Asses the reasons for the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917 PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Asses the reasons for the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917 PDF

Description

‘The impact of the First World War was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.’ (20 marks)

It was this decision by the those closest to the tsar that unwillingly set in motion what proved to be a revolution. Though it could be argued that the main downfall of the tsar in March 1917 was due to the impact of World War One or long term political problems, ultimately, without the pre-existing social and economic problems to display evidence of the Tsar’s incompetence, some historians may argue that his downfall was not inevitable and could have been recovered.

One factor that led to the abdication of the tsar was due to long term political problems involving a lack of constitutional change in Russia. This mainly included the Russian people wanting a constitutional assembly in which the powers of the tsar were restricted; he would only be able to govern through elected representatives whose decisions he cannot countermand. By 1905, due to the recessions made against Jews and course of events including Bloody Sunday, Georgia had declared itself an independent state, the Poles demanded autonomy and the Jews pressed for equal rights. In May, the Kadets, led by Paul Milyukov, persuaded the other liberal groups to join them in forming a ‘Union of Unions,’ with the aim of organising a broad-based alliance that would include the peasants and the factory workers. A ‘Union of Unions’ declaration was issued, which referred to the government as ‘a terrible menace’ and called for a constituent assembly to replace ‘the gang of robbers’ now in power; by October the tsar was faced by the most united opposition in Romanov history. On Witte’s advice, the tsar issued the October Manifesto in which going further than he had in the issuing of the August Manifesto, had made various concessions including the creation of a legislative duma, freedom of speech, assembly and worship, and the right of political parties to exist. However, although the tsar appeared to grant significant concessions in the October Manifesto, these were expedients rather than real reforms. The duma was not intended to be, nor did it become, a limitation on the tsar’s autocratic powers. This was evident from the issuing of the

Fundamental Laws which Nicholas II promulgated in April 1906 which had stated that “No law can come into force without the tsar’s approval.”

As shown through first duma, the tsar’s issuing of the Fundamental Laws was deliberately timed to coincide with the opening of the duma. In addition to declaring that ‘Supreme Autocratic Power belongs to the emperor of all Russia,” the Laws announced that the duma would be bi-cameral; one chamber would be an elected lower house, the other would be a state council, the majority of whose members would be appointed by the tsar. The existence of a second chamber with the right of veto deprived the elected duma of any real power. Taken together with the declaration that no law could come into being without the tsar’s approval, these restrictions made it clear that the tsarist regime had no intention of allowing the concessions it had made in 1905 to diminish its absolute authority. However, despite this, in August 1914, the duma had shown its total support for the tsar by voting for its own suspension for the duration of the war. But within a year Russia’s poor military showing led to the duma demanding its own recall; Nicholas II allowed them to reassemble in July 1915. Overall, this shows that although members in the duma and reformist groups in Russia were discontented with the tsar’s lack of real constitutional change, they were loyal to the tsar at the beginning of WW1 and were willing to work with him, showing that long term political problems were not the most important factor leading to the tsar’s abdication in 1917.

Additionally, another factor that played a large role in the abdication of the tsar in 1917 was the impact following WW1. This included factors such as the role of inflation, the lack of food supplies and the impact that this had on the workers and their living conditions.

The financially stable position Russia had maintained before 1914 was destroyed by the consequences of war. Its currency was previously on the Gold Standard and it had the largest reserves of any European Country; however, this changed as soon as the war began. Throughout 1914-17, government spending rose from 4 million roubles to 30 million roubles. Increased taxation at home and heavy borrowing from abroad were only partially successful in raising the capital Russia

needed. The gold standard was abandoned (which was set up ensure that Russia’s economy was stable), which allowed the government to put more notes into circulation (known as quantitative easing). In the short term, this enabled wages to be paid and commerce to continue, but in the long term, it made money practically worthless. The result was severe inflation which became particularly acute in 1916. Between 1914-16 the average earnings had doubled, while the prices of food and fuel quadrupled. This, as a result, made it difficult for the Russian people (mainly the 80% of peasantry that made up the majority of the population), to afford food.

