February Revolution 1917 - What/ who was responsible?

Effects of First World War:

- Effects of defeats and losses on the army and its morale, the changing composition of the army 

- Effect of economic disruption and distribution problems on people back home 

- Effect on the confidence in government 

- The actions of opposition politicans in the Duma and the development of the War Industries Committees 

The First World War had a devasting impact on Russia with millions killed and wounded. Incompetant administration and the collapse of the distribution system resulted in a lack of supplies, weapons and medical services at the Front and shortages of food and fuel in major cities, especially Petrograd. - Confidence in the government plummeted. 

Military Performance Details 

Militarily, imperial Russia was no match for industrialized Germany, and Russian casualties were greater than those sustained by any nation in any previous war. Food and fuel shortages plagued Russia as inflation mounted. The economy was hopelessly disrupted by the costly war effort

•  Russian advance halted at Tannenberg 1914 (120,000 Russian troops were killed, wounded, or captured, while Germany suffered only 20,000 casualties)
• Retreat & loss of Poland (1915), Brusilov Offensive (1916) ran out of steam & reversed -> military failure
• Shortages of supplies & equipment – medical supplies (causalities suffered)
• Factors: War Ministry incompetence (Sukhomlinov – Corrupt, inefficient) ; Dynastic structure of army ( got promotion of how close you were to the Tsar)
• Tsarist infrastructure (Railway network doesn’t work well enough)( Messages by motorbike instead of telegram)

Consequences:

Ill-equipped and poorly led, Russian armies suffered catastrophic losses in campaign after campaign against German armies. The war made revolution inevitable in two ways: it showed Russia was no longer a military match for the nations of central and western Europe, and it hopelessly disrupted the economy.

• Undermined morale of the army – loose faith of war effort – more likely to mutiny
• Army composition changed: peasant conscripts, NCOs (Non-commission officers) from a peasant/ proletarian background
• Criticism of the Tsarist regime: Inefficient, incompetent, corrupt
• Middle class/ liberal organisations ( Zemgor- Prince Lvov, WICs – well meaning patriotic liberals to take care of the wounded, dig trenches, tried to learn things around) set up to help the regime but also exposed its failings

SEE ALSO NORMANS STONE’S COUNTER ARGUMENT ON PG. 60

Details:

-        15m mobilised, 1.8m killed, 5m taken prisoner: mostly peasant conscripts

-        Grain production dropped (Conscription + lack of consumer goods)

-        Grain supply dropped (hoarding, transport network inadequate, military needs prioritised)

-        Shortages of food, fuel in towns

-        High inflation e.g. flour increased 500% 1914-17

Consequences:

-        Severe labour unrest (strike days quadrupled in Petrograd 1915-1916)

-        Protests moved from economic to political (e.g. end the war, remove the Tsar)

The Tsar made several bad mistakes. 

- He went to the Front 

- Took personal responsibility for the War - becoming Supreme Commander

- He would not work with the Progressive Bloc in the Duma or co-operate with the non-governmental organisations 

- He left Tsarina and Raputin in charge of government. 

Qualities:

• Stubborn, rigid, indecisive
• Insistence on autocracy, tradition, Divine Right ( wanted to emulate Alex III/ Wife Alexandra encourage these as well as his tutor Pobedonortsev)
• Unrealistic/ sentimental view of his people
• Lacked political skill/ understanding
• Heavily influence by his father/ wife

Details:

• Supreme Commander (August 1915)
• Left government in the hands of Tsarina/ Rasputin
• Refusal to co-operate with Zemgor, WICs
• Rejected Ministry of National Confidence (1916)  - Duma formed Progressive Block

• Nicholas took personal blame for defeats
• He missed opportunity to share responsibility for war mismanagement with liberal politicians
• Tsarina/ Rasputin de-stabilised government: Ministerial Leapfrog ( 4 PMs 1914- 1917 ); dismissed competent ministers (e.g. Polivanov – competent but didn’t last long due to Tsarina) ; Rumours of scandal / corruption discredited regime in the eyes of its supports inc. liberals – killed Rasputin which shows the damage they thought he did to the monarchy
• By 1917, liberals saw Nicholas as an obstacle and their patriotic duty to oppose the regime -

The Tsar took personal command of the army  – which did not help the war effort and meant he was blamed for the defeats.  

He left the Tsarina in charge.   She was incompetent (she let Rasputin run the government), and (because she was a German) rumours circulated that she was trying to help Germany to win.

By February 1917 the government was in chaos.

Structure of regime had underlying weaknesses in its administration, bureaucracy and political institutions. 

Autocratic regime could not cope with the problems resulting from industrlisation and modernisation. 

Was not fit for WW1 against other powers 

Reasons to be optimistic

• October Manifesto divided opposition, won back support from liberals & middle class
• Radical parties largely wiped out 1905-1917 (Okhrana, use of terror – military courts, repression by Durnovo/ Stolypin, leadership exiled)
• Liberals divided and fearful of anarchy/revolution
• Third/Fourth Dumas achieved some reforms: land, limited health insurance, universal primary education

Reasons to be pessimistic

• Tsarist bureaucracy: corrupt/inefficient
• Fundamental Laws (1906): strengthened the principle of autocracy, limited powers of the Duma
• Electoral law (1907) excluded workers/peasants from representation within the Duma -> militancy – RADICAL VIOLENT ACTION AS CAN’T GET CRIES FOR REFORM THROUGH DUMA (PUT EMPHASIS ON THIS)
• Government intransigence after 1911 -> liberal & middle classes frustration with regime

Reasons to be optimistic:

• Witte’s industrialisation
  • Huge growth in heavy industry
  • Railway expansion -> bigger internal market – Trans Siberian Railway
• Stolypin’s agricultural reforms
  • 10% consolidated strips; 17% left mirs
  • Raised production of grain, potatoes, dairy
• Post 1907 boom = rearmament
  • Producing more armoury for war – creating more jobs

Reasons to be pessimistic:

• Witte neglected agriculture, light industry, machine tools, electricity. Tax burden on peasantry.
• Over concentration on food processing, textiles & arms
• Transport network still under-developed/ incomplete.
•  Stolypin’s reforms cut short 1911: backward methods, mirs still strong. Good weather hid weaknesses. 

Reasons to be optimistic:

•  Stolypin’s reforms -> enterprising peasants prospered, increased landholdings ‘Wager on the strong’ – hoping to create a class of successful peasant farmers who were wealthy as he believed they would be conservative and supporters of Tsarism
• Countryside quiet: no major upheavals
• Worker unrest mostly economic, not political & lacked leadership (radicals in exile), was easily controlled e.g. Lena Goldfields -> opened fire and dispersed them

Reasons to be pessimistic:

• -        Growing m/c -> pressure for political reform
• -        Town living/working conditions deteriorated: Overcrowding, poor sanitation, long hours, low pay, harsh/ degrading discipline
• -        Literate workers in large factories -> radicalism, organisation
• -        Increased worker militancy 1911-1914 number of strikes before WW1 is rising rapidly – major unrest is on the way, trend is already happening
• -        Latent discontent in countryside: land hunger; Failure of Siberian project (sent to other parts of the countryside to farm, land difficult to cultivate, returned back bitter at the government); anger at separators.
• -        Stolypin’s reforms grew landless proletariat -> radicalism
• -        Russification & anti-Semitism (national minorities repressed and forbidden – cause for major discontent )