Causes of the February Russian Revolution

Historical Investigation:

Causes of the February Revolution

A Plan of Investigation

This investigation focuses on the causes of the February Revolution of 1917 in tsarist Russia. Was the overthrow of the autocracy entirely the result of a single entity, or was it the culmination of several relevant factors, if so, what were they? Can it be linked to the ineptitude of the existing political establishment or to the actions of a specific group of Russian citizens? Furthermore, is it even possible to identify the deciding factor towards revolution?

To fully appreciate the causes of the revolution, one must look towards the social, political, and economic climate of Russia before, during, and after February 1917. Through an analysis of accurate facts, an exploration into the validity of the given sources, and a comparison of differing viewpoints, one can achieve considerable objectivity.

B Summery of Evidence

By early 1917, Russia was experiencing an unusually cold winter, with average temperatures in Petrograd ranging near fifteen degrees below zero. The excess snow from blizzards covered railway tracks, causing a near-entire collapse of the Russian transport system. In turn, basic provisions such as flour and fuel, were not reaching Petrograd and the more distant northern cities. Due to the lack of resources, bakeries were unable to produce the necessary goods and many closed. In addition, fuel shortages caused some factories to close as well, therefore laying off thousands of workers. In Petrograd, on a day of oddly warm weather nearing eight degrees, many citizens took to the streets.

On February 23rd or International Woman's day, large crowds marched towards the city center demanding equal rights. In the afternoon, metal and textile workers striking the bread shortages joined the crowds. By the end of the day the group consisted of nearly one hundred thousand people. The tsar's Cossacks were unable to stop the marchers from joining the woman near the central duma. The next day, two hundred thousand unemployed workers filled the city streets. Many armed themselves and, by mid morning, some one hundred and fifty thousand workers marched to the city center again. Revolutionaries gave speeches on the statue of Alexander III and once again the Cossacks did not stop the crowds.

The Russian army, after running out of younger troops, began to recruit men in their thirties and forties. In addition, military barracks meant to hold twenty thousand men instead held one hundred and sixty thousand. On February 25th a telegram from the tsar ordered Petrograd's military commander, General Khabalov, to restore order to the crowds by force. By this time the city was in a general strike with the appearance of red revolutionary flags and banners, factories closed operations, stores and newspapers stopped functioning, and twenty thousand workers joined the crowds towards the city center. On the same afternoon, the people won a decisive victory over the police in Nevsky Prospect. Another encounter near the city duma resulted in the deaths of nine demonstrators and the police commander. The next day, in Znamenskii Square, the Volynsky Guard Regiment opened fire on a crowd causing a reported forty to fifty civilian casualties. By this point, meetings of the Bolshevik party, as well as congress reports, were only open to select party members. Following the massacre, a mass mutiny of the Petrograd garrison began to unfold. By February 27th, of the one hundred and sixty thousand man garrison, eighty thousand were in mutiny. The arsenal and weapons factories were overtaken and soldiers armed themselves with one hundred and fifty thousand guns, both rifles and revolvers. By this point, the tsar had retained less than four thousand loyal troops, police, and Cossacks. In addition, Tsar Nicholas ignored telegrams and advice from politicians about the severity of the mutiny.

On February 28th the tsar left Mogilyov for Tsarskoye Selo but the trip was never completed due to the last part of the track being overtaken by revolutionaries. Soon, Nicholas agreed to grant the Duma a government, making him a constitutional monarch, and after further pressure, abdicated the throne on March 15th, 1917.

C Evaluation of Sources

Source 1:

Origin: Anna Osipovna Litveiko (born in 1899) into a family of Russian factory workers and, during the February revolution of 1917, joined the Bolshevik party. In 1918, she fought in Ukraine as a part of the Red Army and, in 1919, was chosen by the Central Committee to perform a, "special task", behind enemy lines, in the Caucasus. Following the Russian civil war, she became a Bolshevik propagandist. Litveiko's memoir was later ghostwritten during the Khrushchev, "thaw".

Purpose: Given that Anna Litveiko never renounced her status in the Bolshevik party and worked as a political propagandist, it can be inferred that the accounts given in her memoir may contain underlying political objectives. It is plausible that the memoir, in order to manipulate the reader's perception of the Bolshevik party, depicts a skewed or altered positive view of their intentions and motivations during and after the Russian Revolution.

Value: As the memoir contains many first hand accounts and primary sources, its descriptions have value that many historical interpretations lack. Rather than reading a description of the Russian Revolution, the article allows the reader insight into the actuality of the both the event and the perspective of a common factory worker.

Limitation: Due to the fact that the memoir was ghostwritten, the writer, to augment the narrative, may have altered many of the events and perspectives. In reality the finished work may not reflect Litveiko's original view and intent. As a propagandist, Litveiko may have misrepresented, on purpose or due to bias, events in the memoir to portray a positive image of the Bolshevik party. Although it provides insight into a workers perspective of the revolution, these factors severely limit the reliability of the memoir as a source of factual evidence.

Source 2:

Origin: Orlando Figes (born November 20 1959) is a British professor, specializing in Russian history at the University of London. Figes' mother is feminist