The February Revolution was the very first stage of the Russian Revolution of 1917. In this stage, the Czar was eliminated. Although there is much debate over the cause of this revolution, it has become evident to me that the finger cannot be pointed at one single cause. After reviewing the facts pertaining to this event, it should be concluded that the cause of the February Revolution was a collapse of the Czar's government which enticed a revolution from without because the people of Russia realized they needed "new management."
In the years prior to and during world war one, it was obvious that the state of Czar Nicholas II's reign over Russia was steadily deteriorating. The Czar's actions, or lack there of, greatly contributed to this debacle:
1. His failure to lead the nation to victory over Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (2).
2. His reaction to social uprising which resulted in Bloody Sunday (2).
3. His failure to follow his own word (e.g. lack of recognition of the Duma and Civil Liberties) (2).
4. His lack of sufficient leadership during WWI (2).
As the Czar continously placed the nation of Russia into inferior situations, the people of Russia realized that something must be done to prevent the status of the nation from deteriorating even further. The loss to Japan was a major blow to the people. Upon entering the war, the citizens of Russia were under the impression that this war with the miniscule Japan would be "quick and easy." However, the Russian troops were embarrassed. They were not sufficiently organized of strong enough to take over Japan. This highly disturbed the people of Russia. It can be said that this loss, "hurt their pride." It also made them lose faith in their leadership. Russia had trusted that the Czar would always have the best interests in mind for the people. Nevertheless, this embarassment demonstrated serious flaws in the Czar's reasoning. Therefore, trust in Nicholas was deteriorating. To further the debacle, Russia was suffering tremendous loss as a result of WWI (2). Russia had suffered more casualties then any of the other countries participating in the war. Seeing that things were going poorly on the war front, the Czar thought that it would be best for himself to assume control of the military (1). This, however, was not taken too positively by the Russian citizens. By moving to the front lines, Nicholas left his German born wife in charge of the military (3). This move was looked upon very sourly. People had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they were being led by a native of the country of which they had lost so many soldiers at the hands of. In addition to leaving the affairs of the nation behind him, Nicholas also did I very poor job handling the military. With no military training, Nicholas' tactics and strategies worsened Russia's position in the War (2). The citizens of Russia saw no end of this war in sight. The conditions were steadily decreasing. With so much emphasis being placed on the war effort, the people of Russia suffered drastic food shortages due to the fact that food had to be rationed to provide for the soldiers on the front lines (1). With such poor conditions, the people of Russia made their first move towards rising against Nicholas II's power. They marched to the palace out of protest. When the Czar took notice, he ordered his men to shoot and kill all of the protesters. This occasion became known as Bloody Sunday (2). This decision obviously angered the majority of the citizens of Russia. The leader of their country had not only ignored their requests, he took the lives of hundreds of Russians. Something had to be done in respect to this situation. Czar Nicholas II feeling desperate, promised another event of this nature would never occur again. In order to alledgedly protect the rights of the people, he created the Duma and Civil Liberties. He promised freedoms such as the freedom of Speech and legalized unions (2). Nevertheless, despite these promises, the Czar continued to ignore the civil liberties of the citizens. The tension on the rope holding back from the Russian Revolution could now hold no longer. The citizens were calling for a change. People wanted hope. They wanted a prosperous Russia. With individuals such as Lenin attempting to spread Marxists ideas around the country, the people found an escape from their dilemas. They found a way to get free of their troubles. The solution was a revolution.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Willy!
ReplyDeleteI agree completely about how the Czar's decision to leave Russia in the hands of his German born wife was a major mistake he made in his regime. The country was already in turmoil and leaving an inexperienced leader in power while the county is on the brink of revolution was not the best decision. However I disagree with your point about how the Czar's reaction on Bloody Sunday was wrong. I realize that Bloody Sunday was a sign of the government collapsing but Nicholas's decision to fire into the crowd was his only option. He had to show the people that he was still the leader of Russia and still superior to his people. The same situation has happened in Russia before with Ivan the Terrible and it will happen again later with Lenin. Both of these rulers had to put fear in their people in order to rule effectively.
Oh and just to let you know Bloody Sunday took place in 1905, not during WWI.
ya ya 1905....WWI...same difference.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am going to still stand by the claim I have previously mentioned that the Czar's reactions which led to Bloody Sunday are faulted. Despite the fact that there are obviously instances when this type of ruthless control has succeded, the fact that this reaction was immoral cannot be ignored. The fact remains that the Czar fired upon his own citizens which sparked many people to rise up against his rule.
I must agree with Brad in saying that Bloody Sunday was not entirely a bad thing. Sure, the Russians are human, and thereby have the universal liberty to express their opinion (so I have been taught, at least...) but imagine what would have happened had the Czar not ordered that the citizens be shot. Revolutionaries, although initially focusing on a richeous dogma, tend to move toward radicalism as more people join, because anger breeds anger. The Czar, although accused of being selfish by some by only maintaining his position, was making a valid political decision to nix the revolutionaries, in order to preserve peace. Maybe you would not have shot them, but had you been faced with a threat of national security, and a threat to self-preservation, what would you have done differently?
ReplyDeleteThe evidence (1, 2, and 3) points to a political instability in early 20th century Russia, and by making a small sacrifice at Petersburg, he felt that was saving the lives of millions from a civil war or, even worse in his eyes, a coup d'etat.
This has even happeend in democratic systems! Let's flash foward to the 1970 Ken State shootings, in which students were shot for protesting U.S. involvement in Cambodia. Leaders do what they have to sometimes, as cold and harsh as it may sound.
I agree with u in that the February Revolution occurred because of a series of events that happened inside and outside the government even though i seem to agree more that it was an overthrow from without. However, i do not agree with your statement that "the February Revolution was a collapse of the Czar's government which enticed a revolution from without because the people of Russia realized they needed 'new management.'" According to source 2 "the tsar stepped down in favor of his brother Grand Duke Mikhaul... He [the brother] asked leading figures of Durma... whether they could vouch for his safety if he accepted the crown. None thought they could, so Mikhaul was left with little choice but to refuse the crown." The people of Russia had a chance at a new government. The government would have been run by a new Czar but people of the chaos in the streets and the plots to takeover, the people lost their chance of being under "new management" yet keeping the same structure as before. Instead, the Duma formed a provisional government of democracy that was almost certain to fail because Russia had no prior experience with democracy and had instead been under Czar rule for centuries.
ReplyDeleteThough I agree that the Russian Revolution was a collapse from within, I feel differently about the Tsar's reasoning behind his actions. I believe that the Tsar loved Russia so much, and wanted to badly to protect her glory, that he was willing to take whatever steps necessary. This was the cause of the Russo-Japanese War, in which he tried to stake claims on land in the far east. Obviously, this is why he chose to support the Serbian people in their fight for independence, to restore the presige of Russia. But it seems as though he lost sight of what was the most important in ensuring the prosperity of Russia: the people. This is why he left his place in St. Petersburg to lead the armies on the front. He thought that restoring Russia meant winning political/military glory, not addressing the hunger and want of his subjects at home. This seemed to be an essential flaw in the Tsar's reasoning (Josh's source): he failed to see the world through the eyes of his people and could only think in aristocratic terms of power and prestige.
ReplyDelete