Thursday, October 29, 2009
Jessica Hunter- February Revolutioin: A Collapse from within
The first of three stages of the Russian Revolution, the February Revolution in 1917 was caused by a collapse within the government. “It is impossible to run a country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs.” (Impact of WWI document) The government is powered by people and in order to maintain tranquility and organization within the government one must satisfy the needs of his people. The Czar openly chose not to do that. Instead, he ignored the grievances from the citizens as “cries rang out for bread and people exclaimed ‘’Down with the Tsar!’ By February 26, under the orders from the tsar, troops fired on demonstrators.” (Book Source) What did the Czar believe he was accomplishing by doing this? He lost his credibility in the eyes of his people and confidence in himself. His doubt originated from Russia’s loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and led him to “doubt his own ability in running a dynasty.” (Mr. Belk class notes) This doubt was the beginning of the end of the Czar’s rein as he allowed his uncertainties to influence his actions. Had the Czar not reacted in this manner and had instead coversed with the people, could the February Revolution have been avoided?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the Feburary Revolution may have been avoided if Czar would have included the voice and opinion of the people, simply because the entire Russo-Japanese war may have been avoided, which is one of the main causes of the Feburary Revolution. Or on the flip side of this situation, maybe Russia could have won the war if Czar would have included the people in on his decision. Maybe Czar could have hired an experienced military leader to lead the army, so that they may be more experienced and better prepared for war, along with better equipment. But instead Czar wanted to be such a dictator and do everything himself, and that's exactly why he caused so many issues to Russia's empire. Czar was only one man with one naive way of thinking...that lead to failure, but could have been a success had he included the opinions of the people.
ReplyDeleteI think your question, "Had the Czar not reacted in this manner and had instead conversed with the people, could the February Revolution have been avoided?", is referring to converse about the R-J war. Am i right? If so, based on the large degree of discrepancies caused by the Czar, even conversing with the people about the Russo-Japanese War would not have prevented the February Revolution. Reading about his personality and responses to situations has shown that he is an insincere ruler (like you said, he even doubted his ability to run a dynasty), and hearing the people's thoughts about the R-J War would have merely been an attempt to keep the people for protesting against the loss. After all, his only motive for creating the Duma was to repair his image and attempt to restore his credibility after "Bloody Sunday". Hearing the people out would have simply cut out the "middle man", the Duma, but his only motive for listening to the people would have been to restore some type of credibility after the war, not because he cared. In my opinion, he would have still allowed civil liberties but ignore them; and the February Revolution would still come about as a result of the inconsistencies of Russia's involvement in World War I.
ReplyDeleteI agree a hundred percent with what Jessica said in the first paragraph. I think the main problem that occured within Russia at the time that caused the collaps from within was the imbalance of beliefs between the government, and the people. The fact that the Tzar left Russia to take command of the army and that he left his wife, who was German, to lead Russia caused the start of turmoil and an imbalance of stablility between the people and the government of Russia. To make it worse, unwise decisions by the Tzar caused food shortage and poverty for many people. Of course Bloody Sunday occured wich was just a way to hush the people of Russia, not solve the problem. So what was seen here is total disagreement between the government and the people and the government as turmoil, started to rise. this imbalance of agreement only became worse as the Tzar took violent actions to try to "solve" the problem that was growing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the evidence Jessica showed. My question though would be, do you not agree there WERE other factors to the fall of the tsarist government? From how I read it, she's assuming that everything could have been avoided if Tzar Nicholas II had been more compitent and cared more for the people and not his reputation (although I do agree that that helped). But, I just thought I'd add a little food for thought. If it the February Revolution was solely based on the Tsar's actions and what he failed to do, why was the new implanted government so accessible? What I mean is, if it were purely a collapse from within, wouldn't there be some sort of confusion period, one for adjustment? People came right in with the ideals that the Provisional Government was made up of, giving the appearance that they were ready for the Tsar to fall. So, couldn't this be evidence of an overthrow. If Germany could be dubbed the aggressor for having the pre-made Schlieffen Plan, couldn't having a pre-made Provisional Government set of ideals make Alexander Kerensky considered an aggressor? And that could be supporting evidence for an Overthrow From Without. Just some food for thought.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to Shawana, about the suggestion that he hired a more military advanced leader:
It was common for the Tsars to appoint leadership to members of the royal family, no matter the skills. So, although I agree that it would have been much more beneficial, he stuck with that appointing Nicholi(sp) which was his uncle, who didn't have much military knowlegdge. But, how likely is it for someone to break a continuous tradition? He stuck with the way that had always happened/worked and he took the fall for it.
