...A workers’ revolt; a mutiny of peasant soldiers; a political revolution? Which of these best describes the February revolution, and why did the Tsarist system fall in February 1917? The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. Its causes, nature and effect are complex and critical in the analysis of twentieth century international history. The revolution began in Petrograd as a workers’ revolt in response to bread shortages, and was aimed at the Tsarist system because it was believed that the government was hoarding the bread in order to drive up prices. However a workers’ revolt, by itself, is very unlikely to result in the abdication of the Tsar, and a critical phase of the revolution was the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison, and the loss of control over Petrograd that the Tsar experienced. Marxist historians have grossly exaggerated the extent of political involvement in the revolution, and it would be fair to say that only at a very late stage of the revolution did socialist political parties become involved. The Tsarist system fell for many reasons: the war against Germany meant that troops could not be deployed in force against the revolutionaries; the Tsar underestimated the extent of the revolts in Petrograd until it was too late; and the Tsar was convinced by his generals that only the Duma could deal with the situation. All of these events were necessary to bring down an autocratic system centuries old, and deeply...
Words: 1715 - Pages: 7
...revolution brought an end to Tsarist rule, there was a strong belief that the introduction of the Provisional Government would lead to a more democratic Russia. However in deposing the Provisional Government, the October Revolution had removed any such hope. The totalitarian Government of the Communist Party continued and intensified many aspects of the Tsarist regime including use of the secret police and an intolerance for opposition and democracy in general. The communist regime were just as authoritarian as the Tsars before them. In terms of ideology the fall of Tsarism in 1917 was a significant event as Tsarist belief in total control and centralisation of power was replaced by the Provisional Government, who had introduced liberal reforms and aimed for a democratic Russia. Ideology came to have a far more significant impact under the communists. It was not completely absent under Tsarist rule as the Russification policy of Alexander III shows, however it had virtually no effect in comparison to Stalin’s purges. Even though the ordinary Russian citizen initially saw little difference between Nicholas II and the new Provisional Government, the authoritarian regime of the Tsar had not simply been exchanged for another in the short term. However in the long term Lenin’s Bolsheviks had seized power in the October Revolution. This was a significant turning point as the totalitarian Government of the Communist party were little different to the autocratic regime of the Tsar to some...
Words: 1207 - Pages: 5
...How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? (30 marks) Around Europe the world’s great powers were developing, both economically and socially through the benefits of industrialisation, except that was for Russia, who was now the most economically backward. The climate for change was surrounding its empire. The people of the empire were ready for a revolution yet Russia’s tsarist rule managed to survived from 1881-1905 under the rule of Alexander III who ruled from 1881-1894 and his son Nikolas II who ruled 1894-1905. Tsarist rule in Russia had its many opponents from the larger radical parties such as the Social Democrats and the Social Revolutionaries, however some argue that it was the divides in these groups and society as a whole that had delayed the revolution whilst others believe it was the result of external factors that allowed the tsarist regime to continue through the animosity it faced. A major divide in the opponents of tsarist rule was class. The divide in personal wealth was larger in Russia than in any other world super power. With the landed classes obtaining most of the wealth and the peasantry and former surfs who made up 80 % of the population however barely getting by, this economic divide caused a major divide in society. The educated classes apposed the tsarist regime due the fact it halted their position in society not allowing them to move up and benefited only the landed classes...
Words: 1385 - Pages: 6
...‘The reforms of Alexander II weakened the Tsarist regime’, explain why you agree or disagree with this view. (25 marks) While in reign Alexander II introduced many reforms into Russian life, hoping they’d play a key part and influence society positively. Nevertheless, the majority of the reforms weakened the Tsarist regime showing that planning was not effective, and that many of the ideas had been rushed, for example, the emancipation of the serfs. The reform of emancipation weakened the Tsarist regime, and was the reform that showed the most cracks. The idea behind emancipation was to ensure that Serfs had freedom and were not tied down by the nobles. Alexander did this by giving the serfs their own land, although, on paper this looked like a positive reform in reality it was infact the complete opposite. The serfs had no money behind them, indicating that they would not make a profit on their land; the land they were given had poor soil. The Peasants had to pay for this land, often putting the majority in debt, and therefore, affecting the economy. As well as the Serfs being badly effected Alexander also upset the nobility because they no longer had the Serfs working for them, leading to a decline in their profits also. It was recorded that between 1877 to 1905 the number of landowners fell from 115,000 to 107,000 and land ownership fell from 2,000 to 144 million acres. The nobility were therefore, becoming a lot weaker and wanted to do something about it. They formed a commission...
