Summary: Romanov Dynasty
Essay Question: Discuss the economic, social and political grievances in Russia at the turn of the C20th and their contribution to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities nor the desire to rule imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. Those who met the young tsarevich, described him as pleasant and likeable, but otherwise unremarkable – hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he “never wanted to rule”. But tradition …show more content…
overcame his personal concerns: Nicholas later pledged to uphold the autocracy bequeathed by his father and to preserve the monarchy for his own son. “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” -Sergei Witte, Russian minister. Nicholas had several good qualities: he loved Russia, he had a strong sense of duty and a stilted affection for the peasantry. Nicholas was a conservative, elitist and racist. Raised in a sheltered world and kept at arm’s length from the Russian population, Nicholas held a twisted view that rebellion and revolutionary ideas were the products of dark forces. “What is going to happen to me and all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” -Nicholas II.
The Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty was directly impacted by social, economic and political issues and grievances throughout the 19th and 20th century including the autocratic ruler ship, the idea of Liberalism, Nationalism, Socialism and Industrialism, World War 1 and Rasputin. The Romanov family ruled with an iron fist and used brutal violence to control its subjects. The repressive policies such as Russification and lack of effective reforms prevented the modernisation of the social, political and economic aspects of the nation. Autocratic rulers promoted the feudalistic style class system which created extreme poverty in the lower classes and gave the people no political power. “The Russian Revolution launched a vast experiment in social engineering – perhaps the grandest in the history of mankind…The experiment went horribly wrong, not so much because of the malice of its leaders, most of whom had started out with the highest of ideals, but because their ideals were themselves impossible”- Figes.
The autocratic rulership and repressive policies promoted the feudalistic style class system and prevented societal advancements throughout Russia.
“The daily work of a monarch he found intolerably boring”-Kerensky. In a tsarist autocracy, all power and wealth is controlled and distributed by the tsar. The center of the tsarist autocracy was the person of the tsar himself, a sovereign with absolute authority. The rights of state power in their entire extent belonged to the tsar. Power was further entrusted by him to persons and institutions, acting in his name, by his orders, and within the limits laid down for them by law. The purpose of the system was to supposedly benefit the entire country of Russia. “Autocracy is a superannuated form of government that may suit the needs of a Central African tribe, but not those of the Russian people, who are increasingly assimilating the culture of the rest of the world. That is why it is impossible to maintain this form of government except by violence.” -Nicolai Tolstoy. Unlike western monarchies who were subjugated in religious matters to the Pope, the Tsar of the Russian Empire was the supreme authority on religious. Another key feature was related to patrimonialism. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the state (lands, enterprises, etc.) than did Western monarchs. The tsarist autocracy had many supporters within Russia. “Be more autocratic than Peter the Great and sterner than Ivan the Terrible.” -Tsarina …show more content…
Alexandra, to her husband .Major Russian advocates and theorists of the autocracy included the world famous writer, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Mikhail N. Katkov and Pyotr Semyonov. They all argued that a strong and prosperous Russia needs a strong tsar, and philosophies of republicanism and liberal democracy are not fit for Russia. To the common people, the tsar was seen as responsible for all good in their lives, while all disasters came from meddling bureaucrats, functionaries, and nobles. “I will preserve the principle of Autocracy as firmly and unflinchingly as my late father.” -Nicholas II. This contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and human rights. Liberalists support and advocate for things such as a constitution, free and fair elections, equal rights/human rights, free trade and separation of church and state. The zemstvo was a form of local government that was instituted during the great liberal reforms performed in Imperial Russia by Alexander II of Russia. The idea of the zemstvo was elaborated by Nikolay Milyutin, and the first zemstvo laws were put into effect in 1864. After the October Revolution of 1917, the zemstvo system was shut down and replaced by a system of workers ' councils. The system of local self-government in the Russian Empire was presented at the lowest level by mir and volosts. These bodies, one for each district and another for each province or government, were created by Alexander II in 1864. The zemstvos were originally given large powers in relation to the incidence of taxation and such questions as education, medical relief, public welfare, food supply, and road maintenance in their localities, but they were met with hostility by radicals, such as the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the nihilists, who believed the reforms were too minor. ‘The state is that great where everyone lives of everyone else’- Frederic Bastiat. These powers were, however, severely restricted by Alexander III (law of 12/25 June 1890); the zemstvos were then subordinated to the governors, whose consent was necessary for each decision. The governors had drastic powers of discipline over the members. The Union of Liberation was a liberal political group founded in St. Petersburg, Russia in January 1904 under the influence of Peter Struve, a former Marxist. Its goal was originally the replacement of the absolutism of the Tsar with a constitutional monarchy. ‘Liberalism will rule life’- Pares. Its other goals included an equal, secret and direct vote for all Russian citizens