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, which, in the eyes of the Russian public, made Nicholas personally responsible for the failure of the war.
Also, during the War, Nicholas had refused to work with the Duma, and was not prepared to make concessions to the representative government, which did not comply well with a positive future for the Romanovs, as concessions would have taken the pressure off of him because he had the full support of the Duma throughout the War, and the ‘Progressive Bloc’ had offered to run the country. Instead the Tsar decided to keep his rule of autocracy, showing that his stubbornness would eventually lead to his downfall as this led the people to believe that the government was incompetent and wanted a more representative government.
With all of this combined, many people became even more dissatisfied with the Tsarist system that was too ineffective under Nicholas and more and more people lost their loyalty to him. This, combined with the effects or war, which generally brings people together, caused them to unite and call for his abdication, representing the built up of tensions that had been growing since Alexander III’s counter reforms.
If you combine the effects of both the impact of 1906-14 and the role of the Tsar, it is obvious to understand why the people of Russia called for abdication in February 1917, because of the amount of discontent that was present over the country. Both describe the impatience that was growing against the Tsarist regime, the effects of the latter, the Tsar’s personality, seemingly intensified during the war because it highlighted his weaknesses even more, creating more unhappiness and restlessness within Russia.
One of the most prominent long term causes of February 1917 was the years of humiliation and defeat for the army, starting with the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5, which produced a prominent lack of moral both in the army and within the Russian public. A united belief in Russia was that the ‘system’ was to blame for their defeats, not only in the Russo-Japanese war, but also the humiliation of the First World War. This encouraged people to believe that the Political System needed to be changed, not reformed, contrary to the beliefs in the 1905 ‘Revolution’.
Consequently, the Duma became increasingly critical of the government's conduct of the war, and conflicts between Duma and government were intensified by the repressive way in which the government treated the Duma. In the summer of 1915 a 'Progressive Bloc' of influential Duma deputies was formed, which demanded a 'government of confidence', that is, a cabinet of ministers who were accountable to be elected to the Duma rather than because of their loyalty or friendship to the Tsar. Although this demand was supported by some of the generals, and by Britain and France, Nicholas refused to make any concessions to the Progressive Bloc. As said before, this led the people, as well as some ministers, to believe that the government was incapable in running Russia, and left Nicholas with truly united opposition and a lot of disloyalty, unlike in 1905.
On top of this, when the Duma was dissolved by Nicholas because of his stubbornness, the most popular opinion was that the government was totally incapable, and there were calls for fundamental changes in the structure of the government. This discontent with the government was also intensified by the constant steam of incapable ministers, courtesy of Rasputin and Alexandria.
You can find many links between the personality of the Tsar and the problems with the Political System in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. Many of these problems were connected with the decisions that Nicholas had taken. For example, the Tsar’s decision that Alexandria and Rasputin should rule the country, as Nicholas was weak and easily governed by others, especially his wife. This would both ruin his credibility and create more tension within Russia, because they seemed to be making the government even less capable of running the country. All of this discontent that I’ve mentioned, combined with the strain of the impact of 1906-14 leads me to think that a revolution would still have been likely even without the war. However, it appears that many of these problems with the government and the impact of the 1905 ‘Revolution’ were severely highlighted, increased or produced because of the First World War, like Rasputin and Alexandria, who would never had been left in power if Russia had not gone to war.
So far I have mentioned many aspects of what people felt and what the effects were of certain events on the fall of the Romanovs. All have been prominent, yet most have one major underlying factor which helped increase the negative feelings of the people in Russia on the 300 year old dynasty; the First World War. You could say that there are many different reasons for the downfall of the Romanovs in 1917, but most, if not all, were intensified by the First World War.
I have already pointed out many aspects that were affected by the war. Firstly, there was the fact that Nicholas’ personality restricted his outlook and his confidence, limiting his trust to only a few individuals, leaving Alexandria in charge while he felt it was imperious that he should go to the front line. This means that there would have been less tension towards the government and the Tsar if she and Rasputin had not been left in charge. However, because they were in charge, they were often ridiculed because of their poor ruling, which also tainted the Tsar, who was blamed for putting them in charge. This thereby led to the reduced support for the Tsar, which was already weak, and by 1917, few were prepared to help preserve the Tsarist rule.