To Anitra, the question of whether the Czar had conversed with the people first was referring to Bloody Sunday, not the Russo-Japanese war. Sorry for the confusion.
ReplyDeleteJessica, when you said : “The government is powered by people and in order to maintain tranquility and organization within the government one must satisfy the needs of his people.” I thought of how a government is supposed to have its weaknesses but still be tenacious. Tsar Nicholas II was not a complete selfish leader; he served as the leader of the army to show his devotion to the country (2). And leaders, sparingly, have to do what is best for the country instead of what is desired by the country, and I think that was what the Tsar was doing by not adhering to the demands of the Duma (2). If he would have given the Russians the freedoms they demanded, then they might have wanted more freedoms that the government is unable to give such as freedom to vote their own leader. If the Tsar allowed a few freedoms such as speech and protest, then soon the people would be asking to choose their own leaders, and the Tsar wanted to prevent this.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point Dhara, I didn't even take into consideration the possbility of the Russians abusing their freedom if given the oppurtunity. As the saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile," states. However, I believe that in order to keep the people happy and content, one must take in the considerations of their wants and needs and provide them with some of the more reasonable ones. Restrictions may apply as well. But as you can see through the Czar's demostration, keeping a tight leash on the people had a negative effect as the people grew more hostile and rebelling. Like an overprotected child set free in college.
ReplyDeleteFrom the sources we have been given, I do think that the February Revolution could have been prevented. Jessica, in your original post you said, "The government is powered by people and in order to maintain tranquility and organization within the government one must satisfy the needs of his people. The Czar openly chose not to do that. Instead, he ignored the grievances from the citizens..." I think that if the Czar had listened to his people's needs then the people would not have turned on him and wanted him thrown out of power. For this whole situation not to occur, not only would Nicholas II would have needed to listen but the people would have also needed to be more patient and not revolt on their leader. In hard times they should have supported the Czar which might have given him the confidence to fulfill the country's duties. If he had the people's encouragement and support, I think that Nicholas II would have been more confident and would have then listened to the thoughts from his people and wanted to please not only himself but also his country. So, for the February Revolution to have been prevented, Nicholas II and the people of the country would have needed to support each other and listen to each others ideas and thoughts.
ReplyDelete"It is impossible to run a country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs.” (Impact of WWI document)."
ReplyDeleteThis sums up my feelings, to an extent. I would propose a slight modification, however, "It is impossible to run a country without paying attention to the voice of the people, unless the people are made to feel that they are not in control.”
I believe that what the Czar's main problem was that he tried two different leadership styles. As we learned in psychology, helplessness can be learned. This is how dictators operate, any opposition is taken out and killed as an example. This means that less people are around to disagree with you and those who do are certainly not going to be open about it. So long as you can keep the people down and ensure they do not feel in control, so long as you are able to keep them down with violence, you will be able to do whatever you like. However, the Czar attempted to compromise. Killing the civilians, from a psychological perspective, was attempting to make them feel helpless. However, he then made a mistake. Instead of finishing the job out (continuing the "purge"), he let the mob feel empowered. He gave them the Duma. This compromise ensured that he would not be feared, because he publicly backed down. Had he continued to crush opposition, people would have fallen back in to place and had he been able to do this, he could have restored the economy and continued the war. Revolution during a major war is not healthy for a country, and it should have been put down. By making the Duma, he let them have power. Just for a moment, they felt they were in control. This was, as history shows, all it took. People then became emboldened and when he ignored the Duma and went back to trying to play militaristic tyrant, the people rose up against him. If you want to rule with an iron fist, do so without showing weakness. His act of weakness was the crumbling point of the dynasty, had he addressed the concerns before it reached the point of open rioting he would have been alright, however at that late juncture there was no other option than to crush the revolt, something he failed to do.