Extensive Detailed Notes on Russia, Tsar Nicholas, Romanovs, Russian Rev

Resource Description

The Russian Revolution

Political Revolutions (definition)

Political Revolutions are relatively sudden, violent and fundamental changes to government which, over a period of time, change the nature of society as well. Where revolutions are unsuccessful, or limited in their location or extent, they tend to be called rebellions, revolts, insurrections or uprisings.

Another important feature of revolutions is that they are essentially a process rather than an event. Revolutions are best seen as a series of interconnected events involving significant change over time. 

The Social Structure of Tsarist Russia

Tsarist Russia was a stratified society with a high concentration of wealth and privilege. Power was acquired by the Tsar and Tsarina, people of political importance (proximity to power of the Tsar), religious power of the Russian Orthodox church, and the Russian military.

Tsarist Russia operated a rigid social heirarchy with the royal family and nobles at the top and the peasants and workers at the bottom. At the end of the 19th century, peasants noticeably contributed to about 80% of the population.

How was Tsarism Implemented?

Russia has been under autocractic rule for hundreds of years. This means that the ruler has absolute power – are not obligated to consult with any other individuals about decisions. Tsars ultimately believe that they were put in that position of power by God.

There were four main pillars of power in Tsarist society that held up Tsarist rule and aided in the implementation of Tsarism – the Russian Orthodox Church, the Government, the Bureaucracy and the Police. The church entices the public in believing and having faith in the system, and the police enforce that submission. This situation made Russia highly politically unique in the Western European world.

The Collapse of Tsarist Russia: Introduction

Fears and Challenges

The Russian Empire was colossal, expanding over one-sixth of the earth’s landmass, and yet was ever vulnerable to foreign invasion.

“The gigantic empire of the Tsars became ever more fragile and vulnerable until it was shattered to pieces in the turmoil of war and revolution.”

• Alexander Chubarov, The Fragile Empire: A History of Imperial Russia, 1999 p.201

This 1904 cartoon provides commentary on Russia’s decline in power and America’s emergence as a new power.

It suggests that Russia is:
– anti-semitic (targets Jews as a minority group)
– oppressive (particularly towards the Jewish, through “murder,” “robbery” and”deception.”

“[Russia] strove to cement its multiethnic population by systematic Russification*, but this only stimulated nationalist movements.”

*Russification: assimilation/adopting Russian culture.

“The population of the Russian Empire at the time of the Tsar Nicholas II (1894-1917) was only 40% Russian. It was a multi-national, pluralistic society with a large number of different racial and religious groups. These groups were in constant opposition to the autocratic government and they were brutally suppressed…These minorities were also the subject of widespread progroms*, which highlighted the fractured and volatile nature of the Tsarist state.”

*Progrom: an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jews in Russia.

This British 1803 cartoon portrays Russia as a monstrous, in-human, scary and savage entity. It highlights the nation as something to be weary of, a substantial power that should be feared, and is foreign and not like us.

It also portrays France in the form of Napoleon, who is conveyed as weak and able to be defeated by Russia. 

Russian Vulnerability

Fears

Challenges

Conspiracies against the Tsar’s rule: Spies and supporters in the Russian imperial court. Crises, peasant rebellions, and other domestic disturbances to seize territory and power. Lack of trust in (and already small number of) teachers – fear that teachers would not teach the government’s version of Russian patriotic identity. The alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary, one based on practicality and cultural similarity – Russia believed this united central European power would pose as a threat. Economic backwardness: Enemies such as the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were economically inclined to use technological advancements from the Industrial Revolution. Initiated radical modernisation on behalf of Alexander II (rapid industrialisation). The non-Russian population of Russia would be bribed into sabotage and spy-work. The invasion of borders: Thousands of miles of borders that were impossible to police. Russia’s neighbours – Japan, Afghanistan, Persia, Turkey, Romania, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Sweden – posed as potential enemies who may have formed a formidable coalition. Lack of natural defences.