and the self-determination of different nationalities that lived in the Russian State. The Constitutional Democratic Party was a liberal political party in the Russian Empire. Party members were called Kadets. Konstantin Kavelin 's and Boris Chicherin 's writings formed the theoretical basis of the party 's platform. Historian Pavel Miliukov was the party 's leader throughout its existence. The Kadets ' base of support were intellectuals and professionals; university professors and lawyers were particularly prominent within the party. A large number of Kadet party members were veterans of the zemstvo, local councils. The Kadets ' liberal economic program favored workers ' right to an eight-hour day. The Kadets were "were unwaveringly committed to full citizenship for all of Russia 's minorities" and supported Jewish emancipation. ‘Liberalism is the basis of all countries’-Pares. Therefore it is shown how liberalism contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one 's nation. ‘There’s either one or none’- Pares. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state 's decisions and actions. Russification was the name given to a policy of Alexander III. Russification was designed to take the sting out of those who wanted to reform Russia and to bind all the Russian people around one person – the tsar. Russification was first formed in 1770 by Uvarov. He defined three areas of Russification – autocracy, orthodoxy and ‘Russian-ness’. Of the three, Russian-ness was the most important. Before Alexander III, Russification meant that all the tsar’s subjects, whatever their nationality, should be accepted by the tsar as being ethnic groups in their own right provided that they acknowledged their allegiance to the Russian state, which included the government and the church. “Nicholas was the source of all the problems. If there was a vacuum of power at the centre of the ruling system, then he was the empty space. In a sense, Russia gained in him the worst of both worlds: a Tsar determined to rule from the throne yet quite incapable of exercising power”- Figes. Under Alexander III, Russification took a new turn. He believed that all cultures and nationalities within the empire should be wiped out and that all the people within the empire should become ‘Great Russians’. Russification had no time for small ethnic groups that were more concerned about their culture at the expense of Russia’s as a whole. To be loyal to Russia and therefore the tsar, you had to be a Russian. Supporters of Russification did not try to intellectualise the belief. They believed that it was for the greater good of all of Russia – and that was enough. The victims of Russification were those who were of non-Russian nationality but lived within the empire. Any weakening of their culture had to lead to resentment. As there were no constitutional means by which they could voice their anger, they turned to revolutionary action. Any support for the national minorities was seen as support for a weakening of Russia’s true identity. “The unskilled workers... appear to have no political opinions whatever.” -Henry Mayhew journalist. It is evident how nationalism contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Marxism was an ideology so powerful, it managed to wipe out faith in God from the minds of millions of people and reform a nation, baptised for nearly one thousand years and became a new religion to many, strictly following its rules as if they were holy commandments. The Russia Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was created to oppose narodnichestvo, revolutionary populism, which was later represented by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs). The RSDLP was based on the theories that, despite Russia 's agrarian nature, the true revolutionary potential lay with the industrial working class. The RSDLP was illegal for most of its existence. In 1903, the Second Congress of the party met in exile in Brussels to attempt to create a united force. At the congress, the party split into two irreconcilable factions on November 17: the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, and the Mensheviks led by Julius Martov. “Only the ‘Bolsheviks marched. I despise and hate them more and more. They are truly Russian idiots.”-Maxim Gorky, July 1917. Despite a number of attempts at reunification, the split proved permanent. As time passed, more ideological differences emerged. According to many historians the Bolsheviks pushed for an almost immediate "proletarian" revolution, while the Mensheviks believed that Russia was still at too early a stage in history for an immediate working-class revolution. The two warring factions both agreed that the coming revolution would primarily be "bourgeois democratic" in its character. But while the Mensheviks viewed the liberals as the main ally, the Bolsheviks opted for an alliance with the peasantry as the only way to carry out a popular revolution while defending the interests of the working class. “The Bolsheviks’ strength was that they were the only party uncompromised by association with the bourgeoisie and the February regime, and the party most firmly identified with the ideas of workers’ power and armed uprising”- Fitzpatrick. Essentially, the difference was that the Bolsheviks considered that in Russia, the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution would have to be carried out without the participation of the bourgeoisie. The idea of a Soviet as an organ to coordinate workers ' strike activities arose during the January–February 1905 meetings of workers at the apartment of Voline during the abortive revolution of 1905. According to Voline 's book, its first chairman was a paralegal Khrustalyov-Nosar. The Soviet held regular meetings and printed leaflets, "Notices of the Soviet of Workers ' Delegates. However, its activities were quickly ceased due to governmental repression. “We shall build socialism even on our impoverished base, we shall drag ourselves along at a snail’s pace, but we shall build socialism.”