These are my thoughts:
I think the Tsar was doomed to abdicate when he went to frontline, and when he lost the support of the people of Russia.
The Tsarina's interference with the Duma meant that the Russians' concession and representation was further damaged. Those who had wanted to work with the Tsar in the duma began to change their opinions.
The lack of supplies from the lack of organisation meant there were less supplies for the working class. The working class participated in the 'uncontrollable riots'. These would be the people who later make up the army, but would be disloyal since they resented the Tsar because of their desperate conditions.
The opposition to the Tsarina's influence meant that this was the foundation of raging opposition which became apparant in the revolution. The Tsar's reputation was damaged beyond repair and te Russians' were now fed up with the principle of autocracy. This is later shown when during the Feb 1917 revolution, their demands turned to overthrowing the Tsar.
Rasputin's influence on Russia meant that those in the Duma didn't represent the true issues faced by Russians. This is because Rasputin ridded of ministers who actually made a difference and replaced them with incompetent ministers who didn't know what they were doing.
The fact that the Tsar went to the frontline meant that he took personal blame for the running of the war and could not blame it on his generals since he was responsible for the conduct of the war now. Several defeats such as Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes and the 1916 Brusilov offence lay the foundations of the soldiers' discontent for the Tsar which went on to result in their disloyalty during the 1917 revolution. 'If the troops turn against the government, then nothing can save the country from a revolutionary upheaval' - he was doomed from the moment the soldiers became discontent.
The fact that the Tsar was blamed meant that the situation was worsening. The Tsar ignored a telegram telling him that Russia was at 'crisis point'. People now wanted rid of the Tsar, since there was an 'absolute necessity of doing away with them.'
The point when the army became disloyal to the Tsar was when some refused to fire on the demonstrators (against the Tsar's orders). I think they did this because they were terrified they were going to be sent to the front line. I also think the Tsar was doomed to abdicate when he tried to suspend the Duma rather than work with it and empower it, but the Duma defied him and stayed intact and in sessions. They formed a committee of all classes/parties which looked to remove the Tsar's influence. The 'Progressive Bloc' had wanted to be fully involved in the war effort to prevent Russia slipping into revolution, and if the Tsar had worked with them, it could have been a chance to show he was workin with the people and to offload the responsibility of war. As usual, the Tsar went about in his own incompetent way and retained the principle of autocracy, which later led to his abdication.
Another question for you - What are the similarities and the differences between the 1905 and 1917 revolution?
Here are a few I came up with:
Similarities:
- Both revolutions were not organised by a political group, they were the culmination of spontaneous crowds from the people of Russia
Differences:
- The army did not remain loyal to him and refused to fire on the crowd in 1917
- There was no alternative to the Tsar in 1905, whereas in 1917 the Bolsheviks offered hope with 'peace, land and bread'
- In 1905, the Russo-Japanese War had ended by the time the revolution began. In 1917, WW1 was still ongoing throughout the revolution
- The aims of 1917 eventually turned to wanting to overthrow the Tsar, whereas in 1905, the people only wanted political reform
- In 1905, the revolution was peaceful. In 1917 the demonstration gathered in momentum and grew violent
- In 1905 the Tsar dissolves the Duma with the powers of the Fundamental Laws, but in 1917 he tried to dissolve the Duma but they defied him
No comments:
Post a Comment