Russia’s geographical location ? situated away from the centres of global trade and civilisation: Minimal trade meant lack of cities, literacy and a large middle class. Russia lacked control over cities, expansion of literacy and a large middle class. Agrarian empire which relied on the scarce resources provided by peasant farmers. A lot of European countries were already wealthy and developed. Situated at the most remote, eastern periphery of Europe separated her from other powers. Russia was ‘under-governed’: There were fewer civil servants than the more advanced countries of western and central Europe. The Russian government was attempting to do much more than most European administrations, in order to modernise rapidly. Military defeats: Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War led to many reforms, which alienated conservatives and failed to satisfy radicals. Managing and defending enormous territories. Russia’s unique and vast landscape: Russian peasantry was scattered across a vast and usually poor agricultural zone whose communications were primitive. Bringing in modern communication mean education and welfare services were made difficult due to the colossal size of the empire. Peasants often fled the state’s tax collectors and recruitment agents by Russia’s long, open borders. Many counties had interests along Russia’s southern and western borders. Maintaining a colossal standing army: A formidable military threatened the people. Large numbers of different minority groups: Large number of non-Russians with conflicting languages and cultures. The 1890 census revealed that out of 125 million, less than 56 million were native Russians. Ongoing resistance from groups and nations of military conquest. Resistance against Russification.

Conclusions:

• He may have felt obligated to uphold the ruthless nature of Tsarist rule.
• His rule seems to be on the basis of obligation rather than political interest or skill.
• He didn’t feel the need to invest himself in the role – no knowledge, could be characterised as a pushover, as indecisive.
• A large amount of ineptitude for the role, lack of investment, ill-suited for the position.
• Lack of knowledge – no exposure to Russian life or democracy.
• Perhaps intelligent, patriotic and well-intentioned.

 

An overview of the role of Nicholas II as an autocrat

Nicholas drew on two large political-cultural traditions in constructing his vision as a leader:

• Absolute authority advancing Russia’s interests with might and force ? all people should be guided by the virtues of self-discipline, orderliness and regularity. Brutality in response to opposition to his authority.
• The image of the ruler as a sacred figure, a divine figure who sought unity with the people and was loving and conciliatory. Certainty that God spoke and acted through him. The Russian Orthodox Church encouraged obedience to the Tsar and protected his interests.

Nicholas II was ill prepared for the role of Tsar and knew very little about the reality of life in Russia, which severely affected his ability to make strong political decisions. 

A family-oriented man, he was out of touch with the people he ruled.

The autocratic nature of the Tsarist state at the beginning of the twentieth century was also reflected in the continuing inequalities in society. The inability of the urban working class to influence change through peaceful means led to outbreaks of strikes and industrial unrest in the period of 1899-1904.

His private letters and diary entries are revealing, as they provide evidence of his strong religious convictions and his deep affection for his wife and family. They also display a remarkable indifference to the world around him.

He was charming and kind to those around him and could command respect and loyalty, but could also be vicious and merciless. He was very anti-Semitic and praised regiments that put down disorders. Nicholas was also particularly attached to the army.

The problem for Nicholas was that he had to manage Russia though a time of major social and economic change. He was not really equipped for this. His many inadequacies include:

• His inability to make decisions
• His unwillingness to engage in politics – even to read government reports
• His lack of organisation skills (‘unfit to run a village post office’ – cabinet minister)
• His weakness
• His obstinacy.

Nicholas ultimately had to make the decision between tradition or modification into the 20th century – would he rule Russia in the same way as his father, or would he embrace change and be prepared to modify the institutions of the autocracy?

Nicholas was ideologically incapable of accommodating the new middle class let alone a more demanding peasantry and working class.

 

What were the views on Tsar Nicholas II of contemporaries and historians?

“…frail, small, almost insignificant youth, whose imperial crown seemed to crush him to the ground…his father’s dominating personality had stunted any gifts of initiative in Nicky.’ – his sister in law.

“He sticks to his insignificant, petty point of view.” – his tutor.

“[he does not have] one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire or even a province or county…” – Leon Trotsky

“…quite incapable of exercising power. This was an autocracy without an autocrat.’ – Orlando FIges.

“A narrow-minded, prejudiced man, who was incapable of tolerating people who did not fit his conception of the true Russian. He disliked the national minorities…He lacked the personal drive and ambition…” – A. Ascher.

“He could understand many points of view and wavered between them…Nicholas loved his country and served it loyally to the best of his ability…He was a very kind, sensitive, generous and initially naïve man.” – Dominic Lieven.

Summaries on the sources:

• In comparison particularly to his father, Nicholas II was young, politically weak, insignificant, and without any initiative.
• His intelligence was limited in the sense that he could not comprehend complex points of view.
• He was quite incapable of governing an empire, province or even a county.

The outdated nature of the autocratic system of government was too vast and complex for him – Russia was described as ‘an autocracy without an autocrat.’
(However, autocratic Russia during this time may have been impossible for any man to govern.)