- Nikolai Bukharin on the NEP. This contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Industrialisation is the period of social and economic change that transforms a human group from an agrarian society into an industrial one. ‘It is a part of a wider modernisation process, where social change and economic development are closely related with technological innovation, particularly with the development of large-scale energy and metallurgy production’- Pares. It is the extensive organisation of an economy for the purpose of manufacturing. Russia’s industrial revolution was later than most because the agricultural techniques used in the mid nineteenth century had not changed since the medieval period. Without a strong agricultural foundation industrialisation was impossible. The industries of coal, oil, iron, and textiles boomed once German and French backers began to invest in them. In 1897, Sergei Witte became Minister of Finance. The same year saw growth in industry and economy. Much of this growth was due to increased heavy industry and the expansion of railroads all over Russia. The enlargement of Russia’s industry meant more industrial workers. These workers had strikes, and in order to placate them a maximum workday of eleven and a half hours was implemented by the government in 1897.The disaster that the Russo-Japanese War turned into manifested itself in civil unrest, workers overworked and underpaid were starving in the cities because peasants farming in the country had no way to transport crops from the rural to the urban areas. Frustrated workers began to strike. ‘Industrialisation needs to sustain for a good power’-Fres. From 1905 to 1917 industry remained in a latent state. While it was not completely crippled it did not bring equal or sufficient wealth to all involved. When World War I came, Russia was not prepared and the lack of resources necessary in war halted economic growth. Workers were pulled from the factory, and conscripted in the army. The main reason for Russia’s difficulties During the First World War was lack of efficient transportation and sufficient ammunition. The Russians went to war with whole regiments of soldiers without weapons or ammunition. Many soldiers deserted the army to come home to kill a landowner and get himself more land. Without the proper supplies, the Russian forces were not motivated to fight. The loss of Poland in 1915 nearly halted the industrialisation of Russia. Poland was the transportation and industry base of Russia, without Poland the war effort was impossible. The ensuing revolution of 1917, in which Nicholas II abdicated, also proved to be a thorn in the side of industry as it further slowed the process of economic and industrial growth in Russia as strikes spread and opposition toward the Czar grew. The Reign of Nicholas II saw the rise and regression of industry in Russia. “…the cause of ruin came not at all from below, but from above…The Tsar had many opportunities of putting things right, and several times he was on the point of taking them…far from a dictation of events from below, this passive people went on enduring long after it ought to have ceased to do so; and when the crash came, it had done so little to shape it in any way, that it was left to the last minute of a single regiment to determine the issue”-Pares. Therefore it is evident how industrialisation contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Though Russo-German tensions dated back decades, Nicholas II believed that family ties precluded any chance of a war between the two empires. Nicholas and the German kaiser Wilhelm were cousins; Wilhelm and Nicholas’ wife Alexandra were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria of England. Nicholas thought it highly unlikely that the kaiser would declare war on the kingdom of his own relative. What the tsar did not count on was Wilhelm’s own duplicity, nor did he appreciate the forces of war that had been building in Europe for more than ten years. The alliance system demanded that nations support their allies if one was attacked. This placed the tsar in a perilous position between the Balkan nation of Serbia – a nation with close political, ethnic and religious ties to Russia – and Austria-Hungary and Germany. “For the sake of the nations life it was necessary to restore the army’s will to die.” -Alexander Kerensky on the June Offensive. Serbia had been invaded by Austria-Hungary and Russia had declared war in response, prompting the German kaiser to declare war on his Russian cousin. When conscription orders were distributed in the capital, more than 95 per cent of conscripts reported willingly for duty. The tsar too was changed by the events of August 1914. In the months prior he had shown little interest in the affairs of state, but both the war and the revival of public affection reinvigorated Nicholas, who threw himself into his duties. “Right from the beginning of hostilities I have never been able to find out anything about our general plan of campaign. [Years before] I was acquainted with the general plan in event of war with Germany and Austro-Hungary. It was strictly defensive and in my opinion ill-conceived from many points of view, but it was not put into execution because the circumstances forced us into an offensive campaign for which we had no preparations. What was this new plan? It was a dead secret to me. It is quite possible that no new plan was ever established at all, and that we followed the policy determined by our needs at any given moment”- General Brusilov. The tsar’s renewed fortunes did not last long, however. Russia’s war effort began poorly and soon exposed some critical problems in how the army was being commanded, organised and equipped. Russia mobilised millions of troops quickly, indeed more quickly than their German enemies had expected – but many were not adequately prepared or supplied. Thousands of Russian infantrymen left for the front without critical equipment, including weapons, ammunition, boots or bedding. In late 1914 Russia’s general headquarters reported that 100,000 new rifles were needed each month, but that Russian factories were capable of producing less than half this number. Soldiers were better armed with prayers and penitentials, as Russian Orthodox bishops and priests worked busily to bless those about to go into battle. The Russian army’s shortfall of equipment was compounded by poor leadership from its generals and officers. By the end, 800,000 Russian soldiers had died and the Russian army had failed to gain any significant territory. “I can do nothing with my army. I am glad when it carries out my combat orders.”