February Revolution

1. February Revolution Causes.

2. Causes: Historiography Overview [Use in introduction.] • Soviet School (e.g. Pokrovsky) conform to Maxist-Leninism • Revolution was inevitable development in Russian society. They also highlight importance of Bolsheviks. • Liberal Historians argue that WWI was the penultimate cause in what they view as a spontaneous uprising. • Post-glasnost historians (Pipes) maintain that the Bolshevik influence was limited. • They believe the revolution to have been an unfortunate accident. • Western synthesis approach (blend of elements from earlier schools) e.g. OrlandoFiges.

3. WWI: Role of army & high Command • By 1917, the Tsar had lost full support of the army generals. • This is evidenced by General Krymovwho stated at the time that the army would welcome a coup d'état. • Pipes suggests the role of the generals was significant – the Generals saw the Tsar as getting in the way of wartime command; he took command in 1916.

4. WWI: Role of army & high Command • Further examples of Generals conspiring to remove the Tsar – Nicholas’ train was diverted to Pskov en route from Stavka to Petrograd. This was to stop him from interfering! • Also, Bruilov, Krymov & Alexeyev who had a copy of a draft abdication in his pocket. • It can be argued that this alienation resulted from the lack of Russia’s military, industrial and economic preparation for WWI.

5. Role of impact of WWI • The economic crisis worsened when Turkey entered the war against Russia, cutting off access to the Med, costing Russia 90% of her pre-war imports & exports. • Nove argues that Russia’s general industrialisation was uneven, leading to a surplus in some areas and vast shortages in others. Also highlights - lack of efficient transport systems and communication, meaning that Russia couldn’t exploit her manpower.

6. Role of impact of WWI • Army was poorly trained and ill equipped. Despite early victories e.g. Memel, Russia was tactically weak. Evidenced by; disastorous battles such as Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in late ‘14. • Ferguson highlights the superiority of the Germans – better organised & led because they understood the importance of trained leadership and small scale fighting.

7. Role of impact of WWI • The Tsar took control in 1916 and thus made himself personally liable for each defeat. Illusions of his infallibility (esp. amongst the peasants) was shattered. Remember: ‘Little Father’ persona. • Volkogonov further suggests that defeats were personally identified with the Tsar from that point. • Oxley argues that the Russian military had made significant improvements by 1917, however, to contemporaries focus was on the financial repercussions and high fatalities.

8. WWI Historiography Orland Figes: “The soldiers not the workers of Petrograd proved decisive in the outcome of the February Revolution” Edward Acton: “what assured the victory of the insurrection was not the workers movement but the soldiers mutiny” Richard Pipes “The true protagonist, the army” Pipes: “Russians wanted to pursue the war more effectively, and they felt that the existing government was not capable of doing it, that existing political structures were in need of a major overhaul” Dmitri Volkogonov “The two chief causes of the February Revolution were an unsuccessful war and a weak government.”

9. Social Impact (with link to political) • International Women’s Day (23.2.17): thousands of women participated in a demonstration. Joined with Putilov worker’s protest against inflation and shortages of food and supplies caused by the war. • Oxley: argues that this was intended to be a peaceful demonstration but quickly turned into a revolution. • Figes: Highlights role of Vyborg textile workers in rallying support from men from nearby factories. Revolution was “born in the bread queues.” • Trotsky agrees with Figes – suggests the bread queues had become a forum for discussion. This politicised the discontent of industrial workers.

10. Social Impact (with link to political) • Food shortages were extreme. Often women would wait in queues for 24 hours to receive bread. • Liberal view that the revolution was spontaneous is reinforced by the lack of political leadership because at the time of those events, Lenin and other such political leaders were in exile. Further to that, Figes notes the demonstrations grew over a number of days. The first day – 100,000 and the following day – 150,000 when they were joined by students, shopkeepers, bank clerks etc.

11. Social Impact (with link to political) • Initially, there was firing from govt. troops into the crowds (Figes: Russia’s second Bloody Sunday). • This violence and taking into account that events developed over a series of days rather than hours reinforces the idea that this revolution came from the ‘bottom up’, lacking leadership. • Figes points out that by 26th Feb, there was “virtually a general strike” with 200,000 demonstrating. • All historical schools highlight the importance of the troops in Petrograd. Figes notes the event when the Cossack troops were told to stop the protestors, from the protest a girl presented a red rose to the officer in charge. Acceptance led to the crowds calling the Cossacks ‘Comrade Cossacks’.

12. Social Impact (with link to political) • Various troops refused to fire on the crowds - even under direct orders from the Tsar. • Resulted in lower classes becoming more politicised. They began carrying red banners and slogans changed in the extreme from demanding bread to the removal of the Tsar. • Figes argues “mutiny turned disorder into revolution”.

