To what extent was the First World War Essay Example for Free

To what extent was the First World War Essay World war one was not the sole cause of the revolution; it was a trigger that affected the timing of the revolution in 1917 as it exacerbated problems that already existed.   Such problems were limited constitutional change, the shortcomings of Stolypin’s reforms, and the negative side affects of industrialisation, mass protest and the limitations of Tsar Nicholas II. Paragraph 1 – Limited constitutional change   The Tsar continued to reinstate his autocratic rule by ignoring his people’s desires, such as the upper class and lower class, and promising to reform but progressed with minimal improvement. Limited constitutional change caused the Russian people to become distrusting of the Tsar and resort to a revolution to change the government’s policies themselves in order for Russia to become a more democratic state. An example of limited constitutional change is the October manifesto that was introduced on the 30th of October 1905, prompted by the 1905 revolution Bloody Sunday.   The working class and peasants had appealed to the Tsar concerning his superannuated form of government. Requesting for a share in representative government along with improved working conditions.   The October manifesto produced addressed these concerns, with a promise of free citizenship and no rule to be passed without the agreement of a state duma   However, despite the Duma being permitted to exist, their powers were restricted to such a great extent that the Duma didn’t have any significant impact upon the government. Nicholas did this by issuing a set of Fundamental laws on the 23rd of April 1906, the eve of the opening of the first Duma. The Fundamental laws only reinforced the Tsar’s autocratic power and disengaged any potential government reform of Parliament by seizing its power.   Nicholas’s half hearted idea of reform was not intended to satisfy the people’s desire for a share in representative government but to only safeguard his position as Tsar.   This started to become evident to the people when the third Duma (1907-1912) was more conservative as the Tsar had replaced members who seemed critical of his government.   The third Duma consisted of only 45 seats for the kadels. The First World War put strain on the constitution as Russia required an efficient government organisation, however the Tsar wouldn’t allow anyone to share his power thus resulting in a narrow-minded form of government that couldn’t meet the demands of war.   Additionally, the changes to the election laws were unrealistically high. This was yet another example of Nicholas trying to safeguard his position as Tsar as he thought repression would stop any opposition influencing his people in terms of democracy. However, it was already becoming clear to the people that autocracy was no longer suitable for the beginning of the 19th century as modernisation of industry required a modernisation of government. * Limited constitutional change was down to the Tsar’s inability to reform because of his stubborn personality. The First World War did not create these problems, as they already existed before 1914. Such an example would be Bloody Sunday. The liberal gentry also wanted more power given to the zemstva, as they were worried that if the Tsar didn’t share power, a revolution would take place. The 1917 march revolution was the revolution they were apprehensive for. The Shortcomings of Stolypin’s reforms   The Tsar’s insistence of receiving little help with the ruling of Russia allowed scarcely any reform to take place as the Tsar was not fully aware, or didn’t intend to be, with the problems that needed addressing, such as peasant farming.   This resulted with Stolypin introducing a land reform degree in November 1906.   Peasants were allowed to leave the commune freely, have a right to own their own land and consolidate strips. However, one of the downfalls of these reforms was that they were not compulsory.   The war put a lot of pressure on Russia’s agricultural production as it was their main export and so underinvestment in agriculture meant that the war exacerbated problems that already existed, such as the redistribution of land held by the nobility. This was one of the key issues that hadn’t been addressed by Stolypin, along with backward farming methods, lack of preserving land through not using fertiliser and high direct and indirect tax. By 1913 productivity rose by 1% per year with a record of 70 million ton harvest in 1913, however yields were still low compared to other countries.   25% of peasants made no change while 66% of peasants decided to own land privately, although by 1917 95% of peasants returned to the Mir. Despite the government’s intent to give the peasants some financial support by setting up a land bank between 1906 and 1913, most peasants were unable to afford the debt due to the expensive taxes. Redemption payments were abolished by 1917 and peasant purchasing power increased by 15% but there was still no change to the high direct and indirect tax. Land prices sore and produce prices fell. This left peasants in an all too familiar financial detriment, giving them more reason to revolt for improved living conditions as the first world war demanded produce by which they had no efficient methods to meet. The negative social affects of industrialisation   As the peasants were released from the Mir, they were able to work and live in towns benefitting industry. Nonetheless, there were negative social affects of industrialisation as by 1914 two fifths of factory workers were in factories with over 1000 members. Their average wages were below the ptiful of 1904 therefore workers began to protest about wages and went on strike in 1912 in the Lena goldfields where 170 were killed.   Development in industry from 1906-1914 with 8% per annum was beneficial for Russia, however Russia began from a low starting point and so it was easier to achieve large percentage increase at the expense of Russia’s working class. Workers in towns that were used to the quiet countrysides were more susceptible to opposition propaganda. Workers were an important part of the industrial boom as they contributed to the efficiency of factories. As their masses increased, it was more likely strikes would occur because of the poor, unhygienic, dangerous living and working conditions they were forced to live in.   Great masses in cramped spaces in towns also led to an increase in tension between them, raising the chance that the masses would join together and form a revolution to get the government to notice their propositions. The First World War demanded more military equipment and put pressure on working factories. Russia’s poor economic institution meant that the impact of war was too large a strain upon it and upon the working class. This lead to a revolution because laboring Russians wanted better lives and working conditions but the Tsar continued to ignore them. Growth of mass protest   As more workers revolted, so did the growth of mass protest.   The government used repression in order to solve this, in 1906 stolypin’s necktie was introduced. And the Okhrana were still intrusive and demanded passports on the spot. Despite freedom of press, in 1905 newspapers were still censored. World war one put the regime to new tests as repression was only a short term solution. In 1909, employers ignored the concessions of 1905 and the lack of the Tsar’s involvement meant the Duma intervened in 1912 producing an insurance scheme establishing protection for workers   Although order and control were issued through the Okhrana and repression using stolypin’s necktie, this only partially stabilized the regime. The war required an organised, efficient government, which Nicholas was not providing. Food distribution and army equipment were not being delivered efficiently, causing revolts in response. It was clear that repression wouldn’t last long, especially when the Tsar left his position to become commander in chief in 1915, leaving Russia without a Tsar. This would lead to a revolution because an unstable government wouldn’t survive the pressures of the war and its demands, therefore people would rebel. Limitations of Nicholas II   Nicholas often made bad decisions, despite his good intentions making him a poor leader. In 1915 he took control of the Russian army. He became the spotlight for criticism of deaths and shortage of ammunition, poor equipment and the shortage of boots.   People asked for consultative assembly however Nicholas had betrayed his people by issuing a set of Fundamental laws. This was because he had a weak character and was intimidated by criticism, so he didn’t allow it.   Poor leadership and incompetent communication among the leaders meant instructions were not followed carefully or not at all. Nicholas was personally responsible for Russia’s performance in the war.