To what extent was Russia on the verge of a revolution by January 1917?
In the early 20th century, Russia faced many problems, including pressure from the
working class and (Peasantry); strain on the country’s resources and economy due to
World War One coupled with crippling military defeats and the rise of political
opposition due to the hugely unpopular authocratic tsarist reigime in which the
nobility ruled by divine right. First sentence is too long. These factors all contributed
to rising discontent which
reached tipping-point by Januray 1917. However, arguably this growing tension was
not due to the aristocracy as they only formed 1% of the population(unclear).
Furthermore, Catholicism was hugely prevalent in Russian 20th century life(Again
this sentence does not go anywhere). Therefore, the masses would most likely have
believed in the nobility due to their supposed god-given right to rule. Despite this, by
1917. Tsar Nicholas 2nd inadequacy was blatant and along with his unwillingness to
engage in politics this led to discontent amongst the masses
and therefore led revolutionary tendencies by 1917. In contrast to this, Trotsky once
commented that the Tsar inherited this revolution along with the empire, thus that
revolution was inevitable. Therefore, the issue was clearly a complex one, with
undercurrents of unrest spanning several generations. It would therefore be too
simplistic to assume that revolution was either totally inevitable or spontaneous and
various other factors must be taken into account.
Introduction is relevant, however, lacks analysis or tight focus on the question.
(Impact Of People no subheadings) - Throughout the beginning of the Twentieth
Century, the various social groups in Russia began to change, either desiring more
power, or to realise that their power was not as strong as in the past. It is therefore
necessary to debate whether the divisions in nationalities, the peasants and the town
workers were important in bringing Russia to revolution, or if it was the decreasing
faith in the church, the nobility and the Romanov family that resulted in the February
revolt. Nice analytical point
Russia was on the verge of revolution by January 1917 as the national minorities
wanted more autonomy and independence, and also wanted an end to the policy of
Russification(you need to explain what this term means). However, it is arguable that
Russia was not on the verge of revolution as the national minorities were too divided
to fulfil any revolt on the state. For example, one minority faction, the Liberals, did
not want the old Empire broken up; they wanted to maintain the integrity of the state.
It is clear that Russia was not on the brink of revolution as the Liberals were
incredibly dominant in the provisional government(well supported point). But on the
other hand the Socialists wanted to accede to the national aspirations of non-Russian
peoples, which involved offering more self-government and local control. They were
prepared to use violent methods to achieve their aims, which suggest that Russia was
on the verge of a revolution in January 1917. This can be further proven by the fact
that the moderate wings of both the Socialist revolutionaries and the Mensheviks were
dominant in the Petrograd Soviet (well balanced debate). Between 1906 and 1914
there was an industrial boom, with tremendous rates of growth in industries like coal,
iron and oil. Huge modern factories grew up in the cities, employing large numbers of
workers. Entrepreneurs and business people were very prosperous. Therefore people
would be moving away from a revolution as they would not want to upset the new
growing prosperity. However, although in some areas they did quite well, workers, on
the whole, did not benefit from this. Average wages did not rise much above the
pitiful 1903 levels. Conditions at home and in the workplace were just as dreadful as
they had always been. As a result, there were a growing number of strikes before the
First World War. Workers remained disillusioned with their economic and political
progress, which points towards the view that Russia was indeed on the verge of
revolution by 1917. Corin and Fiehn agree with this as they said that “…the main
push came from the workers in the cities.” (H) Life was hard for the peasants who
were forced to work on the estates of the nobility. Although some peasants were quite
well off, in years of bad harvest there was widespread starvation (lacks clarity).For
example 400,000 died in 1891. Disease spread and typhus and diphtheria was
common. Therefore this encouraged revolution as the peasant’s sought a better life.
