The Collapse of the Tsarist Regime in 1917 and Its Ties to the First World War There are two views on this, the first one says that the Tsarist regime was doomed from the start with the increasing strikes, poor conditions for the majority of the population and that the war only speeded up the process but did not cause it. The second view is that the Tsarist regime was basically stable up to 1914 despite the problems as it was slowly making progress to becoming a modern state, but the war stopped it dead in its tracks. The first view says that from the beginning of his reign the Tsar said himself that he knew nothing of how to rule an empire so large. From the chaos of Bloody Sunday the Tsar had a chance to reform his ways and share out his power in the Duma. However it soon became obvious that the Tsar still believed that he should own all the power. The Duma was unable to pass any laws without the Tsars approval and could also be dismissed by him at any time without question giving it very little power. The Fundamental laws agreed to the existence of the Duma but it only managed to pass laws to give workers accident insurance and measures to do with the armed forces. For every 90,000 workers there was one representative where as there was one representative for every 2000 nobles meaning that the 1% of nobles elected 2/3 of the representatives in the third Duma. Workers were still not allowed to strike for better wages or working conditions as shown in the Lena massacre in 1912 where workers went on strike for better working conditions. The employers called in the police who opened fired at the protestors showing that the workers still had no rights. The workers were still living in the same appalling conditions and there was economic downturn after 1912. Stolypins land reforms allowed 15% of peasants to get lots of high quality land to become kulaks and left the rest landless and very
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
Understanding the role Bolsheviks play in affecting Britain's soldiers and citizens during World War One first requires background information on both Russian interests and Russia's relationship to Germany. Russia entered World War One after Germany declared war against Russia due to an alliance system between Germany and Austria. The Russians had little success in repelling the Germans, illustrated by the disaster at Tannenberg where more than 30,000 Russians soldiers died (Sherow). Germany subsequently made large gains into Russian territories. Tsar Nicholas II had no choice but to abdicate the throne in March 1917, allowing the Bolsheviks to take power (Sherow). It is very important to note that the Germans allowed "prominent Bolsheviks like Lenin and Trotsky" to pass by rail through their country "to start a revolution and knock Russia out of the war" (Simpson). Due to the Bolshevik revolution not completely coming from a democratic mandate from the people, Britain shows extreme suspicion towards Russian motives henceforth.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
World War I's Responsibility for the Collapse of the Provisional Government in 1917 The Provisional Government assumed control of Russia following the abdication of the Tsar Nicholas II. It only had a brief period in power lasting about seven months. Historians have disputed the main cause for its failure, Marxist historians, such as John Reed, have rewarded it to the Bolshevik's effective propaganda machine, whilst more revisionist historians, such as Christopher Read, take a more encompassing position on the issue. They lay blame at a range of factors such as the First World War and the dual authority in relation to the Petrograd Soviet.
When the war first began in 1914 the tension between the Tsar and his people eased immensely from the extreme burst of patriotism. In the early stages of the war Russia’s efforts were met by success but by August 1914 Russia had started its decline. By the fall of 1915 Russian forces had been completely driven out of Poland and in September 1915 the Tsar decided to appoint himself as commander-in-chief of the Russian Army. This meant that the performance of the Russian Army now completely reflected back on Nicholas II himself. Not only was there trouble on the Eastern Front but the war was causing trouble on the home front as well. Russia’s National Budget rose eightfold between 1913-1916, financed out of higher taxes, loans and borrowing from allies Britain and France. In order to maintain the war effort the Russian government started to print more money causing inflation with prices rising over two hundred percent between August 1914 and Christmas 1916. The huge loss of life and military humiliations undermined domestic support and in 1917 Russian government was facing a massive crisis and you can see how this seriously took a toll on the Tsarist regime.
The Extent to Which the First World War Contributed to the Fall of Czardom in Russia
By March 1917, disasters on the battlefield, combined with food and fuel shortages on the front, brought the monarchy to collapse. In St. Petersburg workers were going on strike. Marchers, mostly women were shouting, "Bread! Bread! Bread!" Troops refused to fire on demonstrators, leaving the government helpless. Duma politicians setup a temporary government/ Middle class liberals prepared a constitution for a new Russian republic. At the same time they continued the war with Germany. That decision proved fatal. Most Russians were fed up with the war and returned home, leaving the front. Peasants wanted land and people wanted food. Cities set up soviets, council of workers and soldiers, which worked dramatically within the government. Before long a radical social group took charge called the Bolsheviks emerged. Their leader was V.I. Lenin.
The Transformation of Bolshevik Position Between February and October 1917 Most historians think that the Bolshevik’s position went from playing almost no role in February 1917; they had only 150 members in the Pultilov Works which had 20,000 workers, to taking control of the country in October by a combination of luck and skill. It was said of the Bolshevik party in early 1917 that “The Communist Party existed solely in the leaders.” Many historians think Lenin’s leadership was the joint main reason for making the party into the leading revolutionary group in Russia, along with the luck the Bolsheviks had in the circumstances under the Provisional Government. A few historians claim Germany played a major role in the Bolshevik’s road to power. The Germans helped many previously exiled revolutionaries to get back to Russia when the Tsar abdicated and the Provisional Government came to power from March onwards, in the hope that they would end the war.
this was the seen to be “freedom” for them as they began to get what
that was required to be done was 'to issue a few decrees, then shut up
In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the
The Late-Tsarist period in Russia is popular in the state’s history in that it was during this time that serfdom was abolished, that is around the early 1860s. Before this era, serfdom was legal and practiced in the traditional Russian systems. Serfdom was an ideology of the late 1640s which gave to landowners the power to override the lives of their peasant serfs (workers) as long as they lived on their land. Serfdom’s legal powers included denial of movement from the landlord’s place, and freedom in acquiring as much service as a landlord could demand. Thus defined, it can be concluded that it was a form of slavery. It is for these reasons that the following study text will evaluate the aftereffects of the 1861 emancipation, and what Russia became after it.
In examining the comparison of the 1905 events with the similar situation in 1917, it is vital to look at the backdrop circumstances in order to directly compare the revolutions. The combination of the social disruptions generated by the Russo-Japanese War effort caused unrest and several uprisings to take place in the period 1904-1905. In 1905 Russian armies suffered repeated defeats in the Russo-Japanese war leading to low morale, food shortages and bread prices soaring throughout Russia. Discontentment lay the foundation to political ferment amongst the Proletariat. The mobilisation of the working class accompanied the war effort, revitalizing the threat of a strike movement such like the one in 1905. The circumstances that Russian society found themselves in, in 1905 can be directly compared to the situation of 1914-1917.
8Sites Richard, ‘The Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, 1900-1945’, in Michael Howard and William Roger Louis, The Oxford history of the twentieth century, New York, 1998, p. 117-27.
The Nature of Tsarism and the Policies of Nicholas II as the Cause for the Revolution of February in Russia 1917