Here's my literature review on provisional government 1917

[Mutilator]

Political instability and governmental impotency creates fertile grounds for revolution. What are the political reasons for the rise and fall of the provisional government in Russia 1917.

Literature review

While this topic has been widely covered, there are very few sources that tackle the issue in one all-encompassing study. In fact, Mosse (1964) notes that 'the brief but eventful eight months' spent in power by the provisional government have actually been subject to relatively little examination. For that reason, this literature review will consider the issue step by step, assessing each point as it is covered by various articles and textbooks. In this sense, this literature review will do what all literature reviews do. It will break the overall topic down into subheadings, and under each of those subheadings the literature relating to that specific aspect of the topic will be addressed. The intent of this literature review and dissertation on the whole is to address the hole in the literature with regards to a broad approach to the rise and fall of the provisional government in Russia in 1917. It will address the subject in, what Mosse (1964) describes as, its 'proper historical perspective, [which is] as a crucial stage in the wider revolutionary movement.' Whilst Mosse's article has a primary focus on setting out the reasons for which this period of time is important to Russian history, it is undertaken in a somewhat jumbled fashion. Therefore, this dissertation aims to take a more distinct approach.

Theoretical approach and the importance of the topic

The main question of this dissertation is based on the political reasons behind the rise and fall of the provisional government in Russia in 1917. However, to be able to tackle this question it is first essential to approach it in a theoretical way. This will act as a springboard for the remainder of this literature review. Many scholars have deemed the period spent in power by the provisional government as extraneous to Russia's otherwise colourful history. Mosse (1964) states that many scholars view the eight months spent in power as a 'meaningless and irrelevant interlude between Tsarism and Bolshevism.' Two key issues have been considered by those scholars, and the way in which these issues have been considered will be assessed here, in order to provide a clear context for the importance of the provisional government's time in power to Russian history. The duality of power is also a significant issue in theoretical terms, but this will be addressed later in relation to the rise of the provisional government, as the two are intrinsically linked.

Russian exceptionsalism

Russian history has always been faced with the significant issue as to whether Russia belongs to Europe or whether something exists that divides them. A great deal of historical support exists for the proposition that Russia should be studied separately. It is not deemed necessary for the sake of this discourse to go into detail regarding this support. However, it is worth noting that different scholars have approached the issue of Russian exceptionalism in varying ways. Grant (1999: p. 1) approaches the issue in terms of advancement, arguing that the traditional view by most historians is that Russian development is seen as 'backward or an exceptional deviation from Western norms.' Grant (1999: p. 5) goes further to state that, in response to the argument that Russia's development is backward, Peter Chaadaev (1835) agreed that Russia's development was slower than that of Europe, but that he truly believed that once Russia had properly appraised itself, it would 'advance more rapidly' than Europe. Interestingly, Legvold (2013; p. 395) approaches the issue in terms of geographical status, asserting that the reasons for argument in support of Russian exceptionalism can be logically explained by the fact that the country obviously straddles two continents and has always remained 'outside the European civilization and historical mainstream,' continues to do so, and is likely to continue to do so 'for the foreseeable future.' Satter (2013), considering the issue from a religious perspective, states that the country's sense of exceptionalism started with the subordination of the Orthodox Church, which was the state's only competitor for power, and its replacement with 'the Tsar [as the] country's godlike political and spiritual leader.' Ignatov (2012) believes that all arguments in support of the idea that Russia should be set apart from Europe and dealt with separately are inadequate. Moreover, the conventional historical approach that Russia should be set apart from Europe detracts from the real historical issues, and particularly here, what was going on in 1917 and its importance.

