Download An absolute ruler: Tsar Nicholas 11 1894-1917

An absolute ruler: Tsar Nicholas II 1894-1917
Nicholas’ inheritance
When Nicholas became Tsar in 1894 his personal authority seemed
completely secure. With the Imperial crown came the imposing titles of
Tsar of all the Russias, Grand Duke of Poland and Grand Duke of
Finland. Appointed by God, the holder of these titles was the absolute
ruler of an empire covering roughly one-sixth of the earth's total land
surface. This empire stretched from the Baltic to the Black Sea and
from Poland to the Pacific. Such was its extent that the capital, St
Petersburg, was actually closer to New York than to Vladivostock. It
was the home of many different racial groups including Latvians, Poles,
Ukrainians and Mongols. Of a population in 1917 of 163 million, ethnic
Russians constituted only 40 per cent.
Russia and the World in 1914
The royal family enjoyed massive personal wealth and owned estates
which were larger than several European countries. Their huge empire
was held together by the largest standing army in Europe, which was
one million strong. While the prestige of the Russian empire rested on
the strength of the army, its political security was in the firm hands of an
extensive secret police network which was usually brutally effective. As
these features suggest, the Tsar was at the helm of a highly
authoritarian, heavily centralised police state which did not appear to
respond to pressure from any social class. Political parties were
banned. Radical critics of the regime generally found themselves in
prison or in exile. The press was heavily censored and public meetings
were carefully controlled. Yet loyalty to the Tsar or 'Father' was intense,
typified by the peasants' widespread practice of displaying an icon of
him on the walls of their huts.
Absolute power rested in the hands of one man. The tone of Nicholas
ll's personal rule was set by his unequivocal response in 1895 to a
request from the provincial zemstvo (local council) of Tver for an
extension of representative institutions: 'I am informed that recently in
some zemstvo assemblies, voices have made themselves heard
from, people carried away by senseless dreams about participation
by members of the zemstvo in the affairs of internal government:
let all know that I, devoting all my strength to the welfare of the
people, will uphold the principle of autocracy as firmly and as
unflinchingly as my late unforgettable father.'
The Emperor had made it clear from the outset that his word was
literally law. Any earlier legislation could simply be overruled by an oral
instruction from him. There were no legal or constitutional restraints on
the choice of ministers, the exercise of political power or the formulation
of national policy. The extent of the Tsar's authority was heightened by
the corresponding weakness of Russia's limited political institutions.
The Council of Ministers held no collective talks and each minister was
responsible to the Tsar alone. The governors of the Russian provinces
exercised considerable authority but they remained the personal
appointments of the Tsar and could be instantly dismissed.
Problems of the tsarist regime
• The fate and influence of previous Tsars
Nicholas II was witness to the death of his grandfather, Alexander II, in
1881. Alexander was killed by an assassin’s bomb during a routine
inspection of the royal guard in St. Petersburg. He did not die instantly
however and his horribly mutilated body was taken back to the palace.
Nicholas was 13 years old at the time and ushered into a room to see
his dying grandfather. It was an experience the future Tsar would never
forget.
Alexander III resolved to return the autocracy to its traditional feared
position. He dismissed reformers as “half-wits and perverted apes”,
oversaw the persecution of the Jewish community and the extension of
police repression. Most lasting of all was the destruction of every trace
of democracy and constitutionalism. While Russia’s economy had
progressed, her political development had been stopped in its tracks.
Furthermore, he placed his impressionable young son under the tuition
of Pobedonostsev. The significance of this must not be forgotten.
• The personal qualities of the new Tsar
The Russian throne passed to Nicholas II when he was only 26 years
old. He came to the throne ill equipped to wield power and with a
personality more suited to the role of a purely ceremonial figure-head.
Little had been done to prepare him for the job into which he was now
thrust and which was ultimately to overwhelm him. The omens were not
good. In 1895 a glittering coronation ceremony was marred when
hundreds of onlookers on Khodyanka field were trampled to death.
• The need for reform
At first it appeared that the heritage passed on to Nicholas was a
healthy one. The empire was at peace and Europe was enjoying a welcome period of tranquillity. The domestic situation was stable and
Alexander III had presided over a period of intense industrial expansion,
typified by the ambitious project to build a trans-Siberian railway. St
Petersburg and Moscow were now major industrial centres. Foreign
investment poured into Russia, promoting massive growth in railways,
iron, steel, cotton, silk, chemicals and banking. Spectacular progress
was made in the mines of the Ukraine and the oilfields of the Baku,
while cotton production was boosted by the widespread introduction of
new machinery.
Most historians are agreed, however, that beneath the veneer of
autocratic rule and industrial growth, the tsarist regime entered the
Twentieth Century heading towards a major crisis. Russian society was
in need of substantial social, economic and political reform if this
impending crisis were to be averted. The new ruler, though, was a man
who regarded even minor reform as dangerous and for whom the
autocracy was sacrosanct.
