To What Extent Was the Tsar Responsible for His Own Downfall?Essay Preview: To What Extent Was the Tsar Responsible for His Own Downfall?Report this essayTsar Nicholas was to a great extent responsible for his own downfall, the defining factor being his decision to take over as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces during World War One. Russia was economically and socially ill-prepared for war and the effects and the outcome of the war had a devastating impact upon the Russian people. There had been a continual build-up of discontent towards the Tsar as a result of Russias failure in the Russo-Japanese War, the Bloody Sunday massacre and the failure of the Duma. However, it was World War One that was the ultimate factor in which the people acted upon their discontent toward the Tsar.
Angered by the sudden death of his father, Alexander III, Nicholas resolved to “restore the autocracy to its traditional, feared position” (Traynor, 2002, p. 72). Alexander removed the reforms of his father and relied heavily on the reactionary ideas of Constantin Pobedonostev. Pobedonostev combined religious orthodoxy, virulent anti-Semitism and absolute autocracy in his tutoring. He dismissed reformers as half-wits and perverted apes and maintained that the whole secret of Russias order and prosperity is in the top, in the person of the supreme authority (Traynor, 2002, p. 72). Pobedonostev also found time to give private tutoring to the son of Alexander, young Nicholas Romanov. The role of Pobedonostev had a damaging effect on the ideologies of the young Tsar and his view on Russia and the people who lived in the country. After the assassination of Alexander III, Pobedonostev gave conservatism a new sense of purpose with the slogan Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality, (Bromley, 2002, p. 59). Nicholas took to heart the lessons he learned from Pobedonostev, (Lynch, 2005, p. 11). Traynor argues, when the time comes to assess the downfall of Nicholas II the damaging legacy of Pobedonostev must not be forgotten (Traynor, 2002, p. 72).
After the unexpected death of his father, Nicholas was the next in line to lead Russia. “Nicholas was not prepared for this role and admitted that he did not want to become Tsar.”(Corin & Feihn, 2002, p. 9) Nicholas had the enormous task of modernising Russia and bringing it to the same level as European powers such as France, Britain and Germany. Historian Hans Rogger writes “Nicholas had no knowledge of the world or of men, of politics or government, to help him make the difficult and weighty decisions that the Tsar alone must make. The only guiding stars that he recognised were an inherited belief in the moral rightness of autocracy, and a religious faith that he was in gods hands, and his actions were divinely inspired.”(Morris & Murphy, 2004, p. 124) What made the inexperienced Tsars job even more difficult was the fact that modernisation was a serious threat toward the Tsarist regime. Indeed many industrial countries such as Great Britain had democracies and parliaments in which the middle class featured strongly and the power of monarchs was limited. Industrialisation in Russia created social tension when millions moved from the countryside to the cities. The need for a more educated workforce would enable people to challenge the government. The growth of the middle classes would also create pressure for political change and for more accountable and representative government (Corin & Feihn, 2002, p. 9). With calls for more representative government and the population becoming more politically aware of the situation in Russia, a peasant uprising was likely if the Tsar did not find a solution to the problems in Russia. The Tsar was ill prepared to deal with such issues. He lacked the necessary experience and expertise.
Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance, was a key figure who served the Tsar and who might have saved the monarchy. Witte knew that the answer to Russia future greatness lay in industrialisation. Witte took measures to stabilise the rouble and to attract foreign loans when he introduced the Gold Standard (Morris & Murphy, 2004, p. 126), a system whereby a state regulates the value of its currency, and the amount of currency in circulation. It seemed that Wittes industrialisation reforms were coming together as the reforms gave the country one of the stablest currencies in the world and encouraged foreign investment (Pipes, 1995, p. 18). When Witte assumed office in 1892 the Russian production of coal was at 6,010 tons and twenty years later the figures increased to 25,430 tons. There were other huge increases in the production of petroleum, iron ore and steel. Petroleum increased from 3,864 tons to 11,283 tons, iron ore increased from 1,736 to 5,742 as did steel from 378 tons to 3,314 tons. From 1904 to 1912 the Russian imports increased by 520.3 million roubles, while the exports increased by 412.4 million roubles. The Russian industrial workforce increased from 1887 to 1908 with the factories increased from 30,888 to 39,856 and the workers from 1,318,000 to 2,609,000 (Morris & Murphy, 2004, p. 129). These rapid increases in production reflected the huge potential the country had. Tsar Nicholass rule showed promise at this time and showed that he was making an effort to improve the agricultural situation in Russia.
However the Tsars inexperience was one the main reasons for his downfall and this was evident in the military defeats against Japan. When Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese war during 1904-1905 problems for the Tsar intensified. This war fought for the control of Manchuria and Korea. After setbacks at Port Arthur and Mukden the Russians suffered a significant defeat and their Baltic fleet was completely destroyed at the battle of Tsushima. In August 1905 they had to sign a humiliating peace treaty which gave the Japanese control over Manchuria and Korea, “A campaign which it was hoped would boost the governments waning popularity had ended in ignominious defeat,” (Traynor, 2002, p. 76). This war significantly strained the Tsars relationship with his people.
A series of military and naval defeats, culminating in the loss of the war against Japan, generated fierce criticism of government incompetence, ministerial confidence was visibly shaken, and smouldering discontent burst into flames, (Acton, 1990, p. 10). On 9th January 1905 a demonstration was organized to present to the Tsar a petition for reform. 200,000 people forming five separate processions turned out, they were led by Father Gapon. There was no malicious intent by the marchers who only wanted to present their petition to the Tsar. Their demands were “to reduce the working day to eight hours, to provide a minimum wage of a rouble a day, and to abolish overtime,” (Traynor, 2002, p. 76). Troops opened fire on the unarmed men and women who were marching peacefully
;(Acton, 1990, p. 10). The first of the four marchers, Dr. Fuhrmann, who marched for the revolution in December 1903, carried a “patronising” revolver (Murdoch, 1905), and had been shot when he was carrying a rifle. The others held a candlelight vigil at the entrance to the Imperial Palace and were joined by all twenty-four revolutionaries. Lenin followed;
Kautsky, Lenin, Lenin, Dreding, Trotsky
“The Bolsheviks of 1905, when the revolution had broken out and had broken the government and smashed the state, had a common aim, which was the destruction of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I know from experience, from the experience of the Soviet Union, that these efforts were not only unsuccessful, but even dangerous, and they could not succeed only in destroying the dictatorship of the proletariat and the power of the State. The proletariat, by its own work, was unable to prevent the power of its ruling class from being overthrown in the first place. The defeat of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which was achieved only by the heroic labor movement of the people, was the triumph of the revolution.
The second aim was to make the working class self reliant, to make it dependent upon private property. To make it independent of the State in the eyes of society. The revolution of 1905 and 1908, which took place in the midst of a growing discontent by millions of working class people, exposed the possibility that, if we were to succeed without the intervention of the State, we might soon break ourselves into different classes under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
As for the third and last of the marchers, Dreding, there were others who turned out as well and in full force. The men and women of the Russian Army (now Russia’s Army) were among the most ferocious and relentless, and the general mobilization of troops, both in the East and in the West, carried a tremendous measure of terror and violence against the working class. During the struggle against the Red Army, men and women were arrested, beaten, killed, dismembered, driven to the gallows, were captured and murdered, and the rest of the Bolshevik Party, which stood in the way of the proletarian revolution, was crushed under the pressure of the Bolshevik Revolution.
The women of the Bolshevik Party, in their battle against the Red Army, took every opportunity to give way to the men and women in front of us only by the strength of their endurance.
Trotsky, Trotsky, Tsekmen
“The greatest of these women, with the most extraordinary courage.” Dreding and the other comrades of the Bolsheviks, with an inspiring story of heroism in defeat at the hands of the Red Army, all wore their “peace flag” and did their best to express that fact. When the Soviets had given up its power to the proletariat and the state, they had taken up arms and armed themselves. During