Social considerations

Aside from the political reasons for the rise and fall of the provisional government in 1917, many historians consider the events of that years from a social perspective. Such historians place the political events of that year aside, instead paying greater attention to the reasons for the actions of particular social groups. According to Frank and Steinberg (1994: p. 46), at the time, peasant life and culture was in a state of flux. Engel (1994: 103) argues that change was brought about by mass migrations between urban and rural environments and by the transferral of urban values to rural environments. The available literature on this is broad and many of the recent historical considerations of these issues, such as those by Worobec (1955), Frank and Steinberg (1994), Engel (1994), Burds (1998), and Frank (1999), provide a contemporary angle on traditional historical perspectives of these issues and other social changes at the time. Moreover, according to Zelnik (1971; p. 38), social conditions at the time were poor. Bonelli (1983: p. 56) argues that people suffered from the following problems amongst others: poor accommodation; long working hours; poor safety and sanitary conditions; and low wages. There are countless sources dealing with these issues, and two that deal with the issues in the most detailed and succinct way possible are those by Zelnik (1971) and Bonnelli (1983). Such commentators completely ignore the political causes of the fall of the provisional government in 1917, and wholeheartedly focus on the social causes of the Revolution as a result of years of the subjugation of the lower classes by the Tsarist regime.

The February Revolution

Wade (2005: p. 47) states that the February Revolution, which was one of two revolutions and lasted just short of a week, entailed mass demonstrations and outbreaks of violence between the people and the authorities. He adds that it quickly led to the abdication of Nicholas II, the end of the Romanov dynasty and the death of the Russian Empire. Moreover, it led to the creation of the provisional government.

1905-1907 – the first Russian revolution

Before tackling the February Revolution of 1917, it is first necessary to consider the events of 1905-1907, or more accurately, as Perrie (1972) notes, between 1904-1907. It is worth outlining here that not all commentators addressing the issue of the February Revolution feel it necessary to assert the significance of these years. However, many others do. Perrie (1907), for example, argues that this revolution was of significance because it acted as a radical, concurrent assault on the political system from all angles of society, including 'the professional and commercial middle class, the radical and liberal intelligentsia, the urban workers and the peasantry.' Schwartz and Vakar (1967: p. 65), setting out the key events leading up to the revolution of 1905-1907, add that the rebellion by such social groups came as the result of various multi-faceted social and economic changes. This was followed by the rise of industrialisation, to the detriment of agriculture, and the joining of forces by the Social Democrats and the Social Revolutionaries, creating a great deal of support, which was further intensified by student discontentment and extremist liberation action. Russia announced war on Japan in the belief, according to Vitte (1922: p. 262), that a war victory would stave off a revolution for a while longer. However, as Perrie (1907) notes, this was obviously not the case, as such a victory was not achieved.

Zickel (1991: p. 45) states that, instead, in the face of massive unrest, Nicholas II was forced to issue a constitution granting fundamental civil rights, but Shukman (1982: p. 103) notes that the lower class found the constitution to be inadequate, adding that this resulted in them marching to St. Petersburg to confront Nicholas II, which consequently led to Bloody Sunday, the outset of the 1905 revolution. Zickel (1991: pp. 45-46) states that further unrest followed, with the creation of various political groups and the outbreak of riots. A large-scale strike followed and Nicholas II issued the October manifest, which conferred fundamental right and liberties to the people. Hodnett (1967: p. 41) argues that this essentially brought the revolution to an end, causing dissension in the revolution movement with those that saw the manifest as a mere illusion to fool the people.

