Impact of War and Revolution on the Development of the Russian Empire and the USSR Flashcards
The Crimean War, 1853 - 1856
The Crimean War, 1853 - 1856
Political Impacts
The poor showing of the Russian military during the war, coupled with the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, led to public discussions about the future of the Russian Empire: doubts, especially among Slavophiles, spread about how great Russia really was as its position as a great power was seen as being severely damaged.
The Treaty of Paris resulted in:
- Russia, giving up its claim to act as the protector of the principalities, and handing a substantial chunk of Bessarabia to Moldavia.
- Russia was prohibited from maintaining a fleet in the Black Sea, and had to remove all naval fortifications along the Black Sea coastline. Given the logistical importance of this to Russia, such a measure was humiliating, thus highlighting the weak position they were in, although the harsh measures reflected the European’s fear of Russian Power.
The Emancipation of the Serfs led to a reduced political role for the nobility at a local level. The creation of the Zemstva filled the gap and members were elected. Although this element of democracy was watered down by the fact that there were property qualifications attached to voting, it gave some indication that tsars might be prepared to lessen their autocratic grip.
The Crimean War, 1853 - 1856
Economic Impacts
The Crimean War revealed Russia to be backward and have developed, especially when it came to transport, communications, and the use of technology. Industrialisation was slow compared to Britain and France, and for many, the root cause of this stagnation was the continued existence of Serfdom. The Serfs were emancipated, though the edict was sometime after the war, making some wonder whether it would have occurred without the war. however, the saw had considered the idea, but rejected it previously, as it would’ve led to “an even more ruinous evil”, that is, the loss of authority and land by the nobility.
One economic development of note was that the expansion of the railway system was stimulated as the war had revealed how slowly Russia was mobilising resources. Thus, this became a priority, with 2 billion roubles of foreign loans spent to construct over 20,000 km of track from 1861 to 1878. This boosted Russia’s ability to deal with the logistical problems of expanding, protecting and maintaining an empire.
The Crimean War, 1853 - 1856
Social Impacts
The Crimean War involved far heavier casualties than any other European war fought between 1815 and 1914, with between 650-750,000 thought to have died, 450,000 of those Russian, most dying of disease.
The Crimean War, 1853 - 1856
Military Impacts
The military was also reformed. At the start of the war, it consisted of about 1 million men, mostly peasants. To instil order, harsh discipline was enforced, including the notorious ‘running of the gauntlet’. Accommodation was poor, which caused disease; it’s estimated between 1833 and 1855, about 1 million soldiers died as a result. Coupled with lack of decent clothing in equipment, including weapons, the morale of Russian troops is low, described by Tolstoy as ‘ a horde of slaves cowed by discipline’. Under the guidance of Dmitrii Milyutin, using the Prussian Military model, he reduced service in the army to 15 years, modernised training and provided rigorous instruction for offices, meaning a more professional army in line with Western rivals. As a result, the government had an army that in theory could be relied on to help maintain civil order at home.
The Russian-Turkish War, 1877 - 1878
The Russian-Turkish War, 1877 - 1878
Political Impacts
In March 1879, the Treaty of San Stefano was signed between Russia and Turkey. It stipulated the following:
Russia was to regain South Bessarabia, which it had lost during the Crimean War.
Russia also made substantial territorial gains in the Caucasus.
Turkey was forced to pay a war indemnity to Russia.
Recognition was given to the independence of Serbia, Montenegro and Romania. Serbia and Montenegro also made their own territorial gains.
Turkey was served the task of carrying out reforms to benefit Herzegovina and Bosnia.
A ‘large’ Bulgaria was established.
Unfortunately for Russia, the conditions of the treaty offended and worried Austria-Hungary and Britain. Russia feared that those who were upset might decide to provoke a bigger, more costly conflict over the Balkans. The tsar therefore decided to accept an offer from the German chancellor, Bismarck, to broker a bigger peace conference in Berlin. The Congress of Berlin was held in mid-1878. The following was decided:
Russia was allowed to retain its right to South Bessarabia and gains in the Caucasus.
Austria-Hungary was to govern Herzegovina and Bosnia.
Britain took over the administration of Cyprus to strengthen its interests and influence in the Balkans.
Bulgaria became smaller.
Although Russia gained territory and money (from the indemnity) and saw the Ottoman Empire further weakened, Russian nationalists were very unhappy at what happened in Berlin. For the pan-Slavic supporters in particular, the concessions made to Austria-Hungary and Britain were unacceptable. They saw this as amounting to a loss of world status. Alexander II found it very difficult to deal with the unrest that this created, and some historians have argued that this one event was responsible for his assassination in 1884.