• Industrial centres
It is essential to recognise that industrial growth carried with it major
social problems. In general, the Russian people had endured the
difficulties of an industrial revolution without experiencing any of its
benefits. The capital, St Petersburg, had seen rapid industrial growth
but the conditions which accompanied this were horrendous. Its huge
textile factories were poorly lit, ill ventilated and contained fast-moving
machinery without protective guards. The average working day in the
1890s was between 12 and 14 hours. Discipline was harsh, rules
inflexible, foremen brutal and fines severe. Larger firms offered their
workers company accommodation in dismal barracks. The alternative
was to search for housing in the grim backstreets of the capital. Such
housing was notoriously expensive, overcrowded and insanitary. Within
a mile of the Winter Palace families lived in indescribable filth and
squalor.
The glaring contrast between the great wealth of the ruling aristocracy
and the awful conditions endured by the working class could have
sounded an alarm for the Tsar, but any warning signs were completely
ignored. Strike action, while still limited in the 1890s, reached a peak
for that decade in 1899, with 97,000 participants. Perhaps this figure
reflects the fact that more and more factory workers were developing a
sense of political awareness and class consciousness. For the time
being, the ban on trade unions and the strength of the police state
meant that working-class dissatisfaction was largely ignored. However,
the sense of injustice which increasingly prevailed in the cities would not
always fall upon deaf ears: eventually, these areas would prove to be a
hotbed of radical political activity.
A peasant family in their home
• The countryside
In the countryside the situation was generally even worse.
Approximately 80 per cent of Russia's population were peasant farmers,
subsisting in conditions which were exceptionally harsh. Less than one
third of the peasantry could read and write. Average life expectancy in
the countryside was under 40. Farming equipment was primitive and
investment virtually non existent. Generally, individual peasants did not
own private land. Instead the commune owned land, organised the
collection of taxes and allotted strips of land to each household. The
power of the commune was underlined by the fact that peasants could
not leave the village without the consent of the village elders. Discipline
was imposed through locally appointed officials known as Land
Captains, and corporal punishment was commonly used until 1904.
Moreover, serious breaches of communal law could be punished by
exile to Siberia. Communal farming did little to protect its members from
famine. In 1891 severe drought and crop failure led to a major famine
which combined with outbreaks of cholera and typhus to produce a
death toll of 400,000. Statistics reveal that in 1890 about 64 per cent of
peasants called up for military service were declared unfit on health
grounds. In the famine year of 1891 the figure reached a staggering 78
per cent. The severe shortage of land in peasant hands caused even
greater irritation as the size of peasant allotments completely failed to
keep pace with the growth of the rural population. Later the peasants'
demand for land would assume an urgency which would prove
impossible to resist but for the time being they retained their faith in the
tsar. Meanwhile their hunger for food and land was ignored.
It is clear, then, that at the turn of the century the foundations had
been laid for future opposition to the tsarist regime in both the
cities and the countryside. However, the relative passivity of the
population at this point and the repressive apparatus of the state
created an atmosphere of complacency and political stagnation.
This complacency was temporarily disturbed by the revolution of 1905,
a dress rehearsal for the revolutions of 1917. It is important to note,
however, that discontent was already growing before this date. In May
1896 the textile mills around St Petersburg were bit by a wave of
strikes. In Rostovon-Don massive street demonstrations in 1902 were
crushed by troops. Between 1901 and 1907 arson in the countryside
became commonplace as rioting peasants set fire to the manor houses
of the aristocracy. An economic depression hard on the heels of the
1890s boom led to renewed strike action and demonstrations. In 1904
the minister of the interior, Plehve, was assassinated by a Social
Revolutionary.
• War with Japan
The regime's problems were exacerbated by a disastrous war with
Japan which took place between 1904 and 1905. The war was fought
over the control of Korea and Manchuria, and its outbreak was initially
greeted with some enthusiasm. However, this turned to concern after
major setbacks at Port Arthur and Mukden early in 1905. At the end of
May, the Russian Baltic fleet was annihilated by the Japanese in the
straits of Tshushima. In August 1905 the Russians were obliged to sign
a humiliating peace treaty which gave Japan control over Korea and
southern Manchuria. A campaign which it was hoped would boost the
government's waning popularity had ended in disgraceful defeat. It is in
this context of mounting problems at home and abroad that the events
of 1905 are best understood.
TASKS
Nicholas’ inheritance
1. When did Nicholas II become Tsar? Describe the titles, powers and privileges
he inherited.
2. How was the prestige and political security of the Empire maintained?
3. How did the regime deal with political opposition?
4. How did peasants demonstrate their loyalty to the Tsar?
5. What was Nicholas’ attitude towards a growth in the power of local
government?
6. What constraints were there on the Tsar’s powers?
7. Describe the Tsar’s opinion and treatment of his ministers.
Problems of the Tsarist regime
1. How was Nicholas influenced by the reigns of his father and grandfather?
2. How prepared was Nicholas for the role of Tsar?
3. Describe the condition of Russia when Nicholas succeeded the throne.
4. Where was reform most needed?
5. Describe the living and working conditions in Russia’s industrial centres.
6. How many people participated in strikes in 1899? What does this reveal?
7. Describe living and working conditions in the countryside.
8. What were the peasant’s major grievances?
9. Give examples of early discontent to Nicholas’ regime.
10. How did the war with Japan affect attitudes to the Tsarist regime?
FOCUS: Did Nicholas inherit a string autocratic regime or a weak one?
Which aspects of Russian society would you say were in most need of
reform at the turn of the century?
Were there any positive aspects to Russian society at this time?