This resulted in Land reforms which were brought in to encourage higher production
from peasants. However, although production did increase leading to record harvests
by 1913 some historians(better to name them) argue that this was due to favourable
weather conditions not the reforms. They also argue that the reforms had not gone far
enough as they produced a growing class of alienated poor peasants, as the rich
peasants were able to buy up the land of poorer less efficient peasants(H). This
angered the majority of peasants who made up a big part of the population and
indicates that Russia was indeed on the verge of revolution by 1917. Despite this
widespread discontent from the various national groups, peasants and the town
workers, their effect on politics by January 1917 is debatable. This was due to an
equal, if not stronger, amount of oppressiveness from the church, the aristocracy and
the leading Romanov family. The Russian Orthodox Church, which was separate
from the Pope and Rome, had a huge amount of control over the lives of the Russian
people. The church was closely aligned with the Tsarist System. It supported the
divine right of the tsar to rule and exhorted believers to obey the Tsar as the agent of
God. It was a deeply conservative organisation. The scale of control over people’s
lives points to the view that any revolution could be easily dissolved, therefore
showing that Russia was not on the verge of revolution by January 1917. Nobility
made just over one per cent of the population but owned 25 per cent of all the land.
Therefore it could be argued that as the nobility made up such a small percentage of
the population there impact on revolution was limited. On the other hand the fact that
the nobility owned a quarter of the land shows the extent of their power and proves
that revolution would be difficult. Nicely balanced debate.
In many ways, Russia ’s part in WW1 was vital in bringing the country to the brink
of revolution by 1917.(S) The first world war highlighted the power struggle between
the Army and civilian elites and historian RB McKean argues that the Great War was
the major factor which contributed to the massive discontent present in the country
during WW1(H). Therefore it could be said that this mounting discontent and
changing attitudes towards the war proves that Russia was indeed on the verge of
revolution by January 1917. The war placed an unbearable strain on Russia ’sweak
government and economy resulting in mass shortage and hunger. It is thought that this
mismanagement and failure to adequately handle the war crisis turned the people,
most importantly the soldiers, against the Tsar. Peter Kenez argues that no-one was
prepared to put up a fight for the old regime due to the fact that the Tsar simply did
not care about the horrendous casualties of the war(H). On the other hand, many
would argue that the Russian involvement in the war itself, disproves the claim that
Russia was on the brink of revolution as the very fact that they decided to enter the
war could prove they felt that government was stable enough to sustain war.Excellent
analysis and synthesis which is well integrated. One of the main reasons they went to
war was their ambition in the Black Sea region. This is a reflection of the Tsars quest
for power and proves that they were in control and that at least at this point,
revolution was not on the cards. On the other hand, another main reason why they
went to war was to divert the attention of the citizens away from domestic problems
by forcing Russians to band together against a common enemy and therefore it could
be argued that there was discontent in the country – enough for a revolution(A). As
for the war itself, Russian military was defeated at Tannenburg by Germany in August
1914, causing 30,000 casualties and resulting in 92000 soldiers being captured.
Furthermore, Russia was forced to retreat at the Mansurian Lakes in February 1915,
causing 125 00 casualties. The Tsar, Nicholas the 2nd, took control of the war effort
in 1915. J.N Westwood suggests that this was to stop rumours spread by the Duma –
the Russian parliament, that he did not want to win the war, and it is often speculated
that he was not committed to his job(H). The Tsarist State was an absolute autocracy
– the Tsar believed he had been appointed by God to lead his people and ruled over a
vast area, over 100 times larger than Britain . The system was a rigid hierarchy,
involving a huge bureaucracy, so communication was difficult and it was therefore
inefficient. Corruption was also common. The military defeats of 1914-1917 cannot
be ignored as factors in the decrease in loyalty to the Tsar throughout this period. The
public saw the inadequate supplies, logistics and weaponry so began to doubt
Nicholas II as a ruler and this arguably contributed towards revolutionary ideas, with
communist groups exaggerating tales of mutiny and the number of losses in the army,
sparking unrest within the army and society in general(A). The peasants in Russia
made up 77% of the diverse population and it would be easy for them to join together
as they had an overwhelming majority. For example, the populist groups like the
People’s Will, a group of peasants who formed revolutionary ideas to overthrow the
government by terrorism. The combination of heavy losses throughout World War
one and increasing disloyalty to the Tsar led to anunstable Russia about to face a
revolution in 1917(S)
Very good section as you balance eveidence, analysis and thouroughness.