Also, because of the war, the Tsar’s personality flaws were even more obvious. This is because of his decision about Alexandria, seen above, and also because of his arrogance in taking over the army. This meant that he was held responsible for the failures, unlike in 1905 where he had a scapegoat in Phleve, whereas he now had no-one else to blame. This means that all the problems that came with the war, like the military failures and difficult living conditions, were all because of the Tsar, creating greater opposition for the Tsar.
This created more reason for the discontent with the Political System, as it seemed that it was system that was to blame for the defeats, creating a drive to overthrow the Tsar and replace the system. War generally unites people, whether that be for or against the government, which encouraged the Progressive Bloc that the Tsar was unwilling to work with. The Tsar’s refusal to work with such progressive groups encouraged people to believe that the system did really need to change because it was looking to be more and more incapable of running Russia, with even the Duma criticising the Tsar’s conduct of war.
So far, I have already mentioned these effects of the war, and also how the war encouraged them, creating more of a drive to overthrow the Tsar. However, that is not the extent of the effects of the war, even though they are all linked together, as well as being link with other topics, like the personality of Nicholas and the Political System. Further still, the other aspects of World War One on Russia can link in with how the 1905 ‘Revolution’ created a build up to the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917.
Probably the most obvious effect of the war on the Romanovs is the military failures, as they were badly led by the inexperienced Tsar and poorly equipped as well. They suffered heavy defeats which led to disillusionment and anger about the way the Tsar and the government were conducting the war, creating a lack of support and loyalty to the Tsar and the government. This is an even bigger humiliation for the army as well as the people as only just over a decade earlier, they had been defeated by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war. With both of these combined, they produced a lack of moral throughout Russia, and so more discontent with how it was run.
Also, in the war, Russia was never really a strong threat to Germany, and so the Tsar lost even more credibility as he had entered them into a pointless war. This meant that many people were not pleased as to how the government was pursuing the war, and so were not united behind the government, as it seemed obvious that the system was to blame for the defeats and was not capable.
As well as all the political criticisms because of the war, there were also many economic problems produced from it as well. One of the most obvious limitations that affected the economy was the fact that 15 million men were taken from the farms, reducing food production, also meaning that the trains were being used for war instead of taking food to the cities. Furthermore, many factories were being closed, creating higher figures of unemployment. There was also a widespread lack of fuel, in addition to the lag in the increase of wages compared to the inflation. The immense cost of the war led to inflation, as well as these shortages, which made it soar by 300%, and the deprivation created a lot of anger and unrest. Wages rose more slowly than prices, and this lag contributed to the revival of strikes in the capital at the end of 1916. Many workers, both the peasants and the urban workers became very hostile towards the Tsarist government as a result.
These situations are reminiscent of the driving force of the 1905 ‘Revolution’, showing that a lot of resentment must have been brewing since before 1905, as their conditions had not changed, and had in fact been worsened by the war. Thus, we can see how the effects of the war contributed to social and economic unrest in Petrograd at the beginning of 1917: workers and their families had many criticisms about wages that failed to keep pace with inflationary prices and about the shortages of bread and other food in the shops.
I trust that in this essay I have explained the importance of the First World War in the downfall of the Romanov dynasty, and how I have come to believe that, although it is not the sole cause of the Russian Revolution, it is the most significant factor. To some extent, the war brought about a burst of patriotic feeling within Russia, but as well as holding off the Revolution, it also intensified it. Saying this, however, you could say that there could be no outstanding cause, and even without the eruption of war, a revolution would still have been very likely.
I have come to believe that a critical element in the abdication of the Tsar and the downfall of the Romanov family was, indeed, the effects and consequences of the First World War. By saying this, I do acknowledge that a revolution would still have been likely because of the constant unrest within the country; with the inconsistent political system, the feeble personality of the Tsar, the ineffectual reforms after the 1905 ‘Revolution’, and also the history of humiliating military defeats.
In my opinion, the First World War was the vital element in the fall of the Romanovs because it created the conditions in which to overthrow the Tsar. This is because of how he was personally blamed for the war, and how everything to do with the war went against him. For example, his arrogance in believing he could run the war, his stubbornness to accept political reforms during the conflict, and also the losses of millions of men, the lack of food and the massive inflation. This all enhanced the negative effects of the 1905 ‘Revolution’. As a consequence, this turned the people against the government, which was increasingly being seen as incapable, which was emphasized by the unpopularity of the Tsarina because of her German nationality. This then leads me to say that, yes, World War One should be held accountable, and was the fundamental element in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917.