The lead-up to the February Revolution

A huge range of textbooks deal with the events leading up to the February Revolution, but many of the academic journal articles available deal with the issue from a social perspective rather than a political one. However, there are a number that address the topic from a primarily social perspective, but consider the run up to the Revolution from a political angle. One of these is Fitzpatrick (1993), who sets the scene politically before going on to discuss the construction of social identity. Fitzpatrick (1993) argues that the revolution, which seemingly erupted without warning, was the result of various economic and social problems, which were intensified by the consequences of the First World War. Striking and the desertion of troops led to a state of absolute pandemonium. However, while Fitzpatrick (1993) sets the scene, she does so briefly. Other historians consider what happened before the revolution, from two main standpoints: in the longer run and more recently. Acton (1990: p. 203) argues that there are those that believe the upheaval of the war to be the primary cause, and there are others that believe the certainty of change to be the primary cause. Burdzhalov and Raleigh (1997: p. 34-67) consider what happened before the revolution from the longer run perspective. They argue that the cause of the revolution stems back a long time, with the following setting the he negation of Imperial Russia to bring the country up to date during a reign of autocracy as the most important cause. Pipes (2008: 56) argues that the two were not compatible. Burdzhalov and Raleigh (1997: p. 34-67) add that the long running civil and military discontent, as the result of the factors discussed in relation to the 1905 Revolution, were also of significant contribution. Other historians, such as Wade (2005: pp. 22-45) discuss the occurrence of events closer in time to the revolution, such as: war time defeats; unrest with regards to the way the country was being run; the cost of the war; poor military operations in general; ineffective rule; scare resources; weakened industry; the refusal of Nicholas II to take heed of the Duma's advice. Acton (1990: p205) argues that the last point effectively put a great deal of distance between Nicholas II and the Duma.

The results of the revolution

Both Burdzhalov and Raleigh (1997) and Wade (2005) discuss the aftermath of the revolution in great detail, as does Smith (2002), but he does so in a rather confusing way. The information is not set out logically and in a digestible way, and various reviews of the book have noted the same point.
Nonetheless, some good points are made. She argues that there were so many things that Nicholas II could have done, such as increasing wages, improving living conditions, and generally solving the crisis that led to his abdication. However, he did none of those things, because he saw his status as Tsar as quasi-divine, which ties in with the thoughts of Satter (2013) discussed earlier with reference to Russian exceptionalism. Satter (2013) also asserts that Nicholas II saw Russia as being separate to Europe because his position was designated by God himself. Of course, most authors cite the short term effects of the revolution, such as Burdzhalov and Raleigh (1997: 72) and Frankel, Frankel and Knei-Paz (1992: p. 83), who all discuss the abdication of the tsar, the implementation of the provisional government, and the begrudging cooperation between that provisional government and the Petrograd Soviet, or in other words, dual power. However, both Wade (2005: 100-110) and McDaniel (1988: p. 302) consider the aftermath of the revolution in the longer term more considerably. They agree that the monarchy was no longer considered to be a viable means for running Russia. Of course, the provisional government was only in power for a short 8 months, and eventually gave way for a longer term, stronger centralised government. Following the failure of the feeble democracy of the provisional government, which is yet to be discussed, as a result of the revolution and its direct, immediate effects, Russia developed a fervent suspicion towards democratic processes and institutions.

The rise of the provisional government

It is interesting to note that very few historians have given due attention to the rise of the provisional government, because they are instead wholly focused on its demise. Perhaps that is because so few historians recognise the importance of the provisional government in Russia's history. Mosse (1967) argues that the period of the provisional government was influential to parts of the Great Russian Revolution, and adds that without the provisional government the 'subsequent history of the Russian Revolution becomes...meaningless...and incomprehensible.' However, there are some historians that do pay due attention to the rise of the government. Daniels (2007: p. 22) states that the first reason that the provisional government was enabled to rise was the fact that government ministers, who had previously pledged their allegiance to Nicholas II, no longer had any power seeing as the royal family was no longer in existence. Untenberger (1989: p. 70) argues that the initial recognition of the government by the Allies was due to the fact that they agreed with the dissolving of the royal family. However, Daniels (2007; p. 23) argues that this was probably true, but not necessarily so, and instead that they recognised the validity of the government because it was essential to them that the Eastern Front remained open to ensure that the clout of the German military was diminished. Browder and Kerensky (1961: p. 155), while noting that the government were fairly incompetent, they seemingly lasted as long as they did due to the promises made with regards to the provision of a new environment for Russia, including suffrage, Polish independence, equality and elected officials. However, as will be discussed in the following section the actions promised made no real contribution to the problems faced by Russia.