Words: 1093 - Pages: 5
...How far was the incompetent rule of Tsar Nicholas II responsible for the revolution? In February 1917, after the Russian people became fed up with the situation of the country, they started a revolution that eventually collapsed the Tsarist system. It is clear, that Tsar Nicholas II’s political naivety and his strong opposition towards reform were clearly some of the reasons responsible for the February revolution. His poor qualities as a leader allowed him to be easily influenced and therefore, not being able to perform the task he should have done as the Tsar of Russia. During his time as Tsar, he had to be often advised by many of the people that surrounded him, this were mainly reactionists, so it did not help at all to calm down the situation in Russia. Other factors did as well occur to make his tasks even harder. These include the socio-economic changes that Russia had undergone at the time as well as the long-term causes that had been chasing Tsarist Russia, since a long time before Nicholas became Tsar. World War One aggravated the situation in Russia, it was able to make clear to people, that the government was weak, as well as the economy in Russia, and that for sure, a change was needed in order to save the country. This change to most of the Russians seemed to be the revolution. Tsar Nicholas II was in fact never ready to take the post as Tsar. He suddenly saw himself in the position of Tsar after the death of his father Alexander III due to a kidney infection;...
Words: 1930 - Pages: 8
...Volume 6. Number 3. March 2001 Summary: The Tsarist government received a severe jolt from the 1905 Revolution and, in order to relieve discontent, soon instituted reforms, including the creation of an elected Duma. From 1906 Stolypin proposed fundamental reforms, especially of the agricultural system, which would ensure that the population had no reason to rebel. But his programme was not implemented, partly because the Duma was an inefficient instrument for the passage of government legislation, and partly because the regime, now that law and order had been restablished, had not the will to overcome opposition from the nobility and the Church. Reform, not revolution, seemed the problem. As a result, the regime failed to learn the lessons of 1905 and collapsed in 1917. Questions to consider How far-reaching were the reforms prompted by the disturbances of 1905? How did Stolypin intend to stabilise the Tsarist regime? Why did Stolypin’s reform strategy fail? Why may he have been assassinated by enemies on the Right? In what ways did the failure of reforms after 1905 pave the way for the revolution of 1917? During 1905, Imperial Russia was beset by revolution. Across the empire, peasants rose in rebellion so that troops had to be called to put down more than 3,000 separate instances of rural revolt. In the towns and cities of Russia, workers came out on strike and held mass demonstrations on the streets. At the same time, Russia was enduring the last months of war with Japan...
Words: 2862 - Pages: 12
...Russian regime on the eve of world war? The stability and strength of the Russian regime (autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas II ) had remained untouched for several centuries, in a sense that it did not alter or fault through the hardships amongst the peoples of Russia/Empire as a whole as a means of the 'sole,righteous' system of autocracy. It was successful in terms of maintaining Tsardom/Romanov dynasty since the early 17th century; surely a revolution would have occurred before the 20th century as most of Europe and America had experienced a mass cultural movement of emerging liberal ideas and reasoning, known as the 'Age of Reason' or 'The Enlightenment'. However this was not the case as the Russian regime under the Tsar had collapsed towards the end of the first World War when he was forced to abdicate from the throne; some would argue that it was inevitable due to the unpopular attitudes towards the social and economic conditions which left the majority of the population in severe poverty. Others may disagree with this inevitability due to such events that could not directly blame the Tsar such as 'Bloody Sunday' in 1905, the state that Russia had been left in by, Alexander III and most notably the role of Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin. The focus of analysis will be to explore key leaders/figures and events, and to create a judgement to which degree the Russian regime was strong or stable (or both) on the eve of World War One. The strength and stability of a regime simply...