13. Social Impact [long term meets short term] • 1861 Emancipation Act – improved rights of former serfs but it failed to meet expectations of most – mainly due to unfair distribution of land and continuation of the Mir led to divisions between young and old. • Fear of losing land is evidenced by peasant role in 1905; expressed hatred towards landed classes through boycotts and land seizures. • Lynch highlights the ‘land question’ & explains that despite Russia’s size, a lack of fertile land combined with increasing peasant population led to shortages in land. • Bromley discusses Russification: Suggests it only successful in division and resentment by regionally proud peasants & national minorities towards autocracy.

14. Social Impact [long term meets short term] • Liberal historians: Abolition of the Mir and redemption payments post 1905 reduced peasant unrest SO only as a result of WWI did they regain revolutionary ambition. • YET, Shanin refuses to dismiss the possible role of the peasantry as a revolutionary force. Argues that revolutionary parties had solid support from peasants in certain closely defined regions including many central rural areas.

15. Social/Economic • In 1906 Stolypin succeeded Witte as PM and his agrarian reforms included the abolition of redemption payments and greatly reduced the Mir while supporting independent peasant households. • These reforms, were, to an extent, successful in gaining support, however, the assassination of Stolypin in 1911 meant reforms were not longer of priority. They ended with the outbreak of WWI. • Also, problems existed due to Tsar’s unwillingness to concede power evidenced by the 1906 Fundamental Laws. • Philips views these concessions as an attempt to regain support for the regime. • Lynch argues that with time and without the war, Stolypin’s land reforms would have been successful suggesting that autocracy could have been saved. • However, Stolypin’s goals would have taken generations to complete and pessimists believe his efforts would not deliver enough to satisfy the demands of the peasantry.

16. Political • Evidenced by – Fundamental Laws far removed from constitutions of other European countries. • Nicholas only used political concessions to pacify immediate discontent, rather than implement permanent changes. • Optimists believe the Duma had potential to develop into a western style parliament however, pessimists argue that the Tsar had no intention of becoming a constitutional monarch. • Service presents a balanced account; acknowledging the Tsar’s stubborn support of autocracy would have been less restricting had the Duma been a greater governing force. (Evidence on next slide)

17. Political • For example, 236 of 422 Duma deputies formed themselves into a progressive bloc and tried to persuade the Tsar to make concessions, rather than directly challenge his authority – he would not act on their advice. • Can argue that even though the Duma were not militant revolutionaries, it allowed specific groups – who had previously been suppressed – to come together for the first time, particularly the Kadets. • Biggest impact of Duma was to increase the expectations of the workers and indeed to disappoint them by introducing the possibility of fundamental change.

18. Political • McKean views the alienation and political opposition of the middle class and moderate liberal nobles as important alongside popular opposition in the failure to bring about substantial change. • Lynch argues that decades of failure to bring about change was the origin of discontent and the reason why many intellectuals favoured revolution.

19. Political • Government was not totally ineffective as by 1916 it controlled most aspects of transport and industry as well as distribution of food and fuel. • Figes argues that Russian bureaucracy was outdated and incompetent. Support by Wade who highlights the lack of unified government; describing it as disorganised and often archaic in nature. • Figes suggests that a generation gap formed in the army and church and this led to a new mindset which favoured the interests of the state as opposed to the Tsar.

20. The Tsar • Often ‘hid’ from the realities; choosing to hunt rather than deal with unrest. • Known to focus on the minor admin tasks rather than attempt to deal with the wider political issues at hand. • He incurred the hatred of the intelligentsia by failing to consolidate Alexander II’s reforms. • Lynch: Nicholas was stubbornly conservative and had a clear belief in muscovite autocracy. • Service: This adherence to an outdated concept of autocracy and his inability to lead Russia into a modern industrialised state left him an open target for revolution. • Lieven : respects the Tsar’s faith in conservatism and sees him as a well-meaning. • All agree that Nicholas faced a huge task in attempting to cling to outdated social and political structures in a rapidly changing empire.

21. The Bolsheviks • Liberal view supported by fact that all major party leaders were in exile resulting in an apparent lack of political leadership. Though these leaders were in exile the influence of their socialist parties cannot be ignored. • Historiography divided. • Soviets e.g. Pokrovsky maintain that the party was popular since conception but struggle to find evidence linking them to the revolution. He claims their role as an attempt to legitimise the new regime post 1917. • Liberals e.g. Lynch dismiss importance of Bolsheviks and focus on the Menshevik party whose influence was larger. • Figes & Shanin highlight that by 1917 socialist ideologies had found vast support amongst the general literate populace. Figes argues that leaders to the revolutionary cause emerged from the protests, often in the form ‘student heroes’ suggesting politicisation amongst the common people.