Was Nicholas 2 the Main Reason for the February Revolution?

 Historians have argued whether Tsar Nicholas II was the main reason for the revolution in February 1917. How far do you agree?

Ayo Laoye

The cause of the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia is one that has been widely debated for many decades. There was the struggle between the Tsarist government and the intelligentsia, the problem with the long-term political, economic and social dissatisfactions of the serfs and the common people, which later included the soldiers when Russia joined the war in 1914. Eventually the result of the Revolution was the abdication of the Tsar Nicholas II Romanov and subsequently marked the end of tsarism in Russia. There were a lot of contributing factors to the revolution and this is why there are disagreements amongst historians on what the main reason for the revolt was. David Christian, Imperial and Soviet Russia: Power, Privilege and the challenge of modernity, argues that the Tsar at the time, Nicholas II was to blame for the Revolution. He calls into question the personality of the tsar and some of the actions he took, such as going to war. While some other historians may agree with this, there are other historians who still disagree that this was the main cause. Orlando Figes A People’s Tragedy believes that the long-term feeling of economic dissatisfaction amongst the ordinary people (especially the serfs), which was triggered by the lack of bread, is why the revolution occurred.  Richard Pipes The Three Whys argues that the political nature behind the revolution, which through the war, led to military dissatisfaction, is the main reason why the Revolution happened. When judging the main cause of the revolution, it is essential to understand the role of the First World War (WW1) and whether the discontent would have come to a head as a revolution had Russia not gone to war. It is important to note that despite the major contradictions between the different schools of thought of these historians, there are some evident factors, which are present in all their arguments, which makes me agree with Christian that Nicholas II was the principal cause for the February revolution. He didn’t have enthusiasm for power and this meant that he was a weak leader. His inability to tackle the growing discontent and actually tackle the problem head on, led to further resentment that led to the revolution and the end of Tsarism. Problems such as his affiliation with Rasputin, and his decision to take over the Russian army in the Great War, alongside long term growing discontent which was under Nicholas’ rule, means that Christian’s interpretation of Nicholas II being the main source of the revolution in my opinion is most convincing.

The Tsar

Tsar Nicholas II became the leader of Russia, not because he wanted to but because circumstances led him there. He was a Romanov and so by default he was next in line to the throne after his father Alexander III. The problem was, Nicholas II wasn’t like his father or grandfather. He didn’t have the traits that made people fear him as they did Alexander III and unfortunately, he didn’t make reforms as Alexander II did and so the common people didn’t like him either. Christian clearly helps us understand that Nicholas didn’t have the knack for being the leader of such a nation as Russia and that his personality was to be one of the causes of his downfall “Nicholas himself was blind to the problems facing his government”.^[1]This already proves that he was weak as if he found it difficult to be in charge of his own government, it would have been a greater task to try and control the whole country. Christian helps build the argument that Nicholas was weak and wasn’t ready for the job as he says “Nicholas believed his main duty was to preserve the autocratic powers granted to him by God”^[2] This is a basic example of how Nicholas only planned to keep the Romanov way of governance as they felt I was their right to rule. Nicholas was trained by Pobedonostsev, which meant the ‘traditional obsession with repression, militarism and autocracy’ was instilled in him. This shows that he wasn’t ready to understand how to actually rule but believed that his ordination as a ruler by God meant he already had the natural abilities to rule. As a result of these traditional beliefs, he led Russia into war against Japan, which ultimately led to a peaceful revolt met by mass arrests and executions, otherwise known as the Bloody Sunday. He would not have tried anything to appeal more to the people, showing weakness in his style of leadership.  Figes also showed his awareness of Nicholas’ incompetent attitude being a cause for the revolution “he was much more concerned by the fact that his two daughters had gone down with the measles than by latest reports of rioting in the capital”^[3] Christian makes it clear that it was the attitude and the personality of the Tsar and the inability to make concessions with the demands of the people is what brought about the revolution and the downfall of the Romanovs. “That fatty Rodzianko has sent me some nonsense, which I shan’t even answer”^[4] This is a classic example of how Nicholas dealt with demands from the people. Instead of trying to make concessions with Rodzianko, he completely dismissed any of his demands and this showed that he did very little to try and reduce the high tension. Christian explicitly points out that the tsar’s attitude made it impossible for him to work with the leading politicians of the day”^[5]. Nicholas felt that any of his minsters taking initiative was an attempt to overthrow his power and so he dismissed their suggestions. This proved to be a flaw in his personality and Christian very aware of this flaw points out “His refusal to face political realities explains his growing dependence on people who understood the political situation as little as he did”^[6]. His decision to leave his wife, Alexandra and Rasputin in charge when leading the army in WW1 proved to be evidence that backs up Christian’s perceptions. This leads into another reason why the Tsar was the cause of the February revolution. Nicholas’ decision to lead the army meant that he had to put someone in charge as ruler of Russia while he was away. This was another reason why he was responsible for the Revolution. “His refusal to face political realities explains his growing dependence on people who understood the political situation as little as he did”^[7]. He put his wife Alexandra, already disliked by the people, in charge. She was reserved in public, which made people think that her loyalties lay with the Germans, especially during the war effort. Due to the problems he had with his son, his wife relied heavily on Rasputin, a fanatic. “He relied on his wife, the empress Alexandra. She, in turn relied on her spiritual adviser, the dissolute monk, Gregory Rasputin”^[8] Together, they influenced Nicholas not to yield any of his political power. As she was put in charge, she made sure that the men she put in charge were, weak and ineffective which mean there was no competition for Nicholas. While this could be regarded as an issue with the government, Nicholas’ decision to put his wife in charge meant he could be blamed for this issue “by 1916, after Nicholas had left for the front, Rasputin in effect chose the various government ministers”^[9]. Christian highlighting, that Rasputin chose the ministers, shows how much influence Rasputin had over the Tsarina. The Russian people saw Rasputin as a symbol for everything that was wrong with the Tsarist regime. The Tsarina always gave excuses for every wrong action he’d done and there were suspicions that he had an affair with the tsarina. Bernard Pares, also says that “the Russian Emperor was compelled by his wife to flout all thinking Russia”^[10] which implies that the Tsar was so weak that he was forced into disregarding the important figures in his cabinet which would have been his ministers. The Tsarist loyalists felt that he was a disgrace to the court and this led to his assassination by the Royalists in 1916, showing the upper class turning from the Tsar. The decision to lead the forces as Commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the Russian army in 1915, proved to be a source of more problems for the Tsar. Ignoring the warnings of his advisors, he went ahead, and all this caused was less popularity among the people. Leading the forces, one would think would have allowed Nicholas to understand the feelings of the soldiers but by the introduction of his prohibition policy on alcohol^[11], which led to the soldiers disliking Nicholas and Christian recognizes that it was another decision that was a characteristic example of Nicholas’s political naivety”^[12]  He overestimated how much influence this action would have over the soldiers and when Russia was disgraced in the war, direct blame was placed on the Tsar, which George Katkov was able to realise “Nicholas II and his government showed themselves utterly unable to master these forces, and lost control of them”^[13].