How far was the First World War the main cause of the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917?

Authors Avatar

How far was the First World War the main cause of the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917? [30]

February 1917 was a massive upheaval for the people of Russia, especially in Petrograd. For years tension had been brewing due to the effects of many different aspects of life in Russia, like the personality of the Tsar and the inconsistency of the Duma. There was also the impact of the years of 1906-1914, and also, maybe most importantly the effects of World War One on Russia. All this led to what is widely referred to as a revolution, but how far should the First World War be responsible for the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty?

The Revolution was triggered by protests with the Industrial Working Class, which stemmed not only from the rumours about the lack of bread, but also from the effects of the 1905 ‘Revolution’ and the impact of 1906-14, which is responsible for a lot of tension and resentment within the country. This period of time produced many long-term problems that made a revolution highly likely even without the outbreak of war.

Before this period, the industrial spurt had offered modernisation to Russia, but could not progress as there was no political or economic commitment to change, showing that the attitude of the Government to reform was hostile and the counter reforms of Alexander II’s policies were more favourable. This state of mind was still present after the 1905 ‘Revolution’, even with the economic policies of Witte and Stolypin, and the introduction of the Duma producing important advances. However, the Russian public still had reason for unrest as the Tsarist system was oppressive and inefficient, isolating progressive elements in society, with Witte’s and Stolypin’s advances not being enough to alter the Tsarist system.

These post-1905 changes were, in fact, superficial, as the Duma had severely limited powers, and only represented the interests of the autocracy and the Liberals, making the lowers classes feel repressed from the political aspects of Russia, and therefore producing and encouraging many extremist opposition parties to the Tsarist regime. Also, Stolypin’s reforms didn’t tackle the fundamental agricultural issue of the peasants' desire for more land and their out-of-date farming economy, which furthered the feeling that the lower classes, prominently the peasants, were becoming more and more isolated within Russia.

This shows that there was a lot of build up of tensions in Russia even without the war, and that, by 1914, all the signs were that Russia was heading towards a major confrontation between the hostile attitude of Tsardom and the forces of change.

The Tsar is as much to blame for his downfall as the First World War is. He was absolutely unsuited to be the ruler of such a diverse country, primarily because of his secluded childhood, which meant that he never grew an appreciation for how people lived, and his ideas about important issues were very independent. This immaturity and lack of understanding would hurt his ability to govern Russia as he never gained a sense of confidence and self reliance.

Nicholas always thought he was not good enough to rule Russia. He felt as though he didn’t have the abilities or the experience, and with his lack of political knowledge, he was rarely sure how to handle the role. This made him come across as a weak Tsar who was not prepared, and didn’t want, the title. His lack of confidence and weakness allowed him to be governed by other individuals, primarily his wife, who would later be revealed to be incompetent when he was away on the front line as she relied too heavily on Rasputin, who would only fill the government with his own, hand-picked, incapable ministers. The Russian public also were not pleased with having Alexandria in charge because she was German, and popular opinion was that she was supporting the German army, and willing Russia to win. The effect of leaving Alexandria and Rasputin in charge was the fact that, with everything else going against the Tsar, his credibility was damaged even further.  

Join now!

Furthermore, his lack of political knowledge made his instincts favour suppression instead of negotiation, shown in the vicious suppression of the Industrial Workers in the 1905 ‘Revolution’, creating years of resentment from that particular class as it seemed that everyone else became better off as a result of 1905.

His political naivety also made him arrogant enough to believe he could run the army during the First World War. With the Tsar taking control of the army, it meant that, unlike the 1905 ‘Revolution’, Nicholas had no-one left to blame, and was held personally responsible for any defeats, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay