The February Revolution was where Czar Nicholas II was overthrown by the people (Belk Notes). The main things that caused this revolution were the Western Standard, the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, and the rise of the Marxists. These things show that the February Revolution would have occurred regardless of the czar's actions.
The Western Standard was what was perceived as the ideal way to have a country. "For decades the intelligentsia had striven to bring Russia up to the Western Standards. Each generation experimented with different revolutionary tactics, sometimes the mood gave rise to nihilists who rejected everything, and at other times revolutionaries were inspired by the idea of going to the people to 'instruct' them." (3). This shows that a revolution was attempting to happen for a long time, but finally broke through at this point. What made this time so different? Several occasions where Russia could prove itself came and passed without success.
In the Russo-Japanese War, this was supposed to be a quick and easy victory for Russia. However, since they lost, it created a dip in morale for the country as a whole, and put the government into question. How could one of the biggest world powers lose to little Japan? This made them unstable, and more prone to a change. Of course, World War I also had its effect on Russia. In a similar fashion, Russia was supposed to team up with France and put Germany down quickly and make up for the loss with Japan. Instead, they weakened themselves even more, and the people were getting frustrated with the government they had. They were starving so they could give food to the soldiers, and then the soldiers didn't even have the proper equipment to fight. What were they gaining out of these wars except humiliation? This made the revolution more welcoming to the people: they were already unhappy with the government. "The Romanov dynasty and its advisers merely bent before the storm, however, and as the unrest subsided, the regime clawed back many of the reforms." (3) - This quote merely explains how the czar government was falling apart, and there was nothing the czar could have done. It was the whole concept of a czar that was being thrown out the window, so his being a czar put him in that category, and he was out. So after these wars, Russia was left vulnerable and needed to find some kind of protection.
The rise of the Marxists would influence the people who were already upset with their government, and were also in need of direction. This group of people believed that there was bound to be a revolution from capitalism to international communism (according to Marx's five stages of government, this would be the final step). However, the society had to be "ready" in order for this to happen (3). With the government in a bad state, the people were more eager to grab at reforms and revolutions that would fix up what was going on. Lenin tried to convince the people that the government was a little capitalist, and eventually moved the country into communism (3). A communist society sounded good to the people, because they were sitting there starving and weary from pointless wars, and the government wasn't helping them. It was time to change their government to something more modern to fight the more modern problems that they were having.
How could an old-fashioned society solve modern problems like trench warfare in World War I or representing the people properly (Belk Notes)? It can't, so this is why a change in the government would have occurred regardless of the czar: the February Revolution. And it was caused by the Western Standard, the Russo-Japanese War, World War I, and the rise of the Marxists. The Modernization Revolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your thesis that the February Revolution was an overthrow from without regardless of the czar's actions is interesting, but I can't help but dispute it. First, the Russo-Japanese War. This war actually was intitiated by Czar Nicholas II's actions. It was his imperalistic approach on Manchuria and Korea. If not for the czar's attempt to control land in the Pacific that did not belong to Russia, there probably would have been no war against Japan. Also World War One. It was again the czar's actions here that actually initiated the war. He was the one that needed to regain support from the people, so he tried to prove himself the leader of all the slavic people: the serbs. He encouraged them to unify for independence, and their assassination of Ferdinand was the first noticeable cause of the war. He also initiated a partial then general mobilization, which meant war in the 20th Century. It was him that also ignored Germany's peace proposal, initiating the war. Sure the people may have been getting tired of the czarist regime as a whole, but I think better decisions made by the czar would have prevented an overthrow, putting the February Revolution on him.
ReplyDeleteI am under the impression that your stance on this issue is very intriguing. I am going to have to admit that the points you have made have a significant degree of credibility. However, you fail to take a step backwards and analyze the ORIGNS of the issues you presented. You say that the people were angered about the results of the Russo-Japanese war. This is a valid statement. However, this embarassing defeat lies on the shoulders of the Czar. In his quest to control the Pacific, as Kyle mentioned, the Czar became greedy and somewhat "big headed." He was under the impression that they would roll right over Japan and that would be the end of the conflict. This was obviously a false assumption and the people of Russia that the Czar led them into this defeat. Going on with another of Kyle's points, the people of Russia were angered at how WWI was turning out BECAUSE of the Czar's poor leadership. First, he led them into a war to try and reestablish Russia's military dominance. Second, as the leader of the military and being absolutely inadequate for the job due to inexperience and a lack of knowledge, the Czar unefficiently led the military troops and did more harm then good. Third, with the onset of war, the Czar shifted all of his attention to the troops. Therefore, the nation was left in economic and political ruin. As for the rise of Marxist ideas, it can also be said that this rise was a call for change. The people had realized the inadequacies of the Czar through the nation's trials and tribulations. Using the metaphor Coach Belk used in class, McDonald's customers may call for "new management" to improve the conditions in the restaurant. The people of Russia needed to be guided in a new direction with new leadership. It was not a choice, it was an obligation that must be carried out for the good of Russia.
ReplyDeleteI think you guys are picking on me because I'm the only one who took this stance, but I do see your points, and I suppose I should have looked at these standpoints. I will amend my stance and say that it was an overthrow from without, along with "inadequate" decisions from their Czar.
ReplyDeleteJeanine, the guys are trying to pick on you.. But... I sort of agree with what they are saying. Think about this question...Can you take your evidence and use it to back up the thoughts that it was a collapse from within? A historian can take the same evidence that you provided and make conclusions that it was a collapse from within. Yes, the people were angered and mad about how badly things were going making them want to overthrow the government, but if the government was runned correctly they would not feel the need to overthrow. I believe that in order for someone to feel the need to overthrow or take over something or someone else, they would not like the way that things are going. So with this being said the two can sort of go hand in hand... The collapse must take place first, whether its in a church or classroom, this way in a government, causing the people to overthrow. You also said that they were only getting "humiliation" out of the war when they were starving the people at home and barely equipping the soliders at war. Well, who is in charge of all this? Who should be held responsible for this humiliation?? The government. So therefore it was a collapse within the government, causing them to overthrow. Good try Jeanine, but i had to get mines in too!!!! Go band!!!
ReplyDeleteNina, I promise I'm not trying to pick on you, but since I already have my two in depth responses accounted for, I'ma ask you a question, because I love you.
ReplyDeleteWhen you mention the rise of Marxists, you cite something about the nation being 'ready.' But, I don't think I can agree with your assertion that Russia was ready. Lenin was even quoted, multiple times, saying that in the state it was in, Russia wasn't ready. What do you think would make it 'ready' for a revolution in the Bolshevik's favor?
Because at the time of the Feb. Revolution, anyway, the Bolsheviks were underground groups of disgruntled students. The majority of the Russian people didn't know much (or anything) about Marxists or their aims. They may have wanted an end to an autocratic rule, but I don't think that automatically means they wanted Bolshevik rule either.
But that may just be an errant thought on my part. :)