The direct influence of the Tsar must also be taken into consideration, especially as
this figure was so important in turn of the century Russia. Nicholas II, whose sudden
coronation in 1894 due to his father’s unexpected death, was unprepared to “run a
village post office” let alone a country as vast as Russia. This inadequacy was
(publicly admitted again and again prove this!!) and coupled with his unwillingness to
engage in politics along with his lack of organisational skills, Russia ’s need for
industrialisation seemed unreachable. However, modernising Russia was an
impending problem that needed revolution and Nicholas II was simply incapable of
such a task. Arguably, his dislike of any form of government hindered this process
also, as a constitutional government would almost definitely have benefitted the
country and solved Russia ’s problems. This suggests that it was Nicholas II’s
traditional autocratic ways that led to the country’s discontent and placed them on the
verge of a revolution(A). In contrast to this, Trotsky once commented that the Tsar
inherited this revolution along with the empire, thus suggesting inevitability – such
discontent over many generations of Tsarism ultimately always places a country in a
vulnerable position, susceptible to a revolution. Before the late 1800s and early 1900s,
people in Russia had been very loyal to the Tsar. However, in the late 1800s Karl
Marx, a German philosopher, started a new ideology whereby the working classes had
as much power and wealth as everyone else. At this point, a lot of the working classes
began to realise the flaws of the Tsarist regime and called for parliament and free
elections(slightly confused here). This shows that tensions were already growing and
that the possibility of revolution was great before 1917. In 1904, Japan declared a war
with Russia(S) . Both countries sought an empire and looked to take land from either
one. Russia was expected to defeat Japan considering the size difference. However,
Russia suffered a military catastrophe. This only confirmed the Tsar’s inadequacies to
the Russian working classes. As a result of the war, the economic situation worsened
and the cities suffered a shortage of goods. There was a massive upsurge in what???.
Strikes happened regularly in factories and other industrial work places. The new
Marxist ideology had brought about a new party – the Social Democrats(confused
wording). However, because of political differences they split into two, The
Bolsheviks were centrally organised and spread (Socialist Consciousness????).
However, up to 1917, they had little part in any revolutionary (happenings?). The
Mensheviks were widespread and made revolution attractive????. This proves that the
Russo-Japanese war had an influence on increasing tensions and made revolution a
possibility before 1917(A). On 22 January 1905, the Tsar troops opened fire on a
peaceful demonstration. This was known as “Bloody Sunday” and was the spark for
the first revolution. By the end of January 1905, the Tsar was at war with a lot of his
own people and 400,000 workers had gone on strike. Opposition
groups demanded reform, especially the liberals. The Poles and Finns called for
independence and the Jews, equal civil rights. Argument suggests that this had all
arisen because of the rise in opposition parties to the Tsar and the effects of the
Russo-Japanese war on the people. However, it could equally be argued that these
opposition groups were only small, and at this point, there was still widespread
loyalty for the Tsa(A)r. Despite this, many groups such as those who followed Marx
had influence far beyond their numerical strength and by 1917 tension was definitely
growing, with a lot of help from groups like the Liberals, Bolsheviks and the
Mensheviks. Good evidence and analysis but not enough H
Despite later tension, earlier in 1905, Stolypin(identify who he was)introduced a
series of constructive reforms to modernise agriculture, and a plan to achieve
universal education of the masses. Therefore arguably there was a strong foundation
of equality and modernisation even if there was still a long way to go This is
inaccuratee. Several of his reforms included a substantial amount of land transfer
occurred not only between landlords and peasants, but also within the peasant ranks.
Poor peasants sold out to prosperous ones who were developing large farms. Also
colonisation of Siberia, the Steppes and Central Asia was a great success – the new
lands produced livestock, wheat and dairy products. Farming methods also improved:
machinery and artificial fertilisers were introduced. This is demonstrated by the fact
that in 1911 European Russia has 66,000 reapers and West Siberia had 36,000
reapers. Clearly these reforms introduced a better way of life for all living in Russia
and this could be seen as evidence against the argument that Russia was on the verge
of a revolution in 1917(A). However, it was impossible to conquer the underlying
problems of rural over-population and poverty, or to control the weather which
determined the harvest(A) nice balance.. ~(As well as these there were limitations to
the reforms poorly worded). For example, most of the land transfer took place
between 1908 and 1913 due to the marked deadline of 1914. This suggests that
Stolypin had underestimated (the wants?) of the peasants who wanted to keep to the
(Mir- explain term) since this offered collective security in bad times. Peasant poverty
also continued which is why they might want to overthrow the government in a
revolution so therefore these (downfalls?) argue that Russia was in fact on the verge
of a revolution by January 1917. Relevant evidence but you must check your writing
as it is confused.
