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

Do you agree with the view that the revolution of February 1917 was the unexpected outcome of local upheaval in Petrograd?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Question 5 part b Do you agree with the view that the revolution of February 1917 was the unexpected outcome of local upheaval in Petrograd? I partially agree with the view that the 1917 revolution was due to a local Petrograd rebellion. It is because since the start of WW1 Russia had become more and more ineffective at supplying both the troops at the front line and the citizens at home. This led to animosity and resentment between solders and the working class. Also because the war was going on food and fuel were taking longer to get to Petrograd, only one third of food needed got through while only half of all fuel needs got through. This caused civil unrest and many of the civilian population now began to believe that entering the war was a rushed and rash move on Nicholas's part. The hardships of which the police put down people who complained about the war was also a trigger that turned many moderates against Nicholas. ...read more.

Middle

Source 5 goes on to say that it is hard to pinpoint a decisive blow to the Tsar which forced him to abdicate. The source says that the tsarist regime survived the 1905 revolution by making concessions and Stolypins cunning. The tsar had clearly forgotten about this previous rebellion or he would have thought ahead and made vital concessions where necessary. It would also have helped if the tsar hadn't kept changing the Dumas to just have his supporters in it. This act helped to alienate many moderates who may have supported the tsar in the 1917 revolution. However there were many factors which did not originate in Petrograd and which helped undermine the Tsar's regime even more. The army generals began to question the Tsar and his ability to rule. Many generals argued that the army couldn't fight a war and keep returning to deal with revolutionