When understanding the collapse of Russian Tsardom, one must assess the situation of Russia in 1917. Was the Russian revolution and the subsequent collapse of Tsardom caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the political masses or was it the result of a century of general discontent building up against the notion of Russian Autocracy. This divisive debate has bisected the opinions of historians however it would be a mistake to view the alternative sides as mutually exclusive. Many historians accept that the 1917 Russian revolution was a significant cause of the collapse of Tsardom and the Romanov dynasty, although was the Revolution caused by short term malcontent against the Tsar Nicholas II or was the political system of Tsarist autocracy hopelessly wear and bound to fail.
In May 1896, celebrations of the inauguration of Nicholas II’s reign reflected just how out of touch the Tsars had become with the masses in Russia since the past century. On the night of his inauguration hundreds of his subjects were crushed to death at the Khodynka Field during the mass celebration of his coronation whilst the Tsar and the new Tsarina danced together at a lavish ball held in his honour by the French ambassador. Nicholas II possessed ‘a stubborn anachronistic vision of the divine provenance of his exalted office, which he saw more in terms of a mediaeval-style theocracy, than of a modern, late 19th- or 20th century monarchy’ argues Historian Alan Wood. Wood argues that Nicholas’s failure to understand that his monarchy couldn’t not continue to exist unless it changed its policy was a contributing factor in the fall of the Tsarist system. The Romanov were attempting to relive the past, wishing it to be their present. By 1901, Nicholas II was attempting to thwart social and political opposition formed by economic fluctuation and revolutionary populism such as the newly formed Sotsialistov-revolyutsionerov partiya (the Party of Social Revolutionaries) formed from ‘the still glowing embers of Revolutionary Populism’ from the ‘fire’ that assassinated his father. Moreover, the new Tsar had political opposition on the moderate left of Russian politics in the form of zemstvo liberal politicians who called for a constitution. This was not spontaneous however, the discontent motivating these groups had a long history in Russia. Once these intelligentsia gained the support of the masses, Nicholas II’s weak attempts to assert the Tsarist system were able to be overcome.
Lionel Kochan and John Keep develop an image of Russia in the early 20th century which like Wood’s view suggests that Russia nearing the revolution was in a state of turmoil. In 1905 the first general strike in European History took place in Russia, leading to the empire’s communications system and factories grinding to a halt. By WWI, Russia was gravely unprepared for it. She had an inferior armed forces in comparison to the German and Austrian Empires and additionally Russia’s vast manpower were only levied at the expense of agricultural production. This put pressure on the civilians left behind, most of whom being women and children. The Russian high ranking officers such as Grand Duke Nicholas or Yanushkevich were unable to be affective, with some commanders believing ‘that bayonets were better than bullets’. This incompetence of the lead to the demise of most pre-war regulars in the first battles leading to recruitment of civilians lacking experience and critical of authority. Had the conflict been swift as predicted by military planners, Russian Tsardom may have dragged itself in the post-war world. Moreover, although the Bolshevik Revolution and the politically motivated masses of Russia destroyed Tsardom in the end, it was significantly weakened by the First World War, which is an important factor in its demise.
One should first realise that these two sources have difference provenances and were created during different time periods. The Making of Modern Russia was first published in 1962 and from my own knowledge I know that during this time, access to the Soviet archives was restricted. Kochan and Keeps book covers almost a milliena of Russian history and should be regarded as more of an overview than a detailed investigation. The book is a amalgamation of the views of multiple historians. By analysing other specialist’s research, Kochan and Keep are able to provide their own unique evaluations.
Alan Wood wrote his book in the early 2000s and therefore could access new resources that were available after the collapse of the USSR. He was a visiting research fellow in Russian History at Lancaster University during the period he wrote the book as he was a practicing historian. His study is more in depth as it covers a shorter period of time, namely 1613 to 1917. His book is based on his individual research and therefore is more focused and detailed about his point of study.
The Decembrist Revolution of 1825 was a new kind of revolution in Russian history, as opposed to a simple peasant revolt, the Decembrist movement was a movement led by more privileged members of Russian society. Before 1825, rebellions were often led by individual leaders who most of the time did not have the advantage of the aristocracy; they didn’t have the ability to be a real political or economic threat to Russian autocracy. The Decembrist revolution in 1825 however changed this as the people involved in the revolution were not simple peasants, they were aristocrats from the upper echelons of Russian society, who wished to make huge political changes in Russia, namely liberating Russia from autocracy and freeing the serfs which was a main part of their agenda. Â The Decembrists were not successful in their revolution in the end as they were defeated by loyalist troops quite easily due to a lack of unity among the leaders of the Revolution, for example, a single policy or set of aims could not be agreed. The Northern and Southern societies however, were able to agree on one issue, that the revolution must be carried out by the small elite and not by the masses The Decembrists were not able to gain the support of the people they were attempting to free from autocratic subjugation, the masses of Russia. The Northern and Southern Societies were not able to reach agreement on many issues; however one issue that they were able to reach an agreement on was that the revolution was not be carried out by the masses, rather it was to be led by a small military group. The Decembrists believed that the involvement of the masses would end in the failure of their revolution. The Decembrist Revolution was in fact a class revolution which would ultimately be a failure as the masses at this point, did not care about movements to reform the Russian political system. Without the masses the upheaval was impossible, but equally the Decembrists expressed no desire to involve the masses. Therefore the collapse of Tsar evidently, could not have solely been brought about by the upsurge of just the political masses as the Decembrist Revolution would’ve succeeded. Clearly, if the Decembrists had secured the support of the masses and shifted their indifference in their favour, they would’ve been more successful.