Collapse Of Tsardom In Russia
In the context of the years 1815 to 1917 to what extent was the collapse of Tsardom caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the political masses? To fully understand the collapse of Tsardom, the condition of Russia in 1917 must be analysed, along with 1815 to 1917. The Russian revolution and the subsequent collapse of Tsardom are perceived to be caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the political masses by some Historians however, it is also seen to be 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. Many historians accept that the 1917 Russian revolution was a significant cause of the collapse of Tsardom and the Romanov dynasty,
…show more content…
Smith argues to a certain degree that the collapse of Tsardom was caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the political masses arguing that “when the February Revolution came, it was not as the result of military defeat, or even war weariness, but as the result of the collapse of public support in the government”[1]. The resentment of the lower classes moved from the Tsar’s policies and more towards the Tsar nearing the end of the war, greatly affecting the public support of the Tsar. The extent of discontent was clear in the “Okhrana’s files[which] bulged with reports on …show more content…
This was due to city pay being greater than the on-farm earning, the latter of which not being enough to sustain a peasant household. This increase in demographics lower class in cities was a contrast to the isolation experienced by the rural peasants who were more passive towards their treatment due to lack of communication. For example, the percentage of peasants living in rural areas decreased from 86% pre-1861 to 80% by the late 19th century. In urban centres, there were greater degrees of communication which allowed the lower class have a greater majority in their discontent than in the countryside, where they were sparsely located. The growth of the lower class in urban centres had a positive correlation with the growth of opposition to the Tsar in Russian urban society. Such reforms not only led to peasants and urban working class opposition but also some sections of the nobility. For example, (nobility
Smith argues to a certain degree that the collapse of Tsardom was caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the political masses arguing that “when the February Revolution came, it was not as the result of military defeat, or even war weariness, but as the result of the collapse of public support in the government”[1]. The resentment of the lower classes moved from the Tsar’s policies and more towards the Tsar nearing the end of the war, greatly affecting the public support of the Tsar. The extent of discontent was clear in the “Okhrana’s files[which] bulged with reports on …show more content…
This was due to city pay being greater than the on-farm earning, the latter of which not being enough to sustain a peasant household. This increase in demographics lower class in cities was a contrast to the isolation experienced by the rural peasants who were more passive towards their treatment due to lack of communication. For example, the percentage of peasants living in rural areas decreased from 86% pre-1861 to 80% by the late 19th century. In urban centres, there were greater degrees of communication which allowed the lower class have a greater majority in their discontent than in the countryside, where they were sparsely located. The growth of the lower class in urban centres had a positive correlation with the growth of opposition to the Tsar in Russian urban society. Such reforms not only led to peasants and urban working class opposition but also some sections of the nobility. For example, (nobility