[This essay is from the school's Witold Pilecki history essay competition in the KS4 category, where the prompt was: 'History is shaped just as much by chance as it is by long-term social and economic trends’ To what extent do you agree with this claim? In contrast to Esa Brister's classics-inspired interpretation of the topic, here Adam investigates the example laid down by Russian history.]
ADAM HASAN
The Tsarist period was a time frame (1462-1917) in which Russia was ruled by Tsars of the House of Romanov, who believed - and made sure that it was believed - that they validated the theory of the Divine Right of Kings over their people. After over four hundred years of absolute sovereignty, the revolution of 1917 deposed the Tsar, Nicholas II, from power and thereby ended the reign of the Tsars. In this essay I will argue that although poor decisions and unlucky happenstance played a part in the revolution, the poor social and economic conditions of the time seeded the uprising, the toppling of Nicolas II, and the end of the reign of the Tsars. When the right conditions are met, it takes only a small spark to start a fire and, as such, Russia post-WWI was a freshly-laden pyre ready to ignite.
Viewed through this particular lens, the idea could be proffered that the events of 1917 were purely due to chance. In the days after the shooting of unarmed civilians by Tsarist soldiers in St Petersburg, strikes and demonstrations took place for days on end. Workers on strike from many companies joined the crowds at the celebration of Women’s Day, and this celebration took up many streets in the central part of the city. Higher and higher went the number of people on the streets, bringing soldiers to refute and rebel against their orders to fire on the workers going on strike, most of whom had now joined the mass crowds supporting the international event. This affair, had it not taken place, would have led to the Russian Revolution taking a distinctly different turn. Many members of the military in this case began to defect and revolt against the Tsar, the self-appointed Commander in Chief, ultimately leading to the fall of said Tsar.
However, to fully unravel the intricate complexities of the dethroning, we must account for the extreme social and economic changes at the time. These could have had an even more significant impact on the revolution than the "chance event" outlined. To begin with, one should examine the impact of WWI with particular attention to detail. The conflict brought abhorrent suffering, undifferentiated between soldiers and civilians. Many evaluations dictate that two million Russian militia were killed, without even considering the sizeable civilian death toll. Morale during this time became very low and the Russian people looked for someone to hold accountable for the suffering. Declaring himself leader of the army in 1915, the powerful leader of the House of Romanov became a suitable target for the venting of this discontent, especially as the sovereign of the eastern world knew little about the command and infrastructure of substantially large brigades. The First World War was a catastrophic disaster for the Reds. Defeat after defeat was endured at the feet of the Germans, who, at the time, wielded great power.
In 1915, Germany pursued the surrender of Russia, directing all resources they possessed in a series of offensives such as the Winter Battle of the Masurian Lakes. Alongside its allies, Germany unified all the commanders to force the retreat and scattering of troops, who lacked modern weaponry or enough supplies, and forced the majority of the Russian army into retreat. Large areas of territory (including what are now Lithuania and Poland) were overrun. Whilst the Tsar left St Petersburg and moved to the army headquarters in Russian Poland, he left behind a provisional government, which seems to have failed at every crossroad it met. The economy of Russia was also failing. Industry fell into a crisis during the war, with shortages of raw materials and finished goods from overseas, which forced the army to face a major lack of supplies and weapons.
In terms of transport, prior to the war Russia had a severely underdeveloped railway system. Yet during WWI, the government saw opportunity therein and pounced, using the railways predominantly to contribute to the ongoing conflict, and the railway therefore had to withstand the pressures of moving large proportions of the infantry and provisions to the front line. Consequently, the capital struggled with supplies of food as the trains were otherwise engaged. To top this off, agriculture faced major problems as Russia was still heavily reliant on peasants, many of whom were conscripted into the army. This engendered a major scarcity of labourers on the farms and a parallel fall in production. Shops had to tolerate a lack of goods to supply. Socially and economically, Russia was in dire straits.
By 1916, inflation had reached an all-time high of almost two hundred percent, bringing the value of the rouble significantly lower, and therefore the price of basic necessities was soaring. Life was getting progressively more difficult, particularly for the lower classes. After this, Russia faced problems with housing, services, jobs and providing suitable and sustainable living conditions. During the first few weeks of 1917, to memorialise the famous "Bloody Sunday" of 1905 where peaceful protestors were fired upon by soldiers, an estimated 150 000 citizens went on strike in Petrograd, which only exacerbated the country's economic woes. In mid-February, mass rioting had dominated many towns and was only growing. The power-hungry, dictatorial Tsar endeavoured to return to his safe haven in Petrograd, and to recoup what he believed was his rightful kingship. Yet, in late February, revolutionaries unsatisfied with the accumulating tendencies in the country diverted his return train to Pskov with other intentions in mind. Alone, isolated and powerless - the leader of a failing nation; the Tsar's abdication came forth.
To conclude, I agree to a small extent that chance plays its part in history, however the catalyst for change in Russia in 1917 was created by social and economic factors. After this, a chance spark could have come from anywhere and set the country alight. If a civilian protest leader was sick on the day of the uprising, conditions were such that another would have taken their place. If the Tsar’s train had not been diverted, instead of an abdication, we would have seen, not much later, Nicolas assassinated to the same end. The factors leading up to the end of the Tsars (a government in deep crisis, a leader out of his depth, a hungry and an underserved population), directly led to the demonstrators taking to the streets in the revolution, and the burning down of the Tsarist regime, allowing Communism to germinate.
Bibliography
Trotsky, L., 1965. The History of the Russian Revolution.. London, Gollancz: (Translated From the Russian by Max Eastman).
Westwood, J., 1981. Endurance and Endeavour. London: Oxford University Press.
Figes, O., 1996. A People's Tragedy. United Kingdom: Jonathan Cape.
Various online sources from the BBC, Wikipedia, History.com, Socialist Alternative and the AHRC.
Leading Image: Troops opening fire on civilians in Petrograd, 1917. Credit: Viktor Bulla, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Comments
Post a Comment