As the unrest and discontent grew amongst the public, several opportunities arose where the Tsar could have quieted this and prevented the escalating problems he was to face, had he been more in touch with his people and willing to compromise. A poignant example of this is an event known as ‘Bloody Sunday’, where a crowd of over 10,000 peaceful demonstrators led by Father Gapon, made their way to the Winter Palace, in January 1905, carrying a petition asking for better working conditions. Following their orders to eliminate any problems, the police opened fire on the crowd - killing several hundreds, including women and children. This event caused the people to lose faith in the Tsar, and as news of the massacre spread quickly, unorganized demonstrations, riots and strikes erupted throughout the nation in the following months. Revolutionary parties suddenly gained mass support.
With the country in a state of anarchy, the Tsar felt sufficiently threatened and had no choice but to make concessions. This was announced in Nicholas II’s October Manifesto, in which he declared the enhancement of civil liberties and the right to form an elected legislative congress which became known as the Duma. The immediate effect was to tranquilize the people, however, temporarily. Opponents to the Tsar became divided as the middle class liberals were delighted with the October Manifesto, and fearing more a radical movement, they decided to become loyal to the Tsar again. However, this satisfaction was short-lived, as the people soon realized that the Duma had no sufficient power or right to work as a proper parliament. This was confirmed in the Tsar’s Fundamental Laws of 1906, which stated that he still remained absolute ruler of the Tsar and that the duma and all government ministers and army had to answer directly to him. According to Ben Walsh in GCSE Modern World History on page 82, “These Laws agreed to the existence of the duma, but they put so many limitations on its powers that it could do virtually nothing.”
After years of hiding underground, increasingly radical parties emerged to try and claim position in the Duma. However, the democracy here was corrupt, as the electoral system excluded the socialist revolutionaries, and were in favour of the upper class; those more likely to support the tsar. Even so, as the Dumas began to create pressure on the Tsar for more reform, the Tsar responded by quickly dissolving them. It quickly became evident that the Tsar had no intention of relinquishing his power whatsoever and that for as long as he remained the ruler, Russia would never revolutionize into a democracy. Clearly the Tsar had not learned his lesson in 1905, for which he was to later pay a dear price.
During this period, “a renewed outbreak of assassinations and terrorism prompted the Tsar to empower his prime minister, Peter Stolypin, to eliminate the threat to his position once and for all,” according to Walsh. Thousands of strikers, protestors and revolutionaries were thus eliminated or exiled, which hence caused greater resentment towards the government. Stolypin did, on the other hand, manage to improve the agrarian situation somewhat, with new incentives and policies in favour of the peasants, particularly the kulaks. The Tsar lost his most able minister when Stolypin was assassinated in 1911.
The Tsar’s son, Alexis, was weak as he suffered from hemophilia. This had always reflected negatively on the future of Tsarism, however a monk named Rasputin, who was new at court, appeared to have the ability to stop Alexis’s bleeding. Over time, Rasputin gained political influence at court as he was very popular with the Tsarina, and rumors spread about an affair between the two. Rasputin was also very notorious for his sexual escapades, which caused a scandal at court and further deteriorated the Tsar’s image. “The Tsar’s opponents seized on Rasputin as a sign of the Tsar’s weakness and unfitness to rule Russia,” states Walsh, page 83.
As World War I broke out in 1914, Russia faced an invasion from Germany. This initially created a wave of popular patriotism, which swept throughout the country and united the people behind the Tsar, and anti-government protests were abandoned. However, this reprieve was short-lived. The war quickly turned out to be a disaster for both the tsar’s government as well as the people. The 15 million men sent into the war were poorly equipped and armed, factories were inadequately productive and transportation and communication insufficient. The widespread discontent only increased, and the morale of the army further declined as Russia suffered a series of military defeats.
In 1915, the Tsar made his fatal mistake when he took personal command of the army. Being neither an able commander nor gifted at military tactics, the Tsar now held the full and direct responsibility for any military failures, which became numerous. Back at the capital Petrograd, the Tsarina and Rasputin were left to run the country, which they did incompetently. The people distrusted the Tsarina, for being originally a German princess; the Tsarina was alleged of treachery, and Rasputin was even further disliked and regarded as “an evil influence of the government,” Welsh, page 84.