(The Soviet Republic emerged from the ruins of the populist movement in the 1870s
and was formed in 1901 INACCURATE ). It initially had taken part in the Duma but
later boycotted it and its variety of views in the Soviet Republic’s first congress was
not until 1906 ????. In general the peasants were represented by the Trudoviki Labour
Group – they wanted land distributed back to the peasants. The Soviet Republic???
believed that the peasants would be the main force of the revolution in which the
Tsarist government would be overthrown and be replaced by a democratic republic.
Peasants provided about 50% of the Soviet Republic’s support in 1905, which also
attracted intellectuals who warned to speak out against the government for the
working class and the peasants. The views and the demand of the working class,
peasants and the supporting intellectuals were backed by Victor Chernov. He argued
that the growth of capitalism would promote the growth of these groups. Clearly there
was great determination in the Soviet Republic??? who believed strongly that the
Tsarist government should be overthrown and therefore it can clearly be seen that
politically, Russia was very much on the verge of revolution by January 1917. Good
evidence again but no historiography means no pass.
The third major area which must be examined to evaluate what extent Russia was on
the verge of revolution by January 1917 is economically(S). The growth of Russian
industry was not a mitigating factor for concerns over a revolution in 1917 as it had a
significant economy to compete on the world stage. Sergei Witte (the finance
minister) provided huge investments for industry and wanted to create investments for
an upward spiral in industrial growth. In 1913 the Russian economy growth rate was
higher than Britain , Germany or USA . In fact V.I. Bovykin comments “ Russia at the
end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centaury was one of the most
dynamically developing states in the world”(H). On the other hand earlier in 1904,
Russia was in the midst of an economic depression(A). A slump in markets led to
high unemployment and social tension in towns as millions moved from the
countryside to industrial cities. Industrialisation also created a growth in the middle
classes which put pressure on the government for political change and moved Russia
closer to a revolution in 1917(A). However, there were certainly also other reasons
which were responsible for the working class revolting. A series of bad harvests
during the late 19th centaury meant that there was a fundamental shortages of food
and fuel as prices were exorbitant. Wheat sales fell from 12.8 million metric tons in
1905 to 9.9 million in 1906 and oat sales from 12.0 million to 8.8 million in the same
period. On the other hand there is evidence that the government tried to help the
situation with “the peasant’s bank” in 1906 to buy up land from nobles and sell it off
to the working class and trade unions were additionally permitted in 1906(a).
However, it seemed more logical to the lower classes to wait for a revolution in 1917
to grant them land freely, rather than have to buy land(A). Furthermore Acton
construes that “…trade unions were subjected to a variety of restrictions and reduced
to a skeletal existence” and strikes were outlawed. Still, it was the First World War
and not the government that provided problems for the urban working classes. Super
analysis best in the essay so far.
The economic impact of WW1 is an undeniable factor in the downfall of the Tsar and
the rise of the Bolsheviks(S). Tsar Nicholas II’s failure to maintain civil peace within
his nation; in the front line in which he served and the home which he abandoned
exacerbated price conditions the working classes suffered. Although the role of the
Fist World War in the Revolution of 1917 has remained a topic of debate for
historians of past and present, four identified and distinct factors have proved
conclusive(A). Firstly, that war-weariness fostered the workers’ need for drastic
change. The impact of the war on peasant farmers including mobilisation and loss of
communications also spread this need to the vast majority of the Russian population.