The Russo-Japanese War, 1904 - 1905
The Russo-Japanese War, 1904 - 1905
Political Impacts
Similarly to the Crimean War, the disastrous outcome of the Russo-Japanese War led to doubts being expressed about the ability of the tsar to maintain Russia’s world status and concerns about the effectiveness of autocracy in general. Also, in comparison to the Crimean War, the conflict with Japan was followed by significant reform. This was because the Russo-Japanese War seemed to spark far more social unrest in the Russian homeland, which in turn influenced the nature of the reforms enacted by Nicholas II.
The Treaty of Portsmouth, August 1905
This resulted in the following:
■Russia was forced to withdraw from Port Arthur, south Sakhalin and south Manchuria.
■ Russian leaders had to acknowledge Japanese sovereignty in Korea.
Reforms
The war revealed that Russian military leaders had a lack of knowledge, understanding and skill in dealing with an enemy that, on paper, was vastly inferior. The Russian public associated military incompetence of this scale with the tsar himself; this appeared to fuel discontent at home rather than extinguish it, which had been one of the key aims of the war. In fact, some historians believe that the social unrest that occurred in 1905 was tantamount to a revolution. Thus, Nicholas II, rather reluctantly, introduced an element of democracy to Russia by setting up the Duma (see pages 27-8). The hope was that the public would be convinced that the tsar was willing to become more accountable for his actions and those of his advisers. It is unlikely that this would have happened without the war, as the tsar was a staunch adherent of ‘Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationality’. This is reinforced by the fact that in a very short space of time the powers of the Duma were greatly diminished.
The Russo-Japanese War, 1904 - 1905
Economic Impacts
Despite the expansion of Russia’s rail network since the Crimean War, the Russo-Japanese conflict revealed serious communication and transport weaknesses. The Trans-Siberian Railway, still unfinished, had failed to solve the logistical problem of getting troops and supplies to war zones quickly and efficiently. The result was further investment in the transport infrastructure and, more generally, in industry. Ironically, such developments also led to rapid urbanisation and mounting public health problems.
The Russo-Japanese War, 1904 - 1905
Social Impacts
Poor working and living conditions produced an increasingly discontented populace; reforms were enacted with the promise of raising living standards but they appeared to do the
reverse.
The First World War, 1914 - 1918
The First World War, 1914 - 1918
Political Impacts
Optimists claimed that Russia was never able to get to grips with the demands of the world’s first industrial war and it was inevitable that the Russian people would blame the leader who led them into conflict. They thought the Tsar would have coped with further demands for constitutional reform to quieten the critics, a trend that had started after 1905 and there was little reason to believe further progress wouldn’t be made. Optimists thought that: Military failure in WW1 led to Economic pressures, which in turn had a negative impact on the daily lives of Russians in the Home Front. This led to social unrest, the extent of which the authorities could not cope and only a drastic change in government averted a state of anarchy.
Pessimists argue against the First World War being a significant turning point because the Tsar had been struggling for some time to deal with the demand of a constitutional government. The progressive bloc in the Duma led Nicholas II to restrict their freedoms. He had also shown to be an incompetent leader, and WW1 only sped up his inevitable demise. Furthermore, the working classes had greater consciousness after the legalisation of political parties and trade unions and were building opposition, regardless of the war. Nonetheless, this pro-Bolshevik standpoint fails to fully explain why, given the failure of the July Days, the Bolsheviks were able to seize control WITHOUT the war as a catalyst.
Defeats led Nicholas to take personal control of the army, who then left the capital in a political vacuum, with the tsarina in charge. This was not popular with the Duma and supporters of the tsar, partly due to Alexandra’s German background but also because of her ‘friendship’ with Rasputin. All of this resulted in mounting criticism of Nicholas and a window of opportunity for those who wanted to push for a more liberal political set-up.
Although Russia’s war effort seemed to improve throughout 1916, the failure of the Brusilov Offensive and the emergence of attrition warfare gave indications that the tsar was not capable of bringing the conflict to a satisfactory end. By the time the tsar was forced to abdicate, it was not inevitable that Russia would be defeated by Germany. Nevertheless, the domestic upheaval that proceeded throughout 1917 meant that the war was unlikely to turn in Russia’s favour and the Bolshevik decision to withdraw from the conflict in 1918 was, for many, sensible and logical. Not all agreed with this; patriots (mainly conservatives and supporters of the tsar) and a host of others of various political persuasions wanted a continuation of the war to the bitter end. This further supports the view of the optimists that the impact of the war was crucial in determining the development of the Russian government.