Words: 1724 - Pages: 7
...the fateful collapse of the Tsarist regime in early 1917. Some historians, known popularly as ‘optimistic’ historians believe that Russia between 1905 and 1917 was on the road to follow a western path of modernization and liberalization. And even creating a constitution had it not been for the war, which in their opinion created problems for the regime and led to its eventual downfall. On the other side of the coin, there are the ‘pessimistic’ historians who argue that the First World War was simply a catalyst or a speeding up of events that were inevitable, and unavoidable in the long run as there were severe socio-economic grievances that were being harbored since the 1905 revolution. The optimistic view agrees entirely that the First World War to a large extent was culpable to the fall of Tsarism, the reason behind this argument is that before WW1 was to start Russia was stable and significantly moving towards political reform and then from there eventually to a constitutional monarchy, this is backed by the October Manifesto of 1905 which gave the population a voting and electoral process to set up the State Duma, however this reform was almost cancelled out by the advent of the Fundamental Laws in 1906. The Fundamental Laws were in actuality a regain of any and every control back to the government of the Tsar which was granted previously. Here we discuss another important factor other than the war involving the collapse of the Tsarist regime, and that was Nicholas II’s...
Words: 1122 - Pages: 5
...first two Dumas, the tsar took away the vote from the people who wanted more change and also opposed the tsar. As a result of this, the electoral system was weighed in favour of the wealthy and those who supported the tsar. The tsar made a conscious decision to make sure that the third and fourth dumas were less openly obstructive and supportive of the tsar as they were keen to project an image of Russia as a democratic nation. This show’s why the 1905 revolution failed because the October Manifesto was not effective enough to cause an effective revolution Another main reason why the 1905 revolution failed was because of the Tsarist Government. They were highly effective in dispersing the revolution, whilst still upholding the tsar’s absolute right to rule. Ministers, Witte and Stolypin shared similar economic policies and had the same objective of preserving the Tsarist regime. There is a strong case for suggesting that Stolypin and Witte were the last hope for Tsar; however in the end they both made tactical errors. They were blamed for creating the economic problems in Russia and this is...
Words: 746 - Pages: 3
...over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during World War One. Russia was economically and socially ill-prepared for war and the effects and the outcome of the war had a devastating impact upon the Russian people. There had been a continual build-up of discontent towards the Tsar as a result of Russia’s failure in the Russo-Japanese War, the ‘Bloody Sunday’ massacre and the failure of the Duma. However, it was World War One that was the ultimate factor in which the people acted upon their discontent toward the Tsar. Nicholas Romanov was appointed the Tsar of Russia in 1894 after the premature death of his father, Alexander III. Nicholas was thrust into being the Tsar of Russia at an extremely fast pace and was faced with the task of modernising the biggest country in the world to keep pace with the other super powers in the world such as Germany, Britain and the United States. Nicholas did not have the best of relationships with the people of Russia. Russia’s defeats in the Russo-Japanese war damaged the Tsar’s relationship with the people of Russia. ‘Bloody Sunday’ and the 1905 Revolution which followed, the failure of the Dumas, and the relationship that Rasputin had with the Tsar and Tsarina all led to a deteriorating relationship between the Tsar and the Russian people. Coupled with this, revolutionary groups were seriously challenging the Tsar’s position in Russia. The climax in his rule of Russia was when the Tsar appointed himself Commander-in-Chief of the Russian...
Words: 2790 - Pages: 12
...Alexander II (1856 – 1881) was to establish a liberal-democratic monarchy in tsarist Russia’. Do you agree? Give reason for your answer. The Main objectives of Tsar Alexander II were in a sense to support certain aspects of Liberal Democracy in Russia but his main objective was to ascertain Tsarist Autocracy. I will be discussing what his reforms were and the events leading up to them and their influence and whether it improved Russia. In Tsarist Russia, it was one of the largest land empires which covered one sixth of the surface of the world. It mainly stretched from Poland and the Baltic Sea (West) all the way to the Pacific Ocean (East). The Economy of the country was mostly a rural economy with agriculture as the main source for Economy. The large population had to be provided for and Russia also possessed other natural resources such as coal and iron ore. There were only a handful of main industrial developed towns (Moscow and Petersburg). The Society of Russia was ruled by the Tsar who held absolute power (Political) over Russia. Tsar Alexander II came to power in 1855. The Crimean War (1853 – 1856) is important to take note of as this influenced the Concert of Europe. This was a league of monarchs who banded together to ensure that political and diplomatic was stable by ensuring that there was not even a single power that dominated another in Europe. This was to ensure a balance of power. Russia did also play an important role in the Concert over time. The reasons...
