokovstov’s idea, “Without war Tsarist Russia would have survived and prospered”. The reason for this is because at this time there was not a great threat of war. However it does suggest reasons for the Pessimist view, Tolstoy’s idea, “Autocracy is an outdated form of government not suited to twentieth century Russia”. This is because while the Tsar had power over the country, it was kept industrially behind.
In this section I am going to compare Source E and Source J. Source E is a painting, although it resembles a photo, that shows Tsar Nicholas II blessing his troops in 1914. His infantry soldiers are kneeling down to him whilst other troops, higher up in rank, are mounted on horses. Source J is a photograph of soldiers in Petrograd supporting the revolution in March 1917. These soldiers are all dressed warmly and have their swords drawn as if they are willing to challenge the Tsar.
The image shown in Source E is a painting and is more questionable because of the fact that it is a painting. The artist controls every aspect of the painting and so it is possible that this source could have been used as propaganda. This suggests that Source E could be unreliable. Source J, although a photo, could have also been controlled as well. In the photograph, one can see all the troops' faces and they are all staring at the camera. There is also a banner in the background and the words are also visible to the viewer of the photo. Of course this aspect may be coincidence, but it suggests that Source J was a posed photograph.
The image portrayed in Source E shows that the soldiers are demonstrating their loyalty and their respect to the Tsar by kneeling down. This indicates that the soldiers’ loyalty is not in question. The image, posed in Source J shows the unity in resisting the Tsar among the soldiers based in Petrograd. It is clear that the photographer wanted us to see a scene of protest with guns and swords drawn and a visible protest banner. It is possible that the soldiers in source J are opposing the Tsar and supporting the revolution because of the army’s losses. 100,000 Russian troops were captured during the battle of Tannenburg and during 1915, the German and Austrian Offensive at Galice captured one million Russian prisoners. However the worst statistic was from June to September 1916 when the Brusilov Offensive took place and Russia lost a further one million men.
Source E illustrates that the supporters of the Tsar have come from an elite class because they are mounted soldiers. The foot soldiers in Source J are peasants who have been forced to fight for the Tsar against their will. They suffered terrible conditions and very poor medical supplies that characterised the Russian army in the First World War.
In Source E, unlike Source J, there is no banner and this shows there might be a lack of strength and unity. The Russian soldiers kneel down to the Tsar, which might be thought of as respectful but may also be seen as weakness. In England, they would have saluted the flag not the ruler. In England there is a saying “For King and Country”, in this case the Tsar believes he’s more important than Russia as the soldiers are only paying their respects to him. Also on the Tsar’s military uniform, there is a religious Orthodox symbol. This may indicate that the Tsar believes he is more important than the Bishops are and that he puts himself before his country. This suggests evidence for Idea One; “Autocracy is an outdated form of government not suited to twentieth century Russia.”
In conclusion, the comparison of these two sources shows the unfavorable impact that the war had on the Russian army. This therefore proves evidence for Kokovstov’s idea, “Without war Tsarist Russia would have survived and prospered.
In this section I am going to study Source G and Source H. Source G is a report that was made to the Duma in 1916 by Rodzyenko, the president of the Duma. The president informed the Duma that General Ruzsky had complained about the overall conditions that the Russian soldiers were battling in. Ruzsky explains there was a lack of ammunition and a shortage of boots. The soldiers were fighting barefoot which must have had an unfavorable impact on the Russian army’s moral considering they did not have fundamental equipment. This really shows how utterly incompetent the Tsarist government was. The General continues to describe how the hospitals and the Red Cross stations were in excellent condition but the war hospitals were very disorganized to the extent that there were shortages of bandages and medical equipment. The comparison between the Red Cross and the military hospitals truly highlights how chaotic the Russian war effort was. This is undeniable proof that Tsarism was out of date. There was an extreme lack of co-operation between these two organizations to the point that people had to walk almost eight miles from the military hospital to the Red Cross to stock up with medical supplies. This failure to acknowledge the situation further suggests Tolstoy’s idea, that autocracy is an outdated form of government.
The Russian war effort became so increasingly poor with a lack of ammunition that the Grand Duke said that he was obliged to stop fighting. Source G states that there was plenty of material and labour in Russia, however materials such as leather and nails were scattered amongst various regions in the country. It would appear that Russia had all the basic resources that the army needed such as cheap labour but there was such a deficiency in co-operation and organisation. This situation could be compared with Great Britain, however they had introduced the Defense of the Realm Act which granted the government complete control over the economy and its planning through the Ministry of Munitions. This furthermore hammers down on the point that Tsarism was outdated.
In Source G, General Ruzsky suggested that the best course of action would have been to call a congress of the heads of the Zemstvos and request for their co-operation. Should the Tsar fail to use the Zemstvos to organise the war effort then it could be seen that the Tsarist government was refusing to share or hand over the responsibility.
Source H is a Petrograd police report, October 1916. This source opens with “Military defeats brought the masses a clearer understanding of the problems of war - unfair distribution of foodstuffs”, ; which indicates that the Russian civilians were beginning to realise the troubles that the Russian soldiers had been facing. The source continues to explain that the “neglect of the home front is the prime cause of the disorganisation of the huge machine of state”, which shows that the police agreed that the Tsarist government had not paid enough attention to the war on the home front. Source H explains “that a terrible crisis is on the way”, which also suggests the detrimental impact of war on Tsarism which in turn supports Kokovstov’s idea. At this time in Russia there was great hostility and opposition towards the Tsarist government because of the burden of war and pitiable conditions of everyday life. This is an indication that the Tsar was losing his grip on the Russian people and that a revolution would have been imminent.
In conclusion to this section, it is clear that Tsarism was an outdated form of government because of the amount of disorganisation and neglect shown in the war. This gives evidence for Tolstoy’s idea. However, this was only obvious to the Russian people when the effects of war started to be felt. Once they began to understand the war effort situation and reflect on their everyday life situation, did they become hostile and outraged at Tsarism. This provides evidence for Kokovstov’s idea. It was the effects of war that highlighted the disadvantages of Tsarism.
Source F is an illustration of Rasputin with the Tsar and Tsarina. He was a monk who allegedly had healing powers. The Tsar’s son suffered from haemophilia and so Rasputin was sent to the him to tend to his son. While he was staying at the Tsar’s residence, he was rumoured to have many affairs, even with the Tsarina.
The utter fact that the source is a Russian cartoon indicates that the suggestions made are openly thought and that people agree. In this source Rasputin is looking very sinister, as if he has other plans for Tsarism. The source shows Rasputin as a puppeteer, controlling the Tsar and Tsarina. The sheer fact that Rasputin has been drawn larger that the Tsar and Tsarina suggests he is becoming increasingly powerful. The Tsar and Tsarina look content in Rasputin’s arms as if happy with the work that he is doing for their son. The Tsar has his eyes closed as if he is completely oblivious to what is going on in Russia. At this time the Tsar is away from home and performing his willed duty as the Commander-In-Chief of the Russian army, this is portrayed in the source as he is dressed in his military uniform. The Tsarina looks lovingly at the Tsar which is ironic because she has been rumoured of having an affair with Rasputin. The crown is on the Tsarina’s head as if to symbolise the fact that at that time she was the one with the power while the Tsar was away. Rasputin’s hand is around the Tsarina, this could suggest two possibilities. Either to represent that he almost has a grip on the Tsarina, a grip on power over Russia because she is governing Russia at that time.
In conclusion this evidence supports Tolstoy’s idea, “Autocracy is an outdated…”, because it portrays how blind and oblivious the Tsar was to the activities back ‘home’. It also demonstrates how impressionable the Tsarina was and how Rasputin was able to influence the organization of Russia but again it was war that highlighted this weakness and therefore provides evidence for Kokovstov.
In conclusion to this essay, I believe both views contribute to the fall of Tsarism in Russia. V. N. Kokovstov is right because it was the war that highlighted the outdated form of government in Russia. However Kokovstov is not completely correct as it may have been that without war, Tsarism in Russia may have still collapsed. Tolstoy’s idea appears to contribute more as it is clear that autocracy was out of date. The Tsar tried to handle too much responsibility all on his own. The Russian people were extremely dissatisfied with Tsarism. Tsar Nicholas II was gradually losing everything from the people of Russia to his own personal army. The effects of war caused the necessary levels of resentment to topple the Tsar therefore had Tsarism not been out of date, maybe the war would have not been such a problem.
I will side with L. Tolstoy as all of my conclusions lead me to believe that Tsarism was definitely out of date and for this reason a revolution was inevitable.