- Anton Denikin, White general. Two years of war also had a telling impact on Russia’s domestic economy. The conscription of millions of men produced a labour shortage on peasant landholdings and a resultant decline in food production. Large numbers of peasants were also moved to the industrial sector, which generated a slight rise in production but nowhere near enough to meet Russia’s war needs. The war placed Russia’s transportation system under enormous strain, as engines, carriages and personnel were redeployed to move soldiers and equipment to and from theatres of war. Inadequate maintenance and replacement of this infrastructure caused it to fail. By mid-1916 an estimated 30 per cent of Russia’s railway stock was unusable. This had a severe impact on Russia’s cities, which relied on railway shipments for their supplies of food and coal. Short of reserves to fund the war effort, the government resorted to printing excess paper currency, which in turn led to inflation. “An army cannot be built without repression. The commander will always find it necessary to place the soldier between the possibility that death lies ahead and the certainty that it lies behind.” -Leon Trotsky. It is clearly shown how World War 1 contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas II had a romantic vision of him leading his army, therefore he spent much time at the Eastern Front.
This was a disastrous move as it left Alexandra in control back in the cities. She had become increasingly under the influence of the one man who seemingly had the power to help her son, Alexis, afflicted by haemophilia. Alexandra believed that Rasputin was a man of God and referred to him as “Our Friend”. Others, appalled at his influence over the tsarina, called him the “Mad Monk” – though not in public unless they wanted to incur the wrath of Alexandra. Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. 'The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with the Duma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. 'Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s ' - Historian Chris Trueman.
The Duma took their complaints directly to the emperor but Rasputin’s power in St Petersburg was unchallengeable. As long as he had the support of the tsarina, he had power as Alexandra all but dominated her husband. As long as Alexis, the sole male heir to the throne, was ill, Rasputin had power over Alexandra. When the Duma was dissolved in September 1915, Rasputin took charge of just about all aspects of government in St Petersburg. Ministers who criticised Rasputin or who disagreed with his policies were summarily dismissed. Scheratov (Interior), Krivosheim (Agriculture) and Gremykim himself were all dismissed for daring to criticise “Our Friend”. Gremykim was replaced by Sturmer who simply agreed with everything Rasputin said. Nicholas was isolated at the war front but was frequently too indecisive to be of any use. Alexandra still tried to dominate the home front with Rasputin. Food was in short supply as was fuel. The people of Petrograd were cold and hungry – a dangerous combination for Nicholas. On December 30th 1916, Rasputin was assassinated by Prince Yusipov. ‘There was the belief that if one could get rid of Rasputin the revolution may not happen.’ ‘It [the Tsarina’s relationship with Rasputin] was to create a rift that would...contribute to downfall of the Romanov dynasty’ 'But Rasputin’s murder had been too little and too late to save the autocracy ' - Carol Townend . '...the royal family became inextricably linked to a disreputable man like Gregory Rasputin. Such an association only brought discredit to the Romanovs. ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Alexandra bullied her husband into ordering an imperial funeral – something reserved for members of the royal family or senior members of the aristocracy or church. “I am obliged to report that, at the present moment, the Russian Empire is run by lunatics.” -Maurice Paleologue, French ambassador. Therefore it is evident how Rasputin contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Russians had more exposure to the culture and happenings of Europe than ever before, and many were inspired by the various democratic and socialist movements taking place there. As dissent grew among the Russian people, the monarchy responded with intolerance and by imposing heavy penalties upon all who openly criticized or resisted the government. By the early twentieth century, Russia was thus ripe for a revolution. Never in Russian history had so many political organizations existed at the same time.
Bibliography
Booklet- The Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty
Booklet- Russia under the Tsar http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-14_u-427_t-1085_c-4192/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/nsw/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/the-russian-revolution/towards-revolution http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-14_u-427_t-1085_c-4192/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/nsw/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/the-russian-revolution/towards-revolution
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities nor the desire to rule imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. Those who met the young tsarevich, described him as pleasant and likeable, but otherwise unremarkable – hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he “never wanted to rule”. But tradition …show more content…
overcame his personal concerns: Nicholas later pledged to uphold the autocracy bequeathed by his father and to preserve the monarchy for his own son. “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” -Sergei Witte, Russian minister. Nicholas had several good qualities: he loved Russia, he had a strong sense of duty and a stilted affection for the peasantry. Nicholas was a conservative, elitist and racist. Raised in a sheltered world and kept at arm’s length from the Russian population, Nicholas held a twisted view that rebellion and revolutionary ideas were the products of dark forces. “What is going to happen to me and all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” -Nicholas II.
The Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty was directly impacted by social, economic and political issues and grievances throughout the 19th and 20th century including the autocratic ruler ship, the idea of Liberalism, Nationalism, Socialism and Industrialism, World War 1 and Rasputin. The Romanov family ruled with an iron fist and used brutal violence to control its subjects. The repressive policies such as Russification and lack of effective reforms prevented the modernisation of the social, political and economic aspects of the nation. Autocratic rulers promoted the feudalistic style class system which created extreme poverty in the lower classes and gave the people no political power. “The Russian Revolution launched a vast experiment in social engineering – perhaps the grandest in the history of mankind…The experiment went horribly wrong, not so much because of the malice of its leaders, most of whom had started out with the highest of ideals, but because their ideals were themselves impossible”- Figes.
The autocratic rulership and repressive policies promoted the feudalistic style class system and prevented societal advancements throughout Russia.
“The daily work of a monarch he found intolerably boring”-Kerensky. In a tsarist autocracy, all power and wealth is controlled and distributed by the tsar. The center of the tsarist autocracy was the person of the tsar himself, a sovereign with absolute authority. The rights of state power in their entire extent belonged to the tsar. Power was further entrusted by him to persons and institutions, acting in his name, by his orders, and within the limits laid down for them by law. The purpose of the system was to supposedly benefit the entire country of Russia. “Autocracy is a superannuated form of government that may suit the needs of a Central African tribe, but not those of the Russian people, who are increasingly assimilating the culture of the rest of the world. That is why it is impossible to maintain this form of government except by violence.” -Nicolai Tolstoy. Unlike western monarchies who were subjugated in religious matters to the Pope, the Tsar of the Russian Empire was the supreme authority on religious. Another key feature was related to patrimonialism. In Russia the tsar owned a much higher proportion of the state (lands, enterprises, etc.) than did Western monarchs. The tsarist autocracy had many supporters within Russia. “Be more autocratic than Peter the Great and sterner than Ivan the Terrible.” -Tsarina …show more content…
Alexandra, to her husband .Major Russian advocates and theorists of the autocracy included the world famous writer, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Mikhail N. Katkov and Pyotr Semyonov. They all argued that a strong and prosperous Russia needs a strong tsar, and philosophies of republicanism and liberal democracy are not fit for Russia. To the common people, the tsar was seen as responsible for all good in their lives, while all disasters came from meddling bureaucrats, functionaries, and nobles. “I will preserve the principle of Autocracy as firmly and unflinchingly as my late father.” -Nicholas II. This contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Liberalism is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and human rights. Liberalists support and advocate for things such as a constitution, free and fair elections, equal rights/human rights, free trade and separation of church and state. The zemstvo was a form of local government that was instituted during the great liberal reforms performed in Imperial Russia by Alexander II of Russia. The idea of the zemstvo was elaborated by Nikolay Milyutin, and the first zemstvo laws were put into effect in 1864. After the October Revolution of 1917, the zemstvo system was shut down and replaced by a system of workers ' councils. The system of local self-government in the Russian Empire was presented at the lowest level by mir and volosts. These bodies, one for each district and another for each province or government, were created by Alexander II in 1864. The zemstvos were originally given large powers in relation to the incidence of taxation and such questions as education, medical relief, public welfare, food supply, and road maintenance in their localities, but they were met with hostility by radicals, such as the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the nihilists, who believed the reforms were too minor. ‘The state is that great where everyone lives of everyone else’- Frederic Bastiat. These powers were, however, severely restricted by Alexander III (law of 12/25 June 1890); the zemstvos were then subordinated to the governors, whose consent was necessary for each decision. The governors had drastic powers of discipline over the members. The Union of Liberation was a liberal political group founded in St. Petersburg, Russia in January 1904 under the influence of Peter Struve, a former Marxist. Its goal was originally the replacement of the absolutism of the Tsar with a constitutional monarchy. ‘Liberalism will rule life’- Pares. Its other goals included an equal, secret and direct vote for all Russian citizens and the self-determination of different nationalities that lived in the Russian State. The Constitutional Democratic Party was a liberal political party in the Russian Empire. Party members were called Kadets. Konstantin Kavelin 's and Boris Chicherin 's writings formed the theoretical basis of the party 's platform. Historian Pavel Miliukov was the party 's leader throughout its existence. The Kadets ' base of support were intellectuals and professionals; university professors and lawyers were particularly prominent within the party. A large number of Kadet party members were veterans of the zemstvo, local councils. The Kadets ' liberal economic program favored workers ' right to an eight-hour day. The Kadets were "were unwaveringly committed to full citizenship for all of Russia 's minorities" and supported Jewish emancipation. ‘Liberalism is the basis of all countries’-Pares. Therefore it is shown how liberalism contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nationalism is a belief, creed or political ideology that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one 's nation. ‘There’s either one or none’- Pares. Nationalism involves national identity, by contrast with the related construct of patriotism, which involves the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state 