Military weaknesses and mounting economic problems gave fuel to the critics of the tsar. Under pressure from military advisers, the Progressive Bloc in the Duma, friends and relatives, Nicholas decided to abdicate from the throne, Romanov rule was replaced by the unelected Provisional Government. Optimists believe that the continuation of the war made it impossible for the temporary government to deal with the burning issues of land reform, the modernisation of industry and the call for a Constituent Assembly. Thus, the war gave an opportunity to revolutionaries to overthrow the government completely and install their own form of direct rule.
The Bolsheviks took German money to finance their propaganda machine and to give payments to worker supporters who otherwise would not have afforded to be full-time political activists. Germany also fought hard to repel the Provisional Government’s summer offensive in 1917, agreed to a ceasefire in December 1917 allowed Lenin free rein to win the Civil War and then agreed to a trade deal in 1922 that averted Bolshevik bankruptcy. Hence, the war can be seen as an event that was skilfully exploited by the Bolsheviks and which allowed them to consolidate power.
The First World War, 1914 - 1918
Economic Impacts
Military defeats were blamed on the ‘shell crisis’ which implied that industry was failing to keep up, although it was already working to near capacity. This was made worse by transport and communication problems.
The financial burden of the war was huge, although this only became apparent from the middle of 1916 onwards. The total cost was in the region of 3 billion roubles, which far exceeded levels of government expenditure during peacetime. In 1913, for example, government expenditure was about 1.5 billion roubles. The cost was met partly through borrowing (foreign loans, War Bonds), increases in tax (income, excess profits) and printing more money. Such measures worked to an extent; for most of the war, enough money was invested in Russian industry to enable it to meet the projected demands of the military. It also meant that Russian workers were fully employed and received a regular and slightly higher income than usual. However, the latter was offset by rampant inflation, the inevitable consequence of an increase in the circulation of money. Prices had risen 400 per cent by 1917 from the start of the war, and, as is always the case with inflation, those on fixed incomes suffered greatly.
The First World War, 1914 - 1918
Social Impacts
Even if peasants and workers were able to at least maintain a decent level of real income, the likelihood of being able to spend it on even the bare necessities reduced as the war progressed. This was especially the case after 1916 with respect to food supplies. Throughout the war period, the average output of cereals was higher than it had been during the first decade of the twentieth century. But, a rapidly rising population, food requisitioning by the army, a fall in the availability of fertilisers and transport problems all worked together to create food shortages. Some historians have pointed out that this was largely a regional problem; those in Petrograd suffered more than others, with, for example their bread ration falling by 25 per cent in the first three months of 1916. But regional variation is not particularly important as the social unrest that resulted from high prices and shortages gathered momentum in the places where it was likely to have the greatest impact - the growing towns and cities in the west of Russia. For the optimists, adverse wartime conditions on such a scale had never existed before. It was not surprising that such unique circumstances united those who suffered the most hardship to challenge the ruling elite and demand a far more representative form of government.
The First World War, 1914 - 1918
Military Impacts
Terrible defeat at Tannenberg & the Masurian Lakes meant Russian soldier’s morale was low, defeated as a result of poor strategic decision making. They lost twice as many troops as the enemy, and hope for an early victory waned. Russian casualties overall equalled 8 million, including 1.7 million dead and 2.4 million captured.
The Russian Revolution 1917
The Russian Revolution 1917
Political Impact
It put an end to the government by a regime associated, via the Duma, with Russia’s autocratic past. The promise was that the Provisional Government would be replaced initially by the dictator of the proletariat, which would eventually give way to a stateless society, that is, communism. In reality, Lennon dictated to the proletariat, leading to the claim that Red Tsars had merely replaced the old ones, meaning it did not really result in major changes to the governance of Russia. Further, the link to the Civil War resulted in economic dislocation and disruption to social institutions.
The Russian Civil War, 1917 - 1921
The Russian Civil War, 1917 - 1921
Political Impacts
The militarism of the war shaped the nature of the post-war Government. The defeat in the Russo-Polish conflict also brought the government humiliation (like in the Crimean War, they were defeated by a far inferior army). Further, foreign intervention on behalf of the Whites and general distrust by Western European governments put Lenin on the defensive: although Comintern and ‘world Revolution’ wasn’t abandoned, they moved towards a foreign policy centred on developing peaceful relations.
