Historiography of the February Revolution

Whereas for late imperial Russia the overriding historiographical question came to be whether the Russian Revolution was avoidable (you can read about it here), the big question about the February Revolution has become: ‘what kind of uprising was it?’

For historians in Soviet Russia, and some ‘determinist’ historians in the West, the February Revolution was the uprising of the political proletariat, enabled by the Bolsheviks, and the result of underlying socio-economic forces which made it inevitable. 

For many years in the West, where Soviet Communism was hated, the February Revolution was portrayed differently - as a spontaneous (almost romantic) uprising of ‘the people’ - a revolution 'from below' against tyranny and poverty (which Lenin later subverted by a cynical coup d’etat). 

Even before the fall of Soviet Russia in 1991, however, ‘revisionist’ historians were beginning to question this ‘heroic myth’ version of history.  New ways of studying history, and the opening of the Russian archives, have led to studies which focus on the complexity of Russian society, and the importance of issues like culture, feminism and ideology.  Most modern historians accept that the fall of the Tsar was the result of a combination of factors, with different historians placing the emphasis on different causes. 

Historians' Comments on the February Revolution

1.    In the morning Ruzski [Commander of the Northen Army] came and read his very long direct-wire talk with Rodzianko [President of the Duma]. 

      According to this, the situation in Petrograd is such that a Ministry of the Duma would now be powerless to do anything, for it has to contend with the Social-Democratic Party, represented by the workers' committee [ie the Petrograd Soviet].  My abdication is required. 

      Ruzski transmitted this talk to Headquarters, and Alexeev [Army Chief of Staff] sent it on to all the commanders-in-chief.  By 2 o'clock replies were received from them.  The gist of them is that in order to save Russia and keep the army at the front quiet, such a step must be taken.  I have agreed.  From Headquarters has been sent a draft of a manifesto. 

      In the evening Guchkov and Shulgin arrived from Petrograd, with whom I discussed the matter, and I handed them the signed and altered manifesto.  At 1 o'clock in the morning [16 March] I left Pskov, with a heavy heart because of the things gone through.  All around me there is treachery, cowardice, and deceit. 

Tsar Nicholas’s diary for 15 March

2.    The revolution fell like thunder out of the sky.  Let us be frank; it arrived joyfully unexpectedly for us revolutionaries too. 

Vladimir Zenzinov, President of the SRs, quoted by Leon Trotsky (1932)

3.    The revolution was victorious because its vanguard was the working class which headed the movement of millions of peasants clad in soldiers' uniform demanding "peace, bread and liberty." It was the hegemony of the proletariat that determined the success of the revolution. 

[Joseph Stalin] History of the CPSU (1938)

4.    The Tsar had many opportunities of putting things right, and several times he was on the point of taking them; he did not…  So far from a dictation of events from below, this passive people went on enduring long after it ought to have ceased to do so; and when the crash came, it was left to the last minute of a single regiment to determine the issue. 

Bernard Pares (1939)

5.    A genuine ‘insurgency’ from below. 

James Billington (1966)

6.    The unplanned combination of several factors in Petrograd had the unexpected result of toppling the Tsar from his throne...  The Tsar realised he had lost the support of his troops, even of some of his generals, and so abdicated.  The only things missing were actual revolutionaries. 

Richard Poulton (1980)

7.    In February 1917, the autocracy collapsed in the face of popular demonstrations and the withdrawal of elite support for the regime. 

Sheila Fitzpatrick (1982)

8.    There had been nothing organised abut this first revolution; it was simply a spontaneous reaction to the chaotic situation which the imperial government had allowed to develop. 

Norman Lowe (1982) – he devotes only 13 lines to the February Revolution

9.    Despite the disaffection of the military, however, it was neither the high command nor the Duma politicians, still less the revolutionary parties, which finally brought about the downfall of ‘Bloody Nicholas’.  It was caused by the spontaneous upsurge of the politically radicalised masses. 

Anthony Wood (1987)

10.    The ‘masses’ neither needed nor desired a revolution; the only group interested in it was the intelligentsia …  The myth of the Tsar being forced from the throne by rebellious workers and peasants is just that.  The Tsar yielded not to a rebellious populace but to generals and politicians, and he did so from a sense of patriotic duty. 

Richard Pipes (1995)

11.    The attitude of the army held the key.  When ordered by the tsar to restore control in the capital, the generals refused to act. 

Thomas & McAndrew (1995)

12.    Collapse is certainly the right word to use.  For the Romanov regime fell under the weight of its own internal contradictions.  It was not overthrown. 

Orlando Figes (1996)

13.    The overthrow of the tsar happened more by chance than by any great plan.  Some historians even argue that the March revolution was sparked off by much colder weather than usual. 

Jane Shuter (1996 - a GCSE textbook)

14.    When the end came, it was something of a surprise…  Discontent fuelled by defeat in war fused liberal political aspirations with the grievances of the proletariat… Quite clearly the war was crucial … however, it should be observed that most of Russia was calm…  If this was the case, then the key factor becomes the decision of the elite to abandon Nicholas. 

Graham Darby (1998)

15.    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. 

Stephen Smith (2002)

16.    The autocracy came to a humiliating end in February 1917 for many reasons, but in a political system where ultimate authority rested in the figure of one man, Nicholas must bear prime responsibility for the failure of political reform after 1905. 

Stephen Smith (2017)