's decisions and actions. Russification was the name given to a policy of Alexander III. Russification was designed to take the sting out of those who wanted to reform Russia and to bind all the Russian people around one person – the tsar. Russification was first formed in 1770 by Uvarov. He defined three areas of Russification – autocracy, orthodoxy and ‘Russian-ness’. Of the three, Russian-ness was the most important. Before Alexander III, Russification meant that all the tsar’s subjects, whatever their nationality, should be accepted by the tsar as being ethnic groups in their own right provided that they acknowledged their allegiance to the Russian state, which included the government and the church. “Nicholas was the source of all the problems. If there was a vacuum of power at the centre of the ruling system, then he was the empty space. In a sense, Russia gained in him the worst of both worlds: a Tsar determined to rule from the throne yet quite incapable of exercising power”- Figes. Under Alexander III, Russification took a new turn. He believed that all cultures and nationalities within the empire should be wiped out and that all the people within the empire should become ‘Great Russians’. Russification had no time for small ethnic groups that were more concerned about their culture at the expense of Russia’s as a whole. To be loyal to Russia and therefore the tsar, you had to be a Russian. Supporters of Russification did not try to intellectualise the belief. They believed that it was for the greater good of all of Russia – and that was enough. The victims of Russification were those who were of non-Russian nationality but lived within the empire. Any weakening of their culture had to lead to resentment. As there were no constitutional means by which they could voice their anger, they turned to revolutionary action. Any support for the national minorities was seen as support for a weakening of Russia’s true identity. “The unskilled workers... appear to have no political opinions whatever.” -Henry Mayhew journalist. It is evident how nationalism contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Marxism was an ideology so powerful, it managed to wipe out faith in God from the minds of millions of people and reform a nation, baptised for nearly one thousand years and became a new religion to many, strictly following its rules as if they were holy commandments. The Russia Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was created to oppose narodnichestvo, revolutionary populism, which was later represented by the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (SRs). The RSDLP was based on the theories that, despite Russia 's agrarian nature, the true revolutionary potential lay with the industrial working class. The RSDLP was illegal for most of its existence. In 1903, the Second Congress of the party met in exile in Brussels to attempt to create a united force. At the congress, the party split into two irreconcilable factions on November 17: the Bolsheviks led by Lenin, and the Mensheviks led by Julius Martov. “Only the ‘Bolsheviks marched. I despise and hate them more and more. They are truly Russian idiots.”-Maxim Gorky, July 1917. Despite a number of attempts at reunification, the split proved permanent. As time passed, more ideological differences emerged. According to many historians the Bolsheviks pushed for an almost immediate "proletarian" revolution, while the Mensheviks believed that Russia was still at too early a stage in history for an immediate working-class revolution. The two warring factions both agreed that the coming revolution would primarily be "bourgeois democratic" in its character. But while the Mensheviks viewed the liberals as the main ally, the Bolsheviks opted for an alliance with the peasantry as the only way to carry out a popular revolution while defending the interests of the working class. “The Bolsheviks’ strength was that they were the only party uncompromised by association with the bourgeoisie and the February regime, and the party most firmly identified with the ideas of workers’ power and armed uprising”- Fitzpatrick. Essentially, the difference was that the Bolsheviks considered that in Russia, the tasks of the bourgeois democratic revolution would have to be carried out without the participation of the bourgeoisie. The idea of a Soviet as an organ to coordinate workers ' strike activities arose during the January–February 1905 meetings of workers at the apartment of Voline during the abortive revolution of 1905. According to Voline 's book, its first chairman was a paralegal Khrustalyov-Nosar. The Soviet held regular meetings and printed leaflets, "Notices of the Soviet of Workers ' Delegates. However, its activities were quickly ceased due to governmental repression. “We shall build socialism even on our impoverished base, we shall drag ourselves along at a snail’s pace, but we shall build socialism.”- Nikolai Bukharin on the NEP. This contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Industrialisation is the period of social and economic change that transforms a human group from an agrarian society into an industrial one. ‘It is a part of a wider modernisation process, where social change and economic development are closely related with technological innovation, particularly with the development of large-scale energy and metallurgy production’- Pares. It is the extensive organisation of an economy for the purpose of manufacturing. Russia’s industrial revolution was later than most because the agricultural techniques used in the mid nineteenth century had not changed since the medieval period. Without a strong agricultural foundation industrialisation was impossible. The industries of coal, oil, iron, and textiles boomed once German and French backers began to invest in them. In 1897, Sergei Witte became Minister of Finance. The same year saw growth in industry and economy. Much of this growth was due to increased heavy industry and the expansion of railroads all over Russia. The enlargement of Russia’s industry meant more industrial workers. These workers had strikes, and in order to placate them a maximum workday of eleven and a half hours was implemented by the government in 1897.The disaster that the Russo-Japanese War turned into manifested itself in civil unrest, workers overworked and underpaid were starving in the cities because peasants farming in the country had no way to transport crops from the rural to the