February Revolution of 1917: Tsar's Reform Commitment
TITLE
How far was the February Revolution of 1917 caused by the Tsar’s lack of commitment to reform?
ESSAY
The February Revolution of 1917 in Russia was a pivotal event that marked the end of Tsarist rule and the beginning of a new era. One of the key factors that contributed to this revolution was the Tsar's lack of commitment to reform. Throughout his reign, Nicholas II displayed a strong commitment to autocracy, which hindered any meaningful attempts at political reform.
Although Nicholas II did introduce some reforms in 1905 with the October Manifesto, these efforts were short-lived. The passing of the Fundamental Laws in April 1906 undermined the reforms and reaffirmed the Tsar's absolute power. These laws allowed the Tsar to rule independently of the Duma and to manipulate the electoral system, which alienated liberal support and displayed a contemptuous attitude towards the Duma. As a result, the Tsar's lack of commitment to political reform made it impossible to bring about meaningful change through the existing system.
However, it is important to note that other factors also played a significant role in causing the February Revolution. The Tsar's decision to take personal command of the military in 1915 proved disastrous, as he became associated with every military setback. The loyalty of the army, which had sustained the Tsar during the 1905 revolution, had waned by February 1917. Soldiers were disillusioned with their leadership and wanted to go home. News of land seizures in the countryside further fueled their discontent.
The Tsar's absence from the center of government allowed his wife, the Tsarina, and Rasputin to assume more prominent roles. Rumors of their relationship and their influence on policies undermined Nicholas II's position even further. Additionally, the war caused food shortages and inflation, leading to widespread anger and discontent among the population. The Women's Day march on February 23 and city-wide strikes in Petrograd on February 25 were manifestations of this growing discontent.
The final blow to the Tsar's rule came when the reformed Petrograd Soviet met on February 27, 1917. The following day, the Tsar was prevented from returning to Petrograd to personally address the situation. On March 2, 1917, Nicholas II abdicated in favor of his brother Michael.
In conclusion, while the Tsar's lack of commitment to reform was a significant factor in causing the February Revolution of 1917, it is important to acknowledge that other factors, such as the military failures, discontent among the soldiers and the population, and the influence of the Tsarina and Rasputin, also played a crucial role. The revolution marked a turning point in Russian history and paved the way for the establishment of a new political system.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
AS Level
NOTES
How far was the February Revolution of 1917 caused by the Tsar’s lack of commitment to reform? Indicative content Arguments to support the Tsar’s lack of commitment to reform in causing the February Revolution of 1917 might be as follows. Nicholas II was committed to autocracy from the outset of his reign. It is true he did seem to temper this commitment in 1905 with the October Manifesto. However, these reforms were undermined in April 1906 when the Fundamental Laws were passed. The Tsar reserved the right to rule independent of the Duma when it was not in session and to close it at any point. The Tsar could change, also, the electoral system. Such actions alienated liberal support as they displayed a contemptuous attitude to the Duma. Therefore, reforming the political system could not be done by the Tsar. Therefore, in February 1917 a different system to Tsarism was adopted. However, other factors played a significant part in causing the February Revolution in 1917. The Tsar’s decision, in 1915, to take personal command at the front had proven to be disastrous. He became associated with every military setback. The only way to change the situation lay in removing the one in charge of the war’s conduct. The loyalty of the army which had sustained the Tsar in 1905 was no more by February 1917. Most soldiers wanted to go home, disillusioned with how they had been led. News of land seizures in the countryside added further fuel to this wish. This loss of support meant the Tsar’s government could no longer control Petrograd once the riots and strikes became critical. The Tsar’s absence from the centre of government led to the Tsarina and Rasputin adopting more prominent roles. Rumours of their relationship and their influence on policies undermined further Nicholas II’s position by February 1917. The war caused food shortages and inflation which led to a rising tide of anger and discontent. This culminated in the Women’s Day march (February 23) and city-wide strikes in Petrograd (February 25). On February 27, 1917, the reformed Petrograd Soviet met and the following day the Tsar was prevented from returning to Petrograd to try and personally calm the situation. On March 2nd. 1917 Nicholas II abdicated in favour of his brother Michael. Accept any other valid responses.