Thursday, October 29, 2009

Bryson- Overthrow from without with Czar not making things better

The February Revolution was a result of an overthrow from without and the actions of the Czar did nothing to help the situation.

At the beginning of the crisis in Europe that eventually took shape into WWI, many Russian civilians had nationalistic feelings and believed that they should help out the Slavs. Also, the politicians were proud to enter the war(3). However, one of the main obsticles Russia faced in the war was shortages back at home as well as on the war front. Inadequate transportation was the cause of this. The railroad system in Russia was not expansive enough to get a suffient amount of supplies to the interior(1). Also, even though Russia had the largest army, their technical and economic development was not advanced enough to supply all the equipment needed in a war(1). Within the first year of the war Russia was already experiencing shortages and they were in the war for three years(3). On the war front, soldiers were sent out to fight without weapons and told to take weapons from fallen soldiers because the shortages were so severe(3). At home, families were without food because of a bad harvest and with a poor transportation system, there was no way of importing food in to help overcome the bad harvest(1). Soldiers who are sent into the war with no weapons are most likely not going to fight as well as equipped soldiers. Not only do they have to go through a battlefield were dying is a great possibility and the threat of it is around every corner but they are also faced with the situation of trying to find a weapon to protect themselves in all the caos. Also, soldiers with families back home are probably worried about their families and who will provide for them especially in these tough times. With their families on their minds, they are not totally focussed on fighting and winning the war. Throughout history there have been stories of people doing anything and everything to survive so with the threat of starvation, it should not come as a suprise that the people in Russia began to rally and speak out against the government and the way it was ruling.
All of these issues were created without any mistakes or bad decisions on the Czar's part. However, once it was evident that these issues were present in Russia, the Czar ignored the citizen's request and did little to help them(1). This decision to not help the people out intensified the people's protest and did nothing but make the issue worse.
Also, the Czar deciding on taking over command of the army with no command experience is an issue that is usually considered to have led to a collapse because of mistakes by the Czar(2). However, the Czar was left with no choice when generals came back after suffering great and embarresing losses and the people wanting results from this war that was costing the people so much. A leader taking control of the army could boost the moral of the army and be intemidating to the opposing army because here is a decendant of a long line a Czars that has ruled Russian for centuries coming to the war front and with the Czar on the war front, it would take less time for messages to be sent back to him and decisions would be made that much quicker. The people's desperate attempts of survival led the Czar to leaving his country and commanding the army. However, the Czar did make a mistake that did not help the situation. He left his German wife in charge of Russia in his absense(1). With Germany being one of Russia's many enemies in the war, the people of Russia dispised anything Germany(1). This would lower the people's respect in the government and could result in them not listening to the government anymore and searching for a new and better government. However, if the Czar never had to go to the war front in an attempt to be victorious in the war, his wife would have never been left in charge.
Because of all of the issuing in Russian during this time and the resulting instability, many opposition groups began to rise(2). One of the main groups was the Marxist group(2). People began to feel that Marxist rule might be better than Czar rule(2). To the people, any rule would be better than starving to death and being sent to war without a weapon.
All of these issues were direct results of bad ruling on the Czar's part. The Czar's actions only increased speed of the instability that was already rising. The Czar even abdicated the thrown; not because he felt he was doing a horrible job but because of his sick son(3). However, because of the instability in Russia, the heir to the thrown refused it because the government was not sure it could ensure his safety(3). This shows just how much instability there was even when the Czar, Nicholas II at that time, was no longer in power.

2 comments:

  1. I agree with your points, but I disagree with how you apply them. I'll focus on the last paragraph. These issues were a direct result of bad ruling on the Czar's part, in fact, they caused them. Let's look at the evidence presented.

    "The railroad system in Russia was not expansive enough to get a suffient amount of supplies to the interior(1)."
    This is the fault of the Czar. In a country like Russia ruled by one strong leader, transportation is up to him. In Germany, the Autobahn(sp?) was constructed by the government to ensure transportation. The economy suffered from poor roads, meaning it was Czar Nicholas' job to step in and give better roads/railroads, as roads appear to be traditionally the leader's job (Romans, England, Germany, America, etc), which means (at least in my eyes) that this was a Czar-caused problem.

    "Also, even though Russia had the largest army, their technical and economic development was not advanced enough to supply all the equipment needed in a war(1)"
    This is another Czar problem, as the military is directly linked with the leadership. Had he seen the Russo-Japan war as what it was, a wake up call, and had he stepped up training/weaponry research and production (especially since he was looking for a war to boost his reputation (2)), the army would not have been a problem and would have, in fact, been very useful.

    "Also, the Czar deciding on taking over command of the army with no command experience is an issue that is usually considered to have led to a collapse because of mistakes by the Czar(2)."
    And yet again, we see the Czar showing himself up. Had he allowed his military leaders to work instead of taking over, he could have 1) saved face and 2) had a better chance at winning, as his planners had a better grasp of military tactics, as well as basic commands. And anyone who had such poor transportation systems should NOT be in charge of logistics..needless to say he was far worse than anything his military commanders could have been.

    These facts all point to the Czar, at least in my eyes. He was the one tasked with making sure the country ran smoothly, but he certainly did not do a good job. Ignoring his people, the Duma, and neglecting his basic responsibilities, the Czar ran his country into the ground, to such an extent that the revolution was needed if Russia was to survive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In reading this, I got a better idea to another source to why The Roman Dynasty was a collapse from within. Not only were the decisions made by the Tzar unwise, but I think part of his decision making was based on the incompitance of supplies and other necessities that Russia was faced with. At the beginning of his post, Bobby said that Russia's army faced shortages, and an inability to supply the army with supplies. This could have been one of the leading factors that led the Tzar to leave Russia to take command of the army, which was one of the factors that caused disorder between the people and government of Russia. So an incompetance of supplies theoretically was the root cause.
    Another factor that supports this that I read from Bobby's post is that he said there was a shortage of food at the homefront. The problem that caused argument between the citizens and the government here is that the Tzar saw this incompetance, but chose wrong ways of solving the problem. Bloody Sunday showed how the Tzar used violence to quiet the people and to hamper the growing problem that was being faced. Because of incompetance of supplies again, the Tzar made yet another unwise choice that stemed restlessness.

    ReplyDelete