• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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

Extracts from this document...


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. ...read more.


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. ...read more.


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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Was Rasputin to blame for the fall of the Romanov dynasty?

    In December of 1916, in an attempt to save the monarchy, a group of aristocratic conspirators murdered Rasputin. However, this action made no difference and Nicholas abdicated from the throne. While in captivity, he and his family were murdered on the orders of Lenin.

  2. The downfall of the Romanov Dynasty

    Other historians believe a revolution was inevitable due to the weak state of Russia. There are various reasons why the Russian state at the time could be deemed as weak. In 1904 Russia had been humiliated in a war with Japan, and a year later a 'revolution' broke out the

  1. How far was the Russian Japanese war of 1905 the cause of the 1905 ...

    Due to harsh living conditions and again, the fact that the Trans-Siberian Railway had not been completed then, the plan was unsuccessful. Such plans continued to enrage the peasants and exposed the weaknesses of the Government. The urban proletariat was also an emerging class in Russia.

  2. How far can the downfall of Napoleon be explained by the continuous opposition of ...

    The Grande Arm´┐Że was drained massively by the "Spanish Ulcer" which had engaged 250,000 men by the time of the Russian Campaign in 1812 and it was at the beginning of a terminal decline. Esdaile points out in his book 'The Wars of Napoleon' that "amongst the rank and file,

  1. 'In the context of the period 1715-1815 to what extent were economic factors the ...

    It included articles indicating that 'all the powers emanate entirely from the nation'15 and 'elections will be held for every seat'16. This is close to the work of Rousseau and his idea of democracy, as well as the freedom experienced by the newly-formed United States.

  2. How far was the First World War responsible for the downfall of the Romanovs ...

    Inflation made trading unprofitable so peasants stopped selling foods and hoarding their stocks, thus affecting food supplies. The problem was increased by the fact the army had first claim on the more limited amount of food being produced, and

  1. Why did the Tsar lose power in 1917?

    Their military programme wouldn?t be ready until 1917. They also weren?t ready economically; Figes said ?war will necessitate expenditures which are beyond Russia?s financial means? stating that Russia couldn?t afford this war. Figes also said ?a European war is mortally dangerous for whomever wins? which is suggesting that even if

  2. How far do you agree that WW1 was mainly responsible for the February Revolution ...

    the February Revolution because the government was not able to call on the army to suppress an inevitable uprising. Without the disastrous First World War that undermined the country?s leadership, the government would still have had the support of the army like in 1905.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work