Words: 1168 - Pages: 5
...Although homophobia exists throughout many cultures and societies, Russia has recently gained notoriety for its intolerance of homosexuality. In a world that is becoming more accepting and tolerant in social and political views, Russia is moving backwards when it comes to LGBT rights. Many Russians hold a conservative view of homosexuality. Russia’s turbulent political past is a strong contributor to today’s attitudes towards homosexuality and other sexual orientations. Under the tsarist rule, homosexuality was a crime punishable by imprisonment or death. Even under Stalin’s Soviet Union, anti-gay laws were enacted and homosexuals were seen as a danger to the state and sent to prisons. Even though Yeltsin legalized homosexuality in 1993, under the Putin regime, homosexuals have been abused and mistreated due to a series of anti-gay propaganda laws and an increasingly homophobic Russian society....
Words: 422 - Pages: 2
...Peace, Land, and Bread The Bolsheviks’ Rise to Power in Revolutionary Russia In January of 1917, Vladimir Lenin said that he did not believe that he would not live to see a socialist revolution. Indeed, Russia appeared to be comfortably transitioning in bourgeois democracy. Progressive leaders, Pavel Miliukov and Prince Lvov were taking control of the State Duma, both Leon Trotsky and Lenin were in exile, and their Bolshevik Party’s following had been decimated by conscription. Yet by the closing of that very year, the Bolshevik Party had taken control of Russia and transformed the country into the world’s first communist state, with a very much alive Lenin at its helm. In addition to seizing power against all odds, the Bolshevik apparatus succeeded in crushing its rivals in the following years and created a regime that would survive a global depression, genocide, a world war, and a bitter half-century arms race with a world superpower. The Bolshevik Party’s ascension to power was enabled by a number of factors which coincided to create a ‘perfect storm.’ Disunity amongst the Bolsheviks’ adversaries contributed to a lack of opposition. Russia’s wartime economy proved to be a major inciter of unrest in both the urban and rural populace. Aid, both intentional and unintentional, from foreign powers bolstered the Bolsheviks’ position. And of course a sizeable amount of luck cannot go without credit. But the deciding factor, which is apparent before, during and after...
Words: 3171 - Pages: 13
...society? Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication on 2nd March 1917 marked the end of Tsarism’s iron grip on Russia and the subsequent revolution was the clearest possible sign of political and social upheaval. Finally, its people had tired of their nation’s own backwardness and were looking for improvements to an archaic system which they had endured for hundreds of years. Seldom does a revolution succeed without violence being an integral part of its development, and the Russian revolution was no exception. However, there are economic and political factors that helped contribute to the outbreak of this civil disobedience, which must be considered. Underpinning these issues is the stark difference in the social dynamics of Russia between the early 19th century and the early 20th century. The social dichotomy that had presented itself was one that no other European power had experienced. Russia was the only European super-power to still employ serfdom by the time of its termination, for its roots had been deeply embedded in Russian culture. Historian Jonathon Bromley believes the longevity of serfdom was because it “served the economic interests of the nobility and the political interests of the Tsarist state.” This implies that the economic policy and political foundations of the country were predicated on its social structure; therefore social stability was pivotal in preserving the Tsarist regime. The deeply entrenched social structure had been, for centuries, an obvious pyramid, with the...
Words: 5215 - Pages: 21
...judgement? Stalin, upon his rise to power in 1929, assured the Russian peoples that he was a dedicated follower of Leninism; often saying that “Lenin is always with us” indicating that he wished to show how similar to Lenin he was going to be in his leadership. Despite this claim, in actual fact there were a number of distinctly Tsarist elements to his leadership. A Tsar is a leader who rules without parliaments in an absolute autocracy, often being resistant to any reforms; maintaining the feudal, peasant-based illiterate society. Furthermore, they were often intrinsically bound with the Russian Orthodox Church as well as being distinctively imperialistic and chauvinistic. To a large degree, Stalin fitted this model, perhaps most notably due to his “top-down” approach to leadership, thus leading to the idea that he was a “Red Tsar”. He did not fit the model fully, though, especially when it came to being anti-reform, where in fact Stalin was all for reform (though not always for the better) and believed in modernising the USSR and, despite his anti-Western stance, was a Westerniser and not a Slavophile. He was also not imperialistic like the Tsarist leaders had been, and knew that people would react badly to Russian cultural imperialism. The belief that Stalin was a Red Tsar perhaps also came from his self-portrayal as a ‘God-like’ figure, and his employment of very traditional tactics of fear and propaganda in his unquestionable rule. Unlike the governments of Lenin and Khrushchev...
Words: 1613 - Pages: 7
