Issues of Leadership and the Tsar’s Abdication (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes
Issues of Leadership and the Tsar's Abdication
The absence of revolutionary leadership
The speed and apparent spontaneity of these events reflected a conspicuous absence of established revolutionary leaders. All major Bolshevik figures who had campaigned for popular uprising were absent at the time. Vladimir Lenin (the leader of the Bolshevik faction of Russian Social Democracy) and Julius Martov (a leading Menshevik) were in Zurich, Switzerland, while Leon Trotsky (an independent Marxist revolutionary) was in New York. Viktor Chernov, leader of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, was also in exile.
Research conducted by James White, Professor of Russian History at Glasgow University, published in 1997, uncovered evidence that a liberal group had been planning a coup to topple the Tsar. This group included Pavel Milyukov (a leading liberal politician), Aleksandr Guchkov (an industrialist and politician), Aleksandr Konovalov, and Mikhail Tereshchenko. White argued that these conspirators were alarmed by the February developments which threatened to spiral beyond their control.
White also identified a revolutionary workers' group operating from the working-class Vyborg district of Petrograd. Recent historical analysis suggests that small bands of revolutionary activists were at work in February 1917, though whether they instigated the troubles or merely attempted to influence their progression remains unclear.
Soviet historians, writing after the Bolsheviks came to power, interpreted the February events as the inevitable result of class struggle between bourgeois-proletarian forces and traditional aristocratic forces. Since they could not point to direct Bolshevik leadership (as their leaders were either imprisoned or exiled), they promoted the concept of a spontaneous rising driven by the oppressed working class.
This interpretation should be approached critically, as it served the political interests of the Bolshevik regime rather than representing objective historical analysis.
The Tsar's failed response
On 28 February, Nicholas II left his military headquarters at the Volynski regiment and attempted to return to Petrograd. He sent a telegram to Rodzianko, President of the Duma, offering to share power. The response revealed the extent of his miscalculation: 'the measures you propose are too late. The time for them has gone. There is no return.'
Nicholas never reached Petrograd. Rebellious railway workers diverted his train, forcing it to stop at Pskov, approximately 200 miles south of the capital. This physical isolation symbolised his complete loss of control over the country.
Pressure for abdication from military leadership
At Pskov, the Tsar faced mounting pressure from General Alexeev, Chief of the General Staff. On 1 March, Alexeev had negotiated an agreement with the Petrograd Soviet whereby it would recognise a provisional government formed by members of the Duma. However, Alexeev suggested that the Tsar should resign in favour of his son, Aleksei, with Nicholas' younger brother, Mikhail, serving as regent until Aleksei reached adulthood.
On 2 March, Nicholas agreed to these terms of abdication. However, fearing that his son Aleksei's health was too delicate (the young tsarevich suffered from haemophilia), he altered the arrangement. Instead, he named Grand Duke Mikhail as the new Tsar, adding that Mikhail should lead the country 'in complete union with the representatives of the people in the legislative bodies on principles to be established by them' and take an 'inviolable oath to this effect'.
By the time members of the Duma Committee reached Pskov on 2 March to finalise the abdication, the terms had already been agreed, though ultimately Mikhail refused to accept the throne without guarantees of his safety and legitimacy through a Constituent Assembly.
The Tsar and his family were placed under house arrest, as were most members of the Tsar's Council of Ministers. After 304 years, the Romanov dynasty ended.
Key Points to Remember:
- The February Revolution exposed a complete collapse of leadership: Nicholas II failed to comprehend the situation's gravity, military commanders withdrew their support, and revolutionary leaders were absent from Russia.
- The military mutiny on 27 February proved decisive – 66,000 soldiers defected to the revolution, distributing 40,000 rifles to civilians and eliminating the regime's capacity for armed repression.
- Nicholas II's abdication resulted from pressure by his own military leadership (General Alexeev) rather than direct revolutionary action, though his isolation at Pskov symbolised his total loss of control.