Russia after WWI

[kearny]

I was wondering if anyone could help me answer a question?
If anyone could explain to me the reasons why Democracy failed to take root in post WWI Russia, in light of personal freedoms, individual liberies and rights, social equality and actual historical events, it would be a great help to me!!

[Blueliner]

in a nutshell? due to the political instability caused by a number of circumstances, Lenin rose to power and democracy is not what he had in mind. instead, he introduced the world to the Workers' Paradise, ruled by his hand-picked elite. but any good encyclopaedia can tell you this....

[kearny]

Blueliner,

Thanks, but I was looking for more specific explanations rather than "circumstances". And yes, any good encyclopedia would have had that information, but I was looking for someone with more knowledge in the area that could actually help me answer the question that I asked.

[Blueliner]

sorry for the sarcasm, bad habit. though I'm not in the area, my degree's in US-Russian comparative politics, so I've done my share of research into your topic. anyway, let me know if you want to talk.

[kearny]

Hey Blueliner,

I too am sorry for the bithchy reply...I am trying to write a paper on why democracy failed to root itself in post WW1 Russia (refer to original question). I am having a hard time getting started and thought that someone could help me get my thoughts headed in the right direction. If you have any specific arguments that would be worth further research, let me know. Thanks.

[Blueliner]

cool. I just love those open-ended topics professors like to throw out where you have to give an opinion then support it! j/k. that's quite a topic. how long is the paper supposed to be?

don't know what you've already read, but 2 really good sources are "Soviet Politics 1917-1991" by Mary McAuley and "Rethinking the Soviet Experience" by Stephen F. Cohen. McAuley's book gives more background into the 1917 revolutions, but I think Cohen does a better job with everything post-Lenin. anyway, here goes. I'll try to keep my thoughts orderly, but no promises

intro/background: at 1st glance, you're looking at the time b/t Feb and Oct 1917, but to understand the unrest, you need to also look at the revolution of 1905, that established the Duma. b/f the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't a large working class, mainly just aristocracy, peasants, then a handful of professionals (lawyers, dr's, teachers, etc.). the income disparity b/t the classes was enormous, as was the population distribution (80% were illiterate peasants). so, you've got unhappy peasants, an increasingly dissatisfied professional class, and a new, huge semi-literate/literate working class versus a small but very wealthy, powerful ruling class, all headed up by the Romanovs who, in my opinion, make Marie Antoinette seem on top of current events. anyway, Feb the tsar abdicates after the soldiers join the workers in protests. (bottom line, in almost every revolutionary situation, whoever controls the military controls the country). I don't know specific titles, but I'm sure you could do an internet search for some of the literature of the time to support this-both propaganda and fiction. oh and another thing to note is the workers were essentialy whipped up by pissed-off students/teachers/etc. though some of them may have eventually organized on their own, it wouldn't have happened as quickly or as orderly w/o the intellectuals. possibly setting the stage for the 'vanguard' as Lenin put it?

point one: Feb 1917. personal freedoms, liberties and basic human rights. all of which had been denied under tsarist rule, but were still not even close to American standards/understanding. oh and as an interesting sidenote, you could talk about the psychological impact of going from nothing to what seems like everything and behavior thereof. but definitely touch on the economic situation; rising inflation, food and supply shortages, and the influx of refugees from the front. also, since Russia, like many countries pre-WWI, was isolationist, it had no real recourse to correct this, especially the food shortages. so, life's not looking to great to the average Joe-peasant (or maybe that's Ivan??) and he has no realistic expectation it's going to get better. essentially, they didn't need much convincing to try something new. also, with the end of the tsar, many of the radicals that he'd imprisoned were released, further spreading the revolutionary flame. so anyway, they're allowed to vote, and protest, and all the good stuff of 'freedom' but they're still hungry and poor. and the West wants this to fail since abolishing personal property and total community ownership is the antithesis of capitalism.

I'm starting to ramble pretty bad. time to eat and let my brain cool off-I haven't had to think this much since college! hahaha

[azov]

Why Democracy didn't take in Russia during/after WW I.

I've gone into this subject in great detail, and I've come up with the following. Although I don't claim to be the final answer on the subject - no such exists anywhere in life - I'll stack up my insights against anyone's. With that disclaimer, here goes:

The Russian "Democrats" by 1914 were also pro-Allied. The Tzar had gotten into the war against the Central powers for nationalistic reasons, but threatened with collapse of his army and the rising tide of democracy at home - and his wife's German connections - Nikolai II began to have second thoughts. The Allies and the Russian Democrats were afraid he would make a seperate peace - Rasputin was assassinated for this reason - so they saw their opportunity.

Removing the Tzar hit a couple of birds with the same rock: because the Eastern Front was collapsing under the German onslaught, it was imperative to get America into the War to save the Allied war effort. A collapsed East meant the spectre of German troops marching through Paris. Yet to get the U.S. involved meant catering to President Wilson's democratic sensibilities. Wilson needed to show Congress and the American public that America would enter the war "to make the world safe for democracy," in the famous pet phrase. He could not do this with the Tzar of Russia as an ally. Even then the Russian government had no credibility in the U.S.

Although the British were reluctant, they went along with the idea. The British, the French, the Americans and the Russian Democrats presented Nikolai with an offer he couldn't refuse: abdicate, or they'd reveal the German contacts made through agents like Rasputin for a seperate peace. The revelation of this would destroy Romanov credibility. The Tzar signed the abdication for himself and his son. The pro-war party also prevailed upon Grand Duke Mikhail not to accept the Throne. This put the pro-war Democrats in charge of a "government of public confidence" - the so-called Provisional Government.

With the pro-war Democrats in charge the war effort seemed to get a new lease on life. Alexander Kerensky, co-founder and Vice-President of the Petrograd Soviet, was made Minister of War in a coalition government of both Duma and Soviet. The problem was that Russia was still technically unable to fight a modern war against Germany. To common folk the Revolution of February, 1917, was seen as an end to Tzarist obligations, including the Tzar's wars. A desire for peace mounted as Russian soldiers wondered why they needed barracks discipline in a new, free Russia, and as Russia continued to get pounded on the Eastern Front. The Soviet's General Order No. 1, for instance, countermanded the orders of the Army General Staff in favor of the Soviet.

This gradually turned public opinion against the war, especially in the barracks and the villages. In the latter, the peasants politics revolved around the land issue. The Russian Democrats depended on liberal landowners for much of their support, hence they waffled on the one issue that really mattered to the Russian peasant - who comprised 80% of the population even then.

Along came Lenin with slogans of "Land, peace, bread, and all power to the Soviets!" As things descended from bad to worse the slogans were irresistable. The Russian Democrats were so committed to the Allied war effort they seemed to lose sight of what mattered most to the Russian people they claimed to represent. They simply lost the "public confidence" with which they were entrusted in February of 1917. The October Revolution followed. The Provisional Government fell with no one willing to run to its rescue. To this day the Russian Democrats of this era remain a disgrace in Russian history, and virtually no one has tried to resurrect their memory in post-Soviet times - as contrasted with the flowering interest in the Imperial Era.

As a postscript, when the Constituent Assembly was elected in early 1918 the dominant party (Social Revolutionaries) were composed of the same old pro-war Democrats that had been bankrupted in October. Through gerrymandering they gained control of the Assembly. This only helped to dig Liberal Democracy's grave. These folks had lost all credibility and the Constituent Assembly, too, was folded up without a fight.

I didn't mean to write your paper for you, but I'll pit my post against anyone's , including your good professor's. (By the way, just cite me as "azov" in your notes.)