Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
The Russian Revolution of 1917, which coincided with the late stages of the devastating First World War, was one of the most notable political crises of the entire century. Although the revolutionaries succeeded in deposing the Tsar and creating a weak coalition government by March, grave economic and social problems caused by the ongoing war still loomed over them. The lack of agreement between the parties presents in the government as well as between the government and the workers and soldiers soviets complicated the formulation and enactment of any policy. Claude Anet, a French officer and a personal witness to the revolution, left a vivid description of the issues facing the new government. Russias main problems were the ethnic complexity, low education levels of its population, and the burdens of the ongoing war, which doctrinal politicians like Irakli Tsereteli were unable to solve.
Before reiterating Anets perspective on the events of 1917 in revolutionary Russia, it is necessary to provide a brief background on him. Anet was a French officer assigned to Russia with a mission during the First World War and met the 1917 revolution, the Russian capital of Petrograd (Chretien, 2017). Since he had no personal stake within the internal political affairs, one may consider his reports reasonably accurate and unbiased. At the same time, coming from a republican nation, he disliked the autocracy of the Russian Tsar, which caused him to favor the revolutionaries over the old government (Chretien, 2017). Similarly, being a representative of the French military, he was inclined to support any political course that would ensure Russias continued participation in the war as a French ally.
An interesting part of Anets account of the revolutionary events of 1917 is his portraits of some political leaders, including Irakli Tsereteli. The latter was a prominent member of the Mensheviks a socialist party that broke off from the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin (Chretien, 2017). Tsereteli was a Georgian by birth, and Anet took specific care to note that Georgia only became a part of Russia in the 19th century that is, just several generations before the revolution (Chretien, 2017). The Menshevik party, which Tsereteli represented, were moderate socialists who discarded the ideas of the world revolution endorsed by the Bolsheviks and sought a more moderate version of socialism in a coalition with liberal parties.
It appears that Tsereteli had some qualities of a great politician, but these were largely overshadowed by his strict adherence to socialist doctrine, as opposed to political pragmatism. The French observer noted that the Menshevik leader was intelligent, thorough, and tended to speak about specific matters at hand rather than engaged in long speeches, like many of his fellow politicians did (Chretien, 2017). Yet his main shortcoming, as depicted by Anet, was his doctrinal adherence to the theoretical principles of socialism most notably, class warfare and universal brotherhood of nations, which tended to overshadow practical considerations. Moreover, if Anet is to be believed, Tseretelis Georgian heritage and insufficient political experience left him with little connections within Russia proper and constrained his ability to govern well (Chretien, 2017). Thus, according to the French observer, even the most intelligent and efficient politics that Russia had to offer were poorly prepared to run a country.
Russias problems, though, were not limited to politicians alone, as its general population presented a set of challenges in and of its own. First of all, as Anet rightfully notes, the 160 million of the countrys population were ethnically and culturally diverse (Chretien, 2017). It constituted a problem because, before the revolution, the main factor keeping them together, however imperfectly, was the dynastic allegiance, which was now absent. Moreover, low education levels prevented the emergence of consolidated social classes with clear political agendas, meaning that the amorphous population could be incited to radicalism (Chretien, 2017). Keeping such a country functioning after a revolutionary transition would be a challenge even in peacetime, much less during total war.
Speaking of war, it was, by far, the most prominent issue on Russias political agenda at the time, mainly due to the social and economic difficulties it caused. Deficiencies of the Russian economy and railroad network, as well as the loss of industrially developed territories in Poland, worsened the economic situation significantly. Prices grew rapidly, and even essential goods were often in deficit (Chretien, 2017). Moreover, three years of war took a heavy toll on the Russian army, especially in terms of casualties, and the majority of soldiers were longing for peace, regardless of what it could cost (Häfner, 2019). Thus, the socioeconomic situation created a strong demand for peace with the Central Powers a separate one, if need be.
While fully aware of this popular pressure, Russias political leaders and Tsereteli specifically had limited options. One obvious choice was to make a separate peace with Germany, but it was ill-advised both because it would strengthen the Bolsheviks and anger Britain and France, on whose support Russia relied heavily (Häfner, 2019). Another option was to try and continue the war with as much energy as possible in the hopes of finishing it quickly and reaping the benefits of victory. However, the sorry state of the Russian army, demonstrated in the failed summer offensive, made it unfeasible as well (Häfner, 2019). Eventually, Tsereteli and other Menshevik leaders opted for a defensive strategy of staying in war to fulfill the allied obligations but refraining from active operations, hoping that the economic attrition would force the Central Powers to surrender sooner than the Russian military stops functioning altogether.
Even though Tsereteli eventually opted for this reasonably realistic approach, his outlook of politics, at least as portrayed by Anet, still suffered from Marxist dogmatism. The French observer criticized the Menshevik politician heavily for what he saw as the utopian adherence to the socialist idea of brotherhood between nations at a time when war was raging across Europe (Chretien, 2017). He also posited that Tseretelis insistence on thinking in terms of class warfare was misguided for Russia, where the largely illiterate population barely began to form consolidated classes (Chretien, 2017). Hence, as far as Anet was concerned, Tseretelis Marxist background did him more harm than good.
As one can see, Anets account of the Petrograd in 1917 provides ample information on the countrys political affairs and, in particular, the position of moderate socialists and their leader Tsereteli. According to Anet, Tsereteli was a smart and goal-oriented politician but suffered from insufficient experience, lack of connections, and Marxist dogmatism. These qualities made him rather ill-suited for guiding the enormous country with a largely illiterate, ethnically complex population of 160 million through the socioeconomic hardship caused by the ongoing World War.
References
Chretien, T. (Ed.). (2017). Eyewitnesses to the Russian revolution. Haymarket Books.
Häfner, L. (2019). Revolutionary defencism as a cul-de-sac? Socialist parties and the question of war and peace in the Russian revolution of 1917/18. Revue des études slaves, 90(1/2), 47-62. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.