The Main Reasons For The Fall Of Tsar Nicholas II In 1917

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

Some may argue Tsar Nicholas weak leadership help contributes to the Russian Revolution but World War I was be the primary cause. Tsar Nicholas was not the best leader but that did not have a big enough impact to cause the Russia Revolution because his actions did not lead to as many problems that World War I had caused. World War I had a greater impact because it led to many problems within Russia that caused the citizens to be furious.

With over a century of military and civil discontent the Romanov Dynasty was bound to fall sooner or later. The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was a result of long-term causes including Tsar Alexander’s inability to satisfy his people and Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule to throne all together. The collapse was also an outcome of immediate causes; the effects of World War One on Russia and the 1917 revolution. All long-term and immediate cause played a crucial role in stirring the nation until Russia was clearly overdue to be overthrown.

Russia's overthrows and shortage caused revolutionary upheaval and massive inflation, which led to deprived infrastructure. During World War I, Russian society naturally caused great dissatisfaction among the serfs. As the revolution wore on, numerous reform and Tsar Nicholas II, a ruler, tried to change Russia's social structure and government. Among the masses, there was discontentment with Russia's social system and living conditions. Laborers worked and lived in horrendous conditions, which played a crucial role in aggravating the condition of workers and peasants. As a result, peasants starved and Russia’s armies were overpowered on the battlefield because much of its terrain was occupied by enemies. Hence, Imperial Russia was a

The Grand Duchess Olga wrote in her journal: “…and he was wholly ignorant about governmental matters. Nicky had been trained as a soldier”. (Fiehn, T. 1996). Nicholas’ sister suggests that he was not ready due to his lack of training. Margot Tracey, daughter of a Russian industrialist declared in 1917, after Nicholas’ abdication “Everybody was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak. When he abdicated there was great rejoicing everywhere. My parents opened champagne bottles and celebrated with friends.”.(White 1994 p.14) Margot shows her understanding of what was going on at the time and that Nicholas was very weak leader, although still a tyrant. Margot’s statement supports the hypothesis as it plainly says that the people did not like Nicholas as a leader due to how weak he was. Margot’s statement is further corroborated by Sergei Witte, a Russian Minister during Nicholas II rule “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). These sources work together to support the fact that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall due to his weak character and that he was not properly prepared for the role. This caused

In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.

What was the significance in WW1 in bringing about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917?

One important reason why it could be seen that the First World War was the reason for the fall of Tsarism is the fact that in 1915 Nicholas left the Winter Palace and took direct command of the army. This meant he was blamed solely for Russia's

As World War I was heading towards its end Russia was focusing on internal issues. Led by Vladimir Lenin the Bolsheviks embarked on a campaign against the war. Using propaganda which focused on trying to turn the allied troops against their officers Lenin looked to inspire a socialist revolution. The Bolsheviks were also fueled by the poor conditions of the Russian Army. Nicholas II, in a letter to his wife Alexandra, admitted the obstacles that the Russian Army faced, "Again that cursed question of shortage of artillery and rifle ammunition - it stands in the way of an energetic advance." Czar Nicholas tried to deny the fact that his Army was in no condition to continue the fight. Lenin and the Bolsheviks used this information to gain

World War 1 was a total disaster for Russia. Their army was poorly led and poorly equipped, this resulted in humiliating defeats at the hands of Germany. Undersupplied workers and peasants were sent in to battle without boots, coats or weapons. In 1915, Nicholas II took personal command of the army. However the Tsar’s leadership abilities were poor. The Russian army deteriorated, there was huge shortages of ammunition, equipment and medical supplies. The railways grounded to a halt, there was no transportation of food or fuel. Soldiers, workers and peasants began to suffer. These events cost Russia dearly, they lost millions of soldiers, morale was low and the people wanted someone to blame. In the severe winter of 1916-1917, the people had already began to doubt the leadership

Many historians argue as to whether WW1 was the deciding cause of the Russian revolution 1917. In 1915, the Tsar took personal control of the army; he felt his leadership could inspire his troops. However, he was inexperienced as a leader and this led to the humiliation and defeat of the Russian army. In 1915, Germany launched a series of offensives against Russia, they were beaten and large areas of Russian territory were over run. The Tsar taking charge was seen as him taking personal responsibility for the military disasters inflicted upon Russia. For example, in 1916, for a period of time Russia did win some victories against the Austrians and regained some territory, but then due to the German army attacking in support of their Austrian ally, Russia was overpowered and defeated. Morale across Russia was low and the people were looking for someone to blame- this was the Tsar. During WW1, 2 million soldiers were killed during WW1 and similar numbers of civilians were killed also. The Tsar's attempt to raise moral and to

For three centuries before the revolution, life in Russia was not peaceful. It was cold, hard, and bitter instead. “The end of serfdom was a major event in Russia; yet it just wasn 't enough.”, in 1861. Serfdom, under feudalism, is the the status of peasants in which they are bound to a lord, or master, works on their land, and can be sold like property. Despite serfs being given ‘freedom’, Russia was mostly ruled by the czar and nobles. The average person was, and stayed, poor. Therefore, World War I was not the main cause of the Russian revolution. This outdated feudal class structure, inability to modernize, lack of peace, and czars’ inept leaderships lead to the Russian Revolution.

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus

The First World War became the Tsars worst nightmare. Russia joined the war in many ways to keep peoples minds of Russia’s backwardness and badly run government, and onto the war effort itself. But within the first year of the war people’s minds began to wander away from troop moral and toward the Tsar and his control.