Michael Kelly To What Extent Was The Strike At The Putilov Steel Factory The Main Reason Why

Nicholas II Abdicated In March 1917? While it is without doubt that the strike at the Putilov Steel factory was an important factor which contributed to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the extent to which is debatable. I know that the strike sparked greater demonstrations in Petrograd, ultimately resulting in revolution, which was the primary factor in the reason for the abdication. This throws doubt into the significance of the strike in itself, or whether it was merely a trigger or a catalyst for the larger demonstrations. It is possible that other long-term factors, such as years of social oppression by the Tsar was the main reason his position became unsupportable, and was forced to abdicate. It can be argued that the strike was the main reason why Nicholas II abdicated, as it triggered the February revolution. The strike and the reason for it was a symbol of general grievances that had been inflicted upon the majority of the population ever since Russias entry to the First World War. The outrage over bread rations could unite a broad spectrum of people, and wasnt exclusive to the lowest classes. The strike also elicited the sympathy of people protesting for other causes, such as those on International Womens Day, with whom the Putilov strikers joined; the huge force that was the number strikers from the Putilov plant and women from rallies, attracted more factory workers to strike as they all recognised a common aim: to overthrow the Tsar. This shows that the strike at the Putilov plant, the largest in Petrograd, had influence with other members of the Proletariat: their aim was common. By March 10, virtually every industrial enterprise in Petrograd had been shut down, together with many commercial and service enterprises. Students, whitecollar workers and teachers joined the workers in the streets and at public meetings. [Last of the Tsars, Richard Tames] This quote shows that the strikes influence was not limited to factory workers; the aim of protestors united a much larger group of people. However, it could be argued that the Putilov Strike was not the main reason why Nicholas II abdicated. While the Putilov Strike was important in triggering larger demonstrations, the inflamed tensions from factors such as the First World War and past Tsarist policies such as Russification had made a revolution inevitable. Nicholas rule could be said to have been a succession of ill-judged decisions, most designed to increase public favour but instead resulting in his further alienation from the public. It can be argued that Nicholas II abdicated because he had lost all support, both in his government and with the public. The public resented him because of the unbearable strain that a World War had inflicted on a weak government, resulting in meagre rations and inflation with no attainable military victories (resentment was directed towards the Tsar because in 1915 he had taken control of the army, virtually accepting responsibility for Russias poor performance). This increased the likelihood of a revolution, decreasing the possibility that the Putilov Strike was the sole trigger of the February Revolution. Nicholas had also lost support in the upper house of the Duma; members had grown tired of his anachronistic views, and his refusal to see sense. Members of the

Michael Kelly Duma formed a Progressive Bloc which aimed to persuade the Tsar to make concessions, and to appease the public. Nicholas ignored this advice, and it can be argued that this was the main reason why Nicholas had to abdicate; his own stubbornness and the fact that he saw all advice as criticism. "by stubbornly refusing to reach any modus vivendi with the Progressive Bloc of the Duma... Nicholas undermined the loyalty of even those closest to the throne [and] opened an unbridgeable breach between himself and public opinion." [Rethinking the Russian Revolution, Edward Acton] His very personality was unsuitable for the job as a leader, unwilling to accept advice or appease the public. In conclusion, I think that the strike at the Putilov steel factory was not the main reason why Nicholas II abdicated in March 1917. It was doubtlessly an important event, as it triggered the revolution which led to the downfall of the Romanovs, but I think that a revolution was inevitable anyway. At the time, the Tsars position was unsupportable, and therefore it could have only been a matter of time before an abdication, whether voluntary or involuntary. I think Russias performance in the First World War was the main reason why the Tsar had to abdicate; it was the straw that broke the camels back, igniting the anger from years of oppression. Its likely that if Russia had continued with the war for much longer the country would have collapsed either: internally (total revolution) or externally (annexation). The Tsar no longer had the support of the military, the nobility or the Duma (collectively the lites), [and] at the same time as the legitimacy of the monarchy with the Russian people was at low ebb. The result was revolution. [The Russian Revolution, Sheila Fitzpatrick]