The Bolsheviks consolidated power, though through discipline and violence, influencing the government’s (who were made up of previous members of the Red army, Cheka, etc…) later ruling of Russia, with an emphasis on loyalty. This is seen in ‘War Communism’ which, with the actions of the Cheka, caused party divisions and a move away from ‘terror’ to control the populace. The war also led to power being even more centralised, revolving around the Politburo and Orgburo.
The Russian Civil War, 1917 - 1921
Economic Impacts
- Industry had fallen in totality to some 10-20% of pre-war levels of capacity.
- Workers, the basis of the Revolution, had been scattered, with the population or cities decimated to 50% of 1917 levels.
- The New Economic Policy intended to bring stability after fighting, although it seemed to contradict communism.
The Russian Civil War, 1917 - 1921
Social Impacts
About 10 million died, mainly from famine and diseases that ran through a badly dislocated society.
The Second World War, 1917 - 1921
The Second World War, 1917 - 1921
Political Impacts
Impact on the structure of government
The war had very little impact on the structure of government. During the conflict, Stalin became the chairman of the State Defence Committee, which had absolute control over the lives of Soviet citizens. He also took the role of supreme commander of the military, just as Nicholas II had done during the First World War. The difference was that Stalin actually took advice from his advisers and even relied on others, deemed to be military experts, to make key strategic decisions. In fact, it would be incorrect to assume that the government became even more totalitarian. That would have been difficult given the high degree of control already in place. Besides, all governments of those countries directly involved in the war passed measures that gave them total authority. Unsurprisingly, until his death, Stalin retained the two key political posts in Russia; those of head of government (he actually took the premiership from Molotov during the war) and party secretary.
The Politburo
The composition of the Politburo also remained roughly the same. In 1948, the prominent members included Stalin, Molotov, Voroshilov, Kaganovich, Mikoyan, Andreyev, Zhdanov and Khrushchev. All of these characters were part
of the Politburo in existence ten years earlier.
Party Membership
Despite the extremely high number of war casualties, the numbers joining the Communist Party actually increased during the war from 3.76 million in 1941 to 5.8 million in 1945. Much of this rise was due to additions from the military who were rewarded for their gallantry with official party membership. By the time of the Nineteenth Party Congress, called in 1952 (for the first time in thirteen years) party numbers had declined, although this did not seem to affect the main function of the party. It continued as an administrative tool, especially when it came to economic affairs.
The NKVD
The NKVD was very active during and after the war. It was involved in the policing of prisons and the deportation of national minorities while the conflict ensued. The secret police were particularly harsh on Balkans, Chechens, Karachans and Crimean Tatars, all of whom were accused of collaborating with the Nazis. After the conflict, the NKVD reverted to purging the party and other groups of dissidents. Of special note was their involvement in the resolution of the Leningrad affair, which resulted in over 200 supporters of Zhdanov being purged.
Foreign policy and changes to the composition of the USSR
Soviet foreign policy was significantly affected by the war. By joining the Grand Alliance, Stalin believed that he placed Russia in a very strong bargaining position over making territorial gains. His main objective was to keep the frontiers established under the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The wartime conferences at Tehran (November to December 1943) and Yalta (February 1945) confirmed Russia’s claims. Poland was forced to concede most of the Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania to Russia but gained some German territory as recompense. The more crucial point about this agreement was the addendum that Stalin was to be allowed to influence the nature of government in these areas, that is, to insist that they were ruled by communist regimes. As the Red Army pushed the German forces back they naturally occupied a string of other Eastern European countries (including Czechoslovakia, Hungary and parts of the Balkans).
As early as October 1944, the British prime minister, Churchill, agreed that Russia could maintain these areas as a ‘sphere of influence’ after the war. For Stalin, this was critical in helping to maintain a physical barrier between the West and the western Russian border. Others in the West viewed the Russian territorial gains as the start of a Soviet expansionism with the long-term intention of promoting communism throughout the whole of Europe. Churchill was to later refer to the barrier as an Iron Curtain; some claim that this point marked the start of the Cold War.
The issue of post-war Germany
The issue of what should happen to Germany after the war caused the Soviet leadership difficulties. Germany as a whole, but also Berlin in particular, was divided into zones, which were to be occupied by the Allies until a stable German government could be set up. Russia had jurisdiction over the Eastern zones, but there was mutual suspicion and tensions between the occupying forces right from the start. The Berlin Blockade of 1948 and the erection of the Berlin Wall worsened relations between Russia and the West. The result of this was that the key problem of unifying Germany was not resolved until communism started to collapse throughout Europe over 40 years later.
The Second World War, 1917 - 1921
Economic Impacts
Much physical damage to the industrial and rural infrastructure was caused both by the German military through shelling and by Stalin’s scorched earth policy. Factories, production plants, mines, dams, roads, bridges and the railway were all badly affected. Such physical damage was made worse by the fact that during the war many industrial enterprises had to be relocated to the Urals, Volga basin and Central Asia to be protected. However, these were not necessarily the best areas for the organisation of efficient and effective production. Also, many factories had to be reconverted from munitions production back to their original function. All of this was a costly business, especially given that the government ran a command economy and was therefore responsible for all industrial enterprises.
The Soviet government’s reconstruction programme revolved around a fourth Five-Year Plan (1946-50). The specific aim of this was to get the Soviet economy back to growth levels achieved immediately before the war.
As with the first three Five-Year Plans, the production of consumer goods was neglected. Interestingly, the targets set by the fourth plan were achieved after three years, way ahead of schedule. This was due to a number of reasons including:
the availability of ‘free’ labour (up to 4 million prisoners of war, Soviet
prisoners and conscript labour)
unilateral trade agreements (agreements that only favoured Russia)
external financial aid (from the United Nations, the USA in the form of lend-lease, Britain and Sweden)
the commitment of the Russian people; ordinary Russian workers continued to labour for excessively long hours and under very challenging conditions to increase production and productivity in all of the staple industries.
There were a number of weaknesses in Stalin’s post-war economic strategy,
though:
The biggest flop was his continuation of ‘gargantuan’ projects. Great amounts of capital were ploughed into schemes such as the Volga-Don Canal but with very little economic return.
Agriculture also suffered, mainly through neglect. The war years had seen a reversion to a kind of small-scale ownership of land plots and a crumbling of some collective farms. Those who acquired private plots were soon hit by exorbitant taxes. The collectives suffered from shortages of labour and materials. The inevitable consequence was a famine in 1947 and rural unrest.
Khrushchev, as minister for agriculture, attempted to resolve some of the problems through farm amalgamation (joining farms together to make bigger farm units to share costs and raise production), but this had a limited impact.
The Second World War, 1917 - 1921
Social Impacts
Over 27 million Russians were killed. Civilians constituted two-thirds of this total; 1 million alone died during the siege of Leningrad and there were 1.1 million casualties as a result of the Battle of Stalingrad. Politicians in the post-war years were thus faced with the problem of a shortage of all types of labour, which was essential if Russia was to move successfully into the new technological age.
During the counter-offensive and the March on Berlin, Russian troops reportedly raped over 2 million women. When challenged over the behaviour of the typical Russian soldier, Stalin allegedly retorted with ‘what is so awful about his having fun with a woman?’
Stalin’s treatment of prisoners of war, deserters and non-Russian women did little to enhance the relations with the Allies both during wartime conferences and afterwards, when proposals for economic aid and reconstruction were
discussed.
The Second World War, 1917 - 1921
Military Impacts
During the war, 5 million prisoners were taken by the Germans. A significant number switched sides; around 50,000 Russian citizens fought on the side of Germany at the Battle of Stalingrad. Stalin viewed all prisoners of war as traitors and if they managed to return home they were treated harshly. Despite the patriotic fervour that was whipped up, there was still desertion from the armed ranks. About 13,000 deserters were shot.
War against Japan
Stalin’s agreement to enter the war against Japan was rewarded with further territorial concessions. Russia was given the Kurile Islands and South Sakhalin. Coupled with the Eastern European land, this meant that the Soviet Union had gained responsibility for a further 24 million people.
The Cold War, 1947 - 1964
The Cold War, 1947 - 1964
Political Impacts
Displayed some weakness:
The USSR was not financially strong enough to participate in another war, and this was seen internationally in events like the Cuban missile crisis where Soviets willingly backed down to prevent disagreements getting out of hand.
Minimal impact on the Internal function and structure of Government BUT…
Heightened international tensions:
Partly because of the Cold War, Khrushchev attempted de-Stalinization to paint the USSR in a more positive light, especially when considering the USA’s containment policy: in this way Khrushchev’s political ideology was partly determined by the Cold War.
The Cold War, 1947 - 1964
Economic and Social Impacts
High Financial cost borne by the bulk of the population:
The nuclear arms race and space race were very expensive. Before 1964, the Russian government managed to cope but high levels of investment in heavy industry to meet military requirements were to the detriment of consumer industries. The knock-on effect was that the living standards appeared much lower than in the West, leading to protests that were ruthlessly dealt with.