Thirdly, those who fought on the Eastern Front suffered perilous tension between
them and the commanders who forced them to fulfil the role of cannon fodder. The
collapse of Tsarist Russia brought about by Tsar Nicholas 2nd and Tsarina Alexandria
paved the road for Bolshevik triumph(A). The arguments that WW1 served as nothing
more than a catalyst for Bolshevik uprising is justified by the conditions in which it
was allowed to prosper(A). The industrial revolution resulted in the transition from
emphasis on rural agriculture to emphasis on urban industry to maintain European
dominance and power. Almost every major power enjoyed a healthy change from the
old to the new, however the late attempts by the Tsarist regime were too rapid for
people to benefit from them. With rapid industrialisation, comes the inevitable
suffering of the lower peasant classes. Russia, by 1914 the 4th largest coal producer in
the World, required a large amount of workers from the country who provided the
country’s food and the delicate balance of industry and agriculture was shifted to
Russia’s industry. This resulted in mass urbanization of cities, poor sanitary
conditions and starvation. Therefore, the problems which faced the lower classes in
Russia during WW1 existed beforehand and they are inextricably related(A). The war
only made them worse. The vast demand for resources essential to feed the war effort
was provided by the workers. Evidence of riots and labour strikes were now becoming
evident in Moscow and St Petersburg. Agricultural Resources were now being used
for the war. Most peasants moved from the country to the factories. Similar conditions
were evident in the industrialization of Russia before the outbreak of war, thus
confirming that the war intensified the need for Bolshevism(A). However, it is also
important to consider the implications wrought by the war effort; this concerns mostly
those who lived in the country. The mass mobilization of the Russian army disrupted
the Russian economy as a total of 14 million men (half from a peasant background)
went to fight, greatly reducing the labour force. Furthermore, the lack of direct
communication between cities and the villages which fed them during mobilization
resulted in incoherent harvests. The feeling of change and revolution was also present
on the front line(A). The Eastern Front suffered from incompetent leadership and vast
casualties. Although exact numbers are unknown, it is estimated that by October 1916
there were 1.6-1.8 million dead with around 2 milion captured and 1 million
“missing”. The Eastern Front during WW1 is famed for Russian peasants, some
unarmed and without training running blindly into German machine gun fire under the
orders of their generals. Although those who fought on the front line were loyal and
ready to die for “mother Russia”, those stationed as back-up felt that war had to stop.
The Russian army suffered from numerous outbursts of mutiny and revolt, due mostly
to the lack of ammunition, clothing, weaponry and food. Nevertheless, Russian
soldiers continued to fight without firearms, hoping to scavenge a rifle from a fallen
comrade. Soldiers, specifically the garrison at Petrograd, grew tired of the repetition
of losses and grew resentful of their commanders, who in turn were reluctant to
commit their troops to war. Tensions between them were strong and mutinies were
often suppressed with deadly force. Fighting within the ranks was common. Tsar
Nicholas II , against the advice of his advisors, had taken personal command of the
army in 1915. The Tsar acted with utmost ignorance to the clear signs of
revolution(A). However, the Tsar Nicholas’s substitute was to be his biggest mistake
during the war. Tsarina Alexandra was to take his place at home. Her ill choices were
to be the final blow to the Tsarist regime. She was inexperienced and continually
appointed incompetent friends as her ministers and advisors. She sought advice from
Rasputin, the Russian mystic whose disastrous advice to the Tsarina advanced his
own position in power. Many blame Rasputin for Russia’s disappearing economy.
Super anlaysis but not enough historiography.
By 1917 Russia was certainly in a precarious position. Various factors contributed to
this unrest such as growing industrialisation which led to poverty and discontent
among the agricultural poor; The First World War which led to a severe economic
hardship and the poor leadership of the inexperienced and un-motivated Tsar.
However, these factors did not solely lead Russia to the brink of revolution. Some
historians have argued that this revolution was inevitable and that little could have
been done to stop it. Also, the industrialisation benefitted many as In 1913 the
Russian economy growth rate was higher than Britain , Germany or the USA. This
newfound wealth helped many, yet it was arguably the nobility who really benefitted
as little was done to deal with the growing peasant population. Ultimately, as the huge
poverty problem was not dealt with, Russia was in a very vulnerable
position in 1917, susceptible to revolution from both above and below. Although the
causes of the revolution are many and widespread, it cannot be denied that by January
1917, the problems that Russia faced, socially, politically, economically and as a
result of the war were so serious that revolution seemed largely unavoidable.
Excellent conclusion.
Structure= B
Relevance= A
Analysis-= C
Historical Interps= C
Thoroughness= C/B
Clairty= C/B
Overall mark= 14/25