According to Steve Phillips in Lenin and the Russian Revolution “The war played a crucial role in the radicalization of both the industrial workers and the peasants.” The extent of emphasis on the war effort took its toll on Russian society and economy. As 15 million able men had been recruited to the army, factories were forced to close down due to lack of workers, and industry and agriculture were devastated. As the war dragged on, inflation rose, food shortages skyrocketed and nearly all industry came to a standstill.
In response to the declining economy, food shortages and overall conditions, mass riots and demonstrations broke out in Petrograd in 1917, which was to become known as the February Revolution. Animosity was rising against the Tsar and his government from all sides, and, contrary to the previous revolution of 1905, this one would not be quelled by half-promises or pretenses from the government. The Tsar had ordered his troops to take control of the situation and put down the revolt by force, however, soldiers refused and even joined the protestors. This was the absolute turning and decisive point. With no supporters left or army to assert his power, the Tsar decided to abdicate; thus the end of the 300-year Romanov rule of the Russian Empire.
When attempting to determine to what extent was the revolution of February /March, in Russia 1917, due to the nature of Tsarism and the policies of Nicholas II, it is important to understand the perspectives of the two dominant schools of history.
The Liberal Schools, also known as the ‘Optimists,’ believe in ‘evolution’ – that Russia was gradually developing towards a modern and democratic society. According to Phillips, “The result of this progress was to enhance the prospects of the regime’s survival and they point to evidence which seems to show that the regime was resilient.” The efficiency of the Tsar’s policies for oppression curtailed the power of the opposition, and kept the regime strong whilst the army still supported the Tsar. There appear to be substantial improvements in the Russian economy after 1905, and Stolypin’s ‘carrot-and-stick’ method and land reforms appear to have led to a better harvest and “could have prevented the peasantry from becoming involved in revolutionary activity,” as stated by Phillips.
The existence of a duma, however corrupt the system was at the time, was at least the foundation of democracy. It was the outbreak of World War I, which halted Russia’s political, social and economical development. The Optimists believe that had Russia been given more time and a less dire situation, they would have eventually developed into a modern constitutional monarchy. “It was, therefore, the war which led to unrest because of the food shortages and economic distress it brought,” according to Phillips
On the other hand, the ‘Pessimist’ Schools oppose this theory of evolution, and believe that revolution was inexorable. The Tsar had oppressed his people only to cause growing discontent and tensions, which were bound to erupt sometime, regardless of the First World War. The war, the Pessimists feel, acted simply as a catalyst which caused the revolution to occur much sooner. The policies of Tsarism consisted of autocracy -absolute power and divine right to rule granted by God, hence Russia could never have developed into a constitutional monarchy for as long as Tsarism ruled. The Duma could never act as a real parliament in that the Tsar had curtailed its power to the extent that it was simply just a mockery to the people of a sham democracy. The realization of this manipulation by the Tsar simply amounted to growing indignation and although the Tsar had clearly not learned his lesson from the 1905 Revolution, the People had; and they were not going to settle for any more false-promises or compromises from that present government.
The Soviet approach to analyzing the fall of the Tsarist regime consist of Karl Marx’s theory, who saw history as being “a process of change brought about by class struggle,” according to Phillips, and that feudalism would lead to capitalism, which would eventually led to socialism and finally communism. Hence “the fall of the Tsarist regime was merely part of an inevitable pattern of historical change brought about by class conflict.”
In conclusion, it appears that by the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a country ‘ripe for revolution’. As the Tsar became progressively more estranged from his own people, he was concurrently disabling the authority of his own rule. Simultaneously, Russia was becoming increasingly exposed to other European cultures and events, and many people found the various democratic movements inspiring. As modernization began to occur, and people were becoming more educated and literate, they also became more aware of the flaws in their country’s politics and began to entertain ideas of democracy and equality. The government responded to problems with violence and oppression on the rising number of opposition, as the Tsar was utterly intolerant and unwilling to compromise, which only increased resentment. A series of scandals and military defeats further deteriorated the image of Tsarism. There had never before in the history of Russia existed so many political organizations and opposition, and as they were gaining more and more support from the proletariat and peasants, which made up the bulk of the people and the army, it was simply a matter of time before an outbreak of revolution would come. It was not the First World War, which caused the revolution of 1917 – it was rather a catalyst. Thus by 1917, it appeared as though revolution was becoming inevitable, due to the nature of Tsarism and policies of Nicholas II.
Written by Christina Sophonpanich IB1
16/11/05