"To what extent was World War One the main reason for the downfall of Tsarism?"

Tsar Nicholas II has also been described as part of the problem.  He was firmly autocratic; Alan Wood describes him as “an absolute autocrat”.  This view is taken as he refused to grant political reforms during the 1890’s and did not really accept the role of the Duma after 1905.  This view is presented in a derogatory way by Wood as he goes on to point out that the Tsar had too much power, which he exploited.  Wood is definitely not favourable in his view towards the last Tsar.   Nicholas’s wife Alexandra and Rasputin also exemplified some of the ills of Tsarism and alienated the aristocracy, the traditional supporters of Tsarism.  The army was a growing problem for the Tsar as well.  They essentially upheld the system but were growing angry at the Tsar and his system of rule.  Once the army’s support had been lost the regime was basically open to attacks from any opposition group.

The Russian economy was another long-term problem contributing to the Russian revolution.  Industry was a failure as there were large numbers of poor landless peasants who worked long hours with low wages living in appalling conditions.  Karl Marx wrote in ‘The Communist Manifesto’ in 1848: “they have nothing to lose but their chains.”  The Russian economy was not helped by the geography of the country and its inadequate transport system.  There were food shortages even before the war had began and growing land hunger due to the inadequacy of emancipation, and population rises.  Even Stolypin’s agrarian reforms did not solve the key problems and were too little too late.

There was a growth in political opinion and the rise of a new middle class, through the spread of education and universities.  This led to various opposition parties being founded throughout the country, such as the Russian Social Democratic party in 1898 (which later split into the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks).  These revolutionary parties had a broad propaganda role which helped undermine loyalty to the regime, especially amongst the workers and soldiers.  This was coupled with the wide range of nationalities in Russia who on the most part wanted to overthrow the Tsar.

Looking at all the above problems would suggest that even before the war Russia was heading towards another revolution in the future similar to the one experienced in 1905.  It does also show how the people of Russia were growing increasingly aggravated by the Tsarist regime and how many viewed there being a need for change.  However, the trigger that began this revolution seems to be the First World War.  It does seem open to discussion that even if a revolution took place and the war did not, whether or not the Tsarist system would have survived as it did in 1905.

Initially the war had a positive effect on the people of Russia.  Edward Acton writes, “The initial response to the outbreak of war was an upsurge of patriotic fever”.  Acton writes this as the country became united behind the common cause of war, and many of the groups of people put their grievances temporarily behind them.  However, Acton goes on to mention; “Yet the war proved far longer and more destructive than had been generally expected. The news from the front was grim.”  This view is justified as most people in Russia believed the war would be over quickly and without heavy casualties and gives a reason as to why the Russian people became so frustrated.  Acton is a well balanced historian, but he clearly identifies all sides of an argument and presents individual views making them easy to be broken down and analysed.

The war had varying effects on the economy of Russia.  Russia’s economy was already behind that of many of the other strong powers in Europe as its methods were generally old fashioned and unsuccessful.  Initially the armaments industry increased with the start of the war and Beryl Williams suggests that the war helped the economy, “it was the war which was to revitalize the stagnating metallurgical industries”.  Williams justifies this view explaining that industrial output “doubled in capital between 1914 and 1917.”  This revisionist viewpoint seems a little uneven as the other impacts on the economy are not looked at in detail.  For example the lack of consumer goods that were being produced because of the focus on the armaments goods, led to peasants being angered further and stopped the country operating as previously.  Williams seems to be favouring the opinion that matters were not quite as bad during Tsarism as they were made out to be and that it potentially could have survived for longer if the people could have understood this.  Supplying food became a problem for the country as peasants tended to want to sell less of their grain due to the depreciating currency through the war period.  The expense of war led to inflation, and prices by the end of 1916 were four times those of 1914.  However, the wages of workers did not increase at the same rate.  This along with the fact that transporting grain into major cities like Petrograd was very difficult, meant that strikes in the county’s capital became prominent.  Supplying the army with sufficient food also became a problem that decreased soldier’s morale.

The state of the country was not helped through the people in charge of it during the war period.  Nicholas II had many inadequacies in the minds of the Russian people, but what many historians fault him on, was his decision to take control of the army and leaving Petrograd.  He was inexperienced when it came to military affairs and generally prevented the wiser army officials from making decisions.  This not only focused the blame on him but it also left his wife Empress Alexandra, who was heavily influenced by Rasputin, in charge of Russia.  With Alexandra having a German background people became very suspicious of the government and J.N. Westwood describes her by saying she “really did not want to share the lives of the people,…the people never really accepted her”.  This shows how the Russian people felt that they could not relate to the government and because of the war they believed that the government was betraying its people to the enemy.  For example Alexandra did not provide the Tsar with the correct information about the events taking place in Petrograd, but instead according to Peter Neville she was providing him with “optimistic drivel…from the city.”  This view is a revisionist one taken after the fall of the Communist regime and the dissolution of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, when details and documents about these types of events became available, hopefully making it reliable.  Neville does balance his opinion’s well, yet he is a true revisionist as he focuses on the things that happened prior to the major events in Russia as hopefully for the basis of a new perspective on things.  Had the Tsar known about how terrible things were becoming in the city, he may have returned home to try and deal with the situation, improving his reputation. The traditional monarchists and ministers in the Duma were some of the most critical of the government, especially as their powers became suppressed by the government.  This was important as the opinions of the Duma were listened to by the people in Russia carefully.