urban areas. Frustrated workers began to strike. ‘Industrialisation needs to sustain for a good power’-Fres. From 1905 to 1917 industry remained in a latent state. While it was not completely crippled it did not bring equal or sufficient wealth to all involved. When World War I came, Russia was not prepared and the lack of resources necessary in war halted economic growth. Workers were pulled from the factory, and conscripted in the army. The main reason for Russia’s difficulties During the First World War was lack of efficient transportation and sufficient ammunition. The Russians went to war with whole regiments of soldiers without weapons or ammunition. Many soldiers deserted the army to come home to kill a landowner and get himself more land. Without the proper supplies, the Russian forces were not motivated to fight. The loss of Poland in 1915 nearly halted the industrialisation of Russia. Poland was the transportation and industry base of Russia, without Poland the war effort was impossible. The ensuing revolution of 1917, in which Nicholas II abdicated, also proved to be a thorn in the side of industry as it further slowed the process of economic and industrial growth in Russia as strikes spread and opposition toward the Czar grew. The Reign of Nicholas II saw the rise and regression of industry in Russia. “…the cause of ruin came not at all from below, but from above…The Tsar had many opportunities of putting things right, and several times he was on the point of taking them…far from a dictation of events from below, this passive people went on enduring long after it ought to have ceased to do so; and when the crash came, it had done so little to shape it in any way, that it was left to the last minute of a single regiment to determine the issue”-Pares. Therefore it is evident how industrialisation contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Though Russo-German tensions dated back decades, Nicholas II believed that family ties precluded any chance of a war between the two empires. Nicholas and the German kaiser Wilhelm were cousins; Wilhelm and Nicholas’ wife Alexandra were both grandchildren of Queen Victoria of England. Nicholas thought it highly unlikely that the kaiser would declare war on the kingdom of his own relative. What the tsar did not count on was Wilhelm’s own duplicity, nor did he appreciate the forces of war that had been building in Europe for more than ten years. The alliance system demanded that nations support their allies if one was attacked. This placed the tsar in a perilous position between the Balkan nation of Serbia – a nation with close political, ethnic and religious ties to Russia – and Austria-Hungary and Germany. “For the sake of the nations life it was necessary to restore the army’s will to die.” -Alexander Kerensky on the June Offensive. Serbia had been invaded by Austria-Hungary and Russia had declared war in response, prompting the German kaiser to declare war on his Russian cousin. When conscription orders were distributed in the capital, more than 95 per cent of conscripts reported willingly for duty. The tsar too was changed by the events of August 1914. In the months prior he had shown little interest in the affairs of state, but both the war and the revival of public affection reinvigorated Nicholas, who threw himself into his duties. “Right from the beginning of hostilities I have never been able to find out anything about our general plan of campaign. [Years before] I was acquainted with the general plan in event of war with Germany and Austro-Hungary. It was strictly defensive and in my opinion ill-conceived from many points of view, but it was not put into execution because the circumstances forced us into an offensive campaign for which we had no preparations. What was this new plan? It was a dead secret to me. It is quite possible that no new plan was ever established at all, and that we followed the policy determined by our needs at any given moment”- General Brusilov. The tsar’s renewed fortunes did not last long, however. Russia’s war effort began poorly and soon exposed some critical problems in how the army was being commanded, organised and equipped. Russia mobilised millions of troops quickly, indeed more quickly than their German enemies had expected – but many were not adequately prepared or supplied. Thousands of Russian infantrymen left for the front without critical equipment, including weapons, ammunition, boots or bedding. In late 1914 Russia’s general headquarters reported that 100,000 new rifles were needed each month, but that Russian factories were capable of producing less than half this number. Soldiers were better armed with prayers and penitentials, as Russian Orthodox bishops and priests worked busily to bless those about to go into battle. The Russian army’s shortfall of equipment was compounded by poor leadership from its generals and officers. By the end, 800,000 Russian soldiers had died and the Russian army had failed to gain any significant territory. “I can do nothing with my army. I am glad when it carries out my combat orders.”- Anton Denikin, White general. Two years of war also had a telling impact on Russia’s domestic economy. The conscription of millions of men produced a labour shortage on peasant landholdings and a resultant decline in food production. Large numbers of peasants were also moved to the industrial sector, which generated a slight rise in production but nowhere near enough to meet Russia’s war needs. The war placed Russia’s transportation system under enormous strain, as engines, carriages and personnel were redeployed to move soldiers and equipment to and from theatres of war. Inadequate maintenance and replacement of this infrastructure caused it to fail. By mid-1916 an estimated 30 per cent of Russia’s railway stock was unusable. This had a severe impact on Russia’s cities, which relied on railway shipments for their supplies of food and coal. Short of reserves to fund the war effort, the government resorted to printing excess paper currency, which in turn led to inflation. “An army cannot be built without repression. The commander will always find it necessary to place the soldier between the possibility that death lies ahead and the certainty that it lies behind.” -Leon Trotsky. It is clearly shown how World War 1 contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Nicholas II had a romantic vision of him leading his army, therefore he spent much time at the Eastern Front.
