February Was Not a Workers Revolution, It Was a Mutiny, a Russian Worker S Riot, Unchecked

“February was not a workers revolution, it was a mutiny, a Russian worker’s riot, unchecked by weak government.” Is this an accurate assessment of the events surrounding the abdication of the Tsar.

There are an abundance of reasons for the Tsar’s abdication in 1917 that come in the form of workers protests, soldiers sympathy towards the workers, an inadequate and inept government and an overall growing distrust in the regime form all in Russian society prior to the tsar’s abdication. This quote “February was not a workers revolution, it was a mutiny, a Russian worker’s riot, unchecked by weak government.” Therefore does have a considerable accuracy when talking of the events immediately before the tsar’s abdication although by no means gives a complete and fulfilling explanation of the outcome.

There is little doubt that Petrograd workers played an important role in the February revolution which culminated in the Tsar’s abdication. The revolution grew from a protest by striking Putilov steel workers who requested better pay. More and more workers joined the cause and it can be argued, as in the question, that at this point the protest turned to a riot as numbers swelled. From this information it is clear to see that it was indeed workers who instigated conditions for revolution in February 1917 and without this initial burst of action nothing may have happened. This idea is substantiated by Pipes, a historian who believes in the workers: “it was the workers and soldiers and not the administrators, generals, ambassadors and businessmen who took action and a revolution needs action, audacious action.”

Combined with this evidence of historiography it is clear beyond doubt that the workers played a role of some importance in the February revolution and it consequences through the “audacious” action they undertook.

However as Pipes also states the soldiers of the Tsar had an equally important role to play if not more important. As the protests grew thousands took to the streets to protest at the lack of food and the First World War. Soldiers were ordered to crush this uprising but many didn’t and actually joined the protests in distrust at their officers (many of whom were shot) and their Tsar. It can be argued that if the soldiers had remained loyal to the regime the uprising could have been easily stamped out, making the workers role of no consequence. But without the soldier’s loyalty the Tsarist regime was powerless and had no choice but to stand down. As a result it is widely believed that it was the soldiers and not the workers who proved instrumental in the tsar’s abdication. This view is supported by Orland Figes, a revisionist historian, who states that the soldiers not the workers of Petrograd proved decisive in the outcome of the February Revolution. If the troops of Petrograd had not joined the revolution then nothing may have come of the Putilov steel works, a point sorely missed by the quote in question putting doubt as to whether it is a accurate assessment of the events of February 1917.

It has already been established that both the soldiers and the workers played a role in the February revolution but what has not been established is where this unrest stems from. Many of the complaints held by the workers and soldiers came directly form the Tsar’s lack of organisation and weak mentality. The war effort was a complete disaster, Russians were dying in their tens of thousands and people were greatly angered at this both soldiers involved in the war and their relatives left at hime. This anger was directed straight towards the Tsar himself who had taken direct control of the war effort to no avail. Food was short, although through lack of organisation further inciting discontent amongst the masses culminating in protest and revolution and the Tsar’s abdication. The incompetence of the regime as a whole does not end there. While attempting to turn around the war the Tsar left his wife to inform him of the news from Petrograd. In her letters to the Tsar she played down the seriousness of the growing protests so as not to trouble the tsar. Although it is arguable that even if the Tsar had known about the protest his incompetence as a leader would have meant nothing would have been done even with his intervention. This lack of leadership and organisation both helped cause the condition for revolution and meant that when revolution began it was not stopped. The importance of the war and poor government as factors resulted in the tsar’s abdication and it is noted by Dmitir Volkogan: ”the two chief causes of the February revolution were an unsuccessful was and a weak government.”

These factors are clearly of great importance especially in sowing the seeds of revolution. Again the quote gives no indication to any of this information further detracting from its accuracy.

It was not only the masses that were growing in distrust of the tsarist regime. The middle and administrative classes were growing in contempt for the tsar. Many of the middle class wanted a growth in democracy so that they themselves could gain power. The tsar however refused to give away any of his power. This angered the middle classes who when discovering the protests also demanded that the tsar abdicate. Government officials also took this thought and action but for far different reasons. A mysterious man named Rasputin had gained the trust of the tsar’s family through treating his seriously ill son. Through this he gained power and authority in the courts and employed his own friends in place of long serving officials who were fired. This feared and angered many government officials who grew to distrust the tsar and eventually called for his abdication. These factors of relative importance were not mentioned in the quote either increasing its accuracy.

Overall it is clear that the quote “February was not a workers revolution, it was a mutiny, a Russian worker’s riot, unchecked by weak government.” Is only accurate to an extent. It only gives mention to the role of the workers and not the soldiers , without whom the workers efforts may have gone without any results, or the officials who effectively stabbed the Tsar in the back and left him no choice but to abdicate. The only remaining factor to this quote is that it does give mention to the inadequate government which arguably was the root of all the other problems mentioned. In conclusion this quote is only a partly accurate assessment of the events surrounding the abdication of the Tsar.