The effects on the armed forces during the war also worsened quickly as the army was not successful in influential battles.  Also with Russia suffering high casualties, the conscription system began to fail.  Families were being torn apart by the war which made even patriotic Russians find it hard to support the government and the war cause.  With the army loosing support for the regime the situation became very dangerous for Tsar Nicholas, as the government became open to attacks without a force that had been one of its main defenders in the past.  Peter Kenez writes “The important event in February was not the workers’ demonstration; it was the soldiers’ refusal to obey.”  Kenez suggest that this was a very important event because “Once the chain of command and the bonds of authority were broken, the imperial order collapsed with amazing speed.”  This seems a more traditionalist view, and suggests that the war caused such disaffection with the army.  However another historian Alan Wood, describing the role that the army played sees its importance differently, “Despite the disaffection of the military,…it was neither the high command nor the Duma politicians, still less revolutionary parties, which finally brought about the downfall of ‘Bloody Nicholas’.  It was caused by the upsurge of the politically radicalized masses.”  This is a more revisionist view as Wood is going against the traditional opinions and is accessing the upsurge of politically radicalised masses as being more important than the army’s disaffection.

With so many people becoming unhappy with the tsar during the war period it is no surprise that in this time the support and growth of revolutionary political groups grew rapidly.  However, although opposition groups existed before the war they only really developed their true strength in this period.  The Menshevik’s became influential, as did the Bolsheviks.  However, even with the influence of the war the revolutionary groups only really had a big influence in the major cities of Russia, as they were hard to control due to the sheer size of the country.  Government spies and police were able to penetrate the parties and limit their effectiveness.  This leads some historians to suggest that even the Bolsheviks who were very important in the working class militancy up to 1917, could not really by themselves have threatened tsarism, Hasegawa however disagrees.  He suggests that the Bolsheviks were important because they “channelled the amorphous grievances aired by the masses into definite political actions.”  Here the importance of the Bolshevik party is highlighted and although the party was around before the war it only really gained support through the impacts of the war.  However, even after the downfall of Tsarism the Bolsheviks were not its successor and after the failure of the Provisional government there was a power struggle, so the support of the party its unlikely to have led to the downfall of Tsarism.

The motives and general perception of the Russian people during this time were also very important.  Orlando Figes takes the post revisionist view that the revolution itself meant very different things to different people. For example, many soviet historians suggest that after such a long period of repression under tsarism people in Russia generally wanted a change in government to improve their lives.  These historians also mainly suggest that it was through the revolution that the Russian people aimed to completely end tsarism in Russia.  However, this again is contradictory to another school of historians who argue that people in Russia were tired of the constant change in policies in Russia and unreliable leaders, and instead want clear stable policies with an appropriate tsar as leader.  Peter Kenez suggests that the tsar’s enemies were split into two main groups and were “Those who wanted a social revolution and those whose goals were limited to political reform had briefly cooperated in an uneasy alliance.”  This is a more Revisionist view, and seems the most likely as not all people in Russia at this time totally support a revolution overthrowing the regime. It is suggested here that Russians simply disliked Tsar Nicholas II and wanted to replace him with a new ruler.  Kenez sees the disintegration of the government in Russia crucial as to why there was a revolution, focusing his argument on the events before the war and the governments failure to deal with the situation.

Overall, although many other reasons did contribute to the eventual downfall of tsarism it does seem that the First World War was the main reason why it failed and it was also the catalyst for the revolution.  However without the other reasons and problems the Tsarist regime had, it may have survived a defeat in the war.  For example if the regime had been successful in the past and the Russian people were happy with their situation, then a lost war may not have had enough influence to overthrow the government, as was demonstrated in the past when the regime had survived war defeats and revolution.  It does seem that many Russian people supported the revolutionary cause because they were unhappy with the current Tsar and did not intend to eventually overthrow Tsarism.  The First World War emphasised the problems that existed before the war and made the vast majority of Russians begin to resent the government.  The initial affects of the start of the war seemed to prolong Tsarism in that it united the country.  However, ultimately the war was to speed up the end of the tsarist regime.  This makes revisionist historians argument’s seem the most reasonable as they bring together the whole situation in Russia before and during the war, and tend not to focus on simply one cause, making them of a balanced opinion.

Bibliography

Books:

• “Rethinking the Russian Revolution”, Edward Acton, 1990.
• “A History of the Soviet Union from the beginning to the end”, Peter Kenez, 1999, Cambridge University Press.
• “A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924”, Orlando Figes, 1996, London: Pimlico.
• “The Russian Revolution”, Richard Pipes, 1990, New York: Knopf.
• “The Russian Revolution” Shelia Fitzpatrick, 1994.
• “A Concise History of the Russian Revolution”, Richard Pipes, 1995.
• “Russia, 1855-1991 From Tsars to Commissars”, Peter Oxley, 2001.
• “Russia-The USSR, the CIS and the Independent States, A complete history in one volume”, Peter Neville, 2000, The Windrush Press.
• “Tsarist Russia, 1801-1917”, John Hite, 1989, Causeway Press Ltd.
• “The Origins of the Russian Revolution 1861-1917”, Alan Wood 1987, Methuen & Co. Ltd.
• “The Russian Revolution 1917-1921”, Beryl Williams, 1987, Blackwell Ltd.
• “The Soviet Union 1917-1991, Second Edition, Martin McCauley, 1981, Longman Group UK Ltd.
• “Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992”, Fourth Edition, J.N. Westwood, 1973.
• "The Problem of Power in the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia”, T.Hasegawa, 1972.

---