This was a disastrous move as it left Alexandra in control back in the cities. She had become increasingly under the influence of the one man who seemingly had the power to help her son, Alexis, afflicted by haemophilia. Alexandra believed that Rasputin was a man of God and referred to him as “Our Friend”. Others, appalled at his influence over the tsarina, called him the “Mad Monk” – though not in public unless they wanted to incur the wrath of Alexandra. Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s. His womanising was well known and he was considered by many to be debauched. Rasputin was a great believer in the maintenance of autocracy. 'The growing influence of Gregory Rasputin over the Romanov’s did a great deal to damage the royal family ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Ironically, with the devastation that World War One was to cause in Russia, it was Rasputin who advised Nicholas not to go to war as he had predicted that Russia would be defeated. As his prophecies seemed to be more and more accurate, his influence within Russia increased. Rasputin had always clashed with the Duma. They saw his position within the monarchy as a direct threat to their position. Alexandra responded to their complaints about Rasputin’s power by introducing legislation that further limited their power. 'Rasputin brought huge disrepute on the Romanov’s ' - Historian Chris Trueman.
The Duma took their complaints directly to the emperor but Rasputin’s power in St Petersburg was unchallengeable. As long as he had the support of the tsarina, he had power as Alexandra all but dominated her husband. As long as Alexis, the sole male heir to the throne, was ill, Rasputin had power over Alexandra. When the Duma was dissolved in September 1915, Rasputin took charge of just about all aspects of government in St Petersburg. Ministers who criticised Rasputin or who disagreed with his policies were summarily dismissed. Scheratov (Interior), Krivosheim (Agriculture) and Gremykim himself were all dismissed for daring to criticise “Our Friend”. Gremykim was replaced by Sturmer who simply agreed with everything Rasputin said. Nicholas was isolated at the war front but was frequently too indecisive to be of any use. Alexandra still tried to dominate the home front with Rasputin. Food was in short supply as was fuel. The people of Petrograd were cold and hungry – a dangerous combination for Nicholas. On December 30th 1916, Rasputin was assassinated by Prince Yusipov. ‘There was the belief that if one could get rid of Rasputin the revolution may not happen.’ ‘It [the Tsarina’s relationship with Rasputin] was to create a rift that would...contribute to downfall of the Romanov dynasty’ 'But Rasputin’s murder had been too little and too late to save the autocracy ' - Carol Townend . '...the royal family became inextricably linked to a disreputable man like Gregory Rasputin. Such an association only brought discredit to the Romanovs. ' - Historian Chris Trueman. Alexandra bullied her husband into ordering an imperial funeral – something reserved for members of the royal family or senior members of the aristocracy or church. “I am obliged to report that, at the present moment, the Russian Empire is run by lunatics.” -Maurice Paleologue, French ambassador. Therefore it is evident how Rasputin contributed to the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty.
Russians had more exposure to the culture and happenings of Europe than ever before, and many were inspired by the various democratic and socialist movements taking place there. As dissent grew among the Russian people, the monarchy responded with intolerance and by imposing heavy penalties upon all who openly criticized or resisted the government. By the early twentieth century, Russia was thus ripe for a revolution. Never in Russian history had so many political organizations existed at the same time.
Bibliography
Booklet- The Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty
Booklet- Russia under the Tsar http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-14_u-427_t-1085_c-4192/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/nsw/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/the-russian-revolution/towards-revolution http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-14_u-427_t-1085_c-4192/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/nsw/the-february-revolution-1917-fall-of-the-romanovs/the-russian-revolution/towards-revolution