During the first two years of the war, Russia’s grain yield was higher than in had been between 191214. However, this began to fail by 1916. This was due to inflation making trading unprofitable and so as a result, the peasants stopped selling food and began hording their stocks. This meant that the cities were not getting the grain that they needed. Additionally, the requisitioning of horses and fertiliser by the military for war effort, meant that it was difficult for peasants to sustain agricultural output, which caused problems for grain supply. A further reason that Russia’s grain yield began to fail was due to the army having first claim on the more limited amount of food being produced. Similarly, the tsar ensured that his armed forces including the military had priority in the use of the transport system. It commandeered the railways and the roads, with the result that food supplies to civilian areas became difficult to maintain as they weren’t getting to the cities. Petrograd was suffering particularly badly because of its remoteness from the food producing regions and because of the large numbers of refugees who swelled in its population and increased the demand on its dwindling resources. By early 1916, bread rationing meant that Petrograd inhabitants were receiving less than a quarter of the amount available in 1914. This issue was significant in one of the main reasons and causes behind the 1917 revolution, and this was highlighted through the International Women’s Day march that took place in 23 February. This march brought in thousands of women on the streets to join the protestors in demanding food and an end to the war. Petrograd was paralysed by a city-wide strike. Factories were occupied and attempts by the authorities to disperse the

workers were hampered by the growing sympathy among the police for the demonstrators. There was a great deal of confusion and little clear direction at the top. Events that were later seen as having had major political significance took place in an atmosphere in which political protests were indistinguishable from the general outcry against food shortages and the miseries brought by war.

Additionally, another impact of the war that was caused by the consequences of the lack of distribution of food, were the living and working conditions. The disruption of food supplies made living and working conditions increasingly difficult. An insight into the war’s impact on Russia’s workers was provided by an Okhrana report from the capital Petrograd, written in October 1916 that recorded the statistics relating to the working conditions. It stated that the prices of products rose on the average, 300 percent. The impossibility of even buying food products or necessities, the time wasted standing in queues to receive goods, the increasing incidence of disease due to the malnutrition and unsanitary living conditions (due to lack of coal and wood), etc., made the workers as a whole, prepared for the ‘wildest excesses of a hunger riot.’ Reports have shown that 155,00 Russian people had died of disease during WW1 and 250,000 died from wound injuries.

On one hand, some may argue that the war exacerbated the pre-existing social-economic problems as the roots to the protests in the 1917 February Revolution, were mainly due to the impact that the war had on the Russian people, particularly with the protests based around the result of the government prioritising the military/army over its citizens and the large numbers of food shortages this caused. However, despite the war playing a major role in Russia’s problems and the abdication of tsar Nicholas, it could be argued that the extent of the effects of war could have been avoided, had there been the central leadership that the war effort desperately needed. This was a view held by many that became increasingly widespread and that led to criticism against the tsar beginning to mount, displaying how the people viewed his own incompetence as the main reason that lead to his abdication; he was incapable of ruling effectively in Russia’s most desperate times.

Another minor reason that led to the abdication of the tsar was the role of Rasputin and the Tsarina. Rasputin (1872-1916) was the individual on whom much of the hatred of the tsarist system came to be focused. Rasputin was a self-ordained holy man from the Russian steppes (large area of flat grassland in Siberia), who was notorious for his sexual depravity. This made him fascinating to certain women, who threw themselves at him; many fashionable ladies in St Petersburg, including the wives of courtiers, boasted that they had slept with him. His behaviour made him bitterly hated at the imperial court to which he was officially invited. Outraged husbands and officials detested this upstart (sudden rise in importance) from the steppes. However, they could not get rid of him; he enjoyed royal favour. Alexandra, a deeply religious woman, believed his help with her son Alexei, was the work of God and that Rasputin was ‘His Instrument.’

Scandal inevitably followed from this. Alexandra’s German nationality had made her suspect and unpopular since the outbreak of war, but she had tried to ride out the problems. She would hear no ill of “our dear friend” (as she called Rasputin), and obliged the tsar to maintain him at court. Since Nicholas was away at military headquarters for long periods after 1915, it was no great exaggeration by opponents to charge that Alexandra and Rasputin were left to become the government of Russia. Even the strongest supporters of tsardom found it difficult to defend a system that allowed a nation in the hour of its greatest trial to fall under the sway of a debauched monk and the ‘German woman’, as Alexandra was despairingly called by anti-tsarists. Some may argue this caused a significant problem as although she had endeavoured to adopt Russian customs and conventions, this accounted for little after 1914, when, despite her undoubted commitment to the Russian cause, her enemies produced her as a German agent. The people didn’t like Rasputin’s influence on the tsarina as a woman who was meant to be helping lead the country, which made him largely unpopular amongst the people; this would in one sense lead to the tsar’s abdication, as the tsar would be blamed for allowing Russia to be led by Rasputin.

However, on the whole, this played a minor role in the tsar’s abdication, as from time to time, there have been various attempts to present Rasputin in a more sympathetic light by drawing attention, for example, to his achievements in re-organising the army’s medical supplies system. In doing this, he showed the common sense and administrative skill that Russia so desperately needed and that his aristocratic superiors in government so markedly lacked, proving that he did not play a significant role in the abdication of the tsar in 1917.

Other historians would strongly argue that it is in fact Nicholas II’s own incompetence throughout all the issues that Russia faced, that ultimately led his abdication to be inevitable. From his inability to listen to the duma, to the unwillingness to work with the Progressive Bloc and his own decision to move to the front line during the war, meant he was largely blamed for the problems in Russia. Faced with the problem of the 1917 Revolution and the extremity of the protests and strikes, Rodzianko (leading member of the Octoberists party) on behalf of the duma informed the tsar that only a major concession on the government’s part offered any hope of preserving the imperial power. Nicholas’ reaction to this demonstrates his incompetence as due to his stubbornness that he mistook for decisiveness, he had then ordered the duma to dissolve, when their only intention was to advise the tsar. Although the duma did dissolve formally as an assembly, a group of twelve members had disobeyed the order of the tsar and remained as a ‘Provisional Committee.’ This marked the first open unconstitutional defiance of the tsar, showing it was a necessary act that was intentionally done for the benefit of Russia, as Nicholas’ actions meant that it lacked a skilful leader. It was immediately followed by a bold move when a lawyer and leading SR member of the duma, Alexandra Kerensky, called for the tsar to stand down as head of state; this demonstrates the tsar himself being at fault, as by being unwilling to compromise, this meant that it was the aristocratic members of the duma who took the lead in refusing to disband on the tsar’s orders despite them having once supported the tsar.

Another key feature that demonstrated Nicholas’ own ineptitude was his decision to move to the front line during WW1. After Alexander Naumov (minister of agriculture) had written to the tsar, attempting to address on him the desperate need for effective government direction, the view that became increasingly widespread was that the strong central leadership that the war effort needed was not being provided. As a result of this, Nicholas on August 1915 had decided to formally take over the direct command of Russia’s armed services. This momentous decision intended to rally the nation around him as Tsar of Russia, however, he did not realise that it would also make him hostage to fortune. He was now personally responsible for Russia’s performance in the war meaning that if it went well he took the credit, but if not, then he was to blame. The lack of success in the war, could no longer be blamed solely on his appointees. Additionally, the tsar was not a natural commander; despite his position as commander-in-chief, he relied wholly on his generals (who came from positions of nepotism). He had nothing original to offer in the planning of campaigns and merely followed what he was told, showing that in no real sense was he able to offer military leadership as he did not know about military matters (had no experience). This was further evident by Sergei Witte who stated, “His character is the source of all our misfortunes.” The tsar’s political and military failings which all derived from the same source (his lack of realism) were a potent factor in his decline and collapse of Imperial Russia between 1914-1917 as it acted as the root cause for all the other problems faced after the war. It acted as the root cause as it was overall his stubbornness character and nature that meant he was unwilling to compromise with others and listen to advice that was given to him.

To conclude, the events of the 1917 revolution and the long term problems that the tsar had faced, does not in fact demonstrate attempts to overthrow his authority, but instead highlights the lack of direction and leadership at the top, and the unwillingness at the moment of crisis of the tsar to make necessary compromises, to avoid the possibility of his abdication. Despite the impact of the war and the price of bread quadrupling playing a major role in the events leading up to the tsar’s abdication,

it was ultimately the tsars own decision to take Russia off the gold standard and print off more currency, that damaged Russia’s economy. Additionally, although the duma chose to work against the tsar in the formation of the progressive bloc, it was ultimately his own inability to listen to their advice and have some form of lenience towards them, that meant that his problems extended in the way that they did....