User:Mmathie/sandbox

So far I have worked to make all of the date formatting on this page consistent with Old Style dates listed first and New Style dates following in parentheses. Where both style dates appear the first time I linked to the page which explains Julian/Gregorian calendar styles.

Historiography

When discussing the historiography of the February Revolution there are three historical interpretations which are relevant: Liberal, Soviet, and Revisionist. These three different approaches exist separately from one another because of their respective beliefs of what ultimately caused the collapse of a Tsarist government in February.

Soviet historians present a story in which the masses that brought about revolution in February were organized groups of 'modernizing' peasants who were bringing about an era of both industrialization and freedom. (Joseph Bradley (2017) The February Revolution, Russian Studies in History, 56:1, 1-5, DOI: 10.1080/10611983.2017.1326247: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10611983.2017.1326247 ) Soviet historian Sokolov (quotes of his as well as Routledge article) (perhaps link Sokolov bio) has been outspoken about the belief that the revolution in February was a coming together of the people and was more positive than the October revolution. Soviet historians consistently place little emphasis on the role of WWI in leading to the February Revolution.

In contrast, Liberal perspectives of the February revolution almost always acknowledge WWI as a catalyst to revolution. On the whole, though, Liberal historians credit the Bolsheviks with the ability to capitalize on the worry and dread instilled in Russian citizens because of WWI. (Wildman, Allan. “The February Revolution in the Russian Army.” Soviet Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, 1970, pp. 3–23., www.jstor.org/stable/149649. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.depaul.edu/stable/149649) The overall message and goal of the February Revolution, according to the Liberal perspective, was ultimately democracy; the proper climate and attitude had been created by WWI and other political factors which turned public opinion against the Tsar.

Revisionist historians present a timeline where revolution in February is far less inevitable than Liberals and Soviets would make it seem. Revisionists track the mounting pressure on the Tsarist regime back further than the other two groups to unsatisfied peasants in the countryside upset over matters of land-ownership. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099569 O'Connor, Timothy E. “Studies in East European Thought.” Studies in East European Thought, vol. 47, no. 1/2, 1995, pp. 133–138. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20099569.) This tension continued to build into 1917 when dissatisfaction became a full blown institutional crisis incorporating the concerns of many groups. Revisionist historian Richard Pipes has been outspoken about his anti-communist approach to the Russian Revolution.

"Studying Russian history from the West European perspective, one also becomes conscious of the effect that the absence of feudalism had on Russia. Feudalism had created in the West networks of economic and political institutions that served the central state, once it replaced the feudal system, as a source of social support and relative stability. Russia knew no feudalism in the traditional sense of the word, since, after the emergence of the Muscovite monarchy in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, all landowners were tenants-in-chief of the Crown, and subinfeudation was unknown. As a result, all power was concentrated in the Crown." - (Pipes, Richard. A Concise History of the Russian Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1996.)

Out of these three approaches, all of them have received modern criticism. The February Revolution is seen by many present-day scholars as an event which gets "mythologized" (https://isreview.org/issue/75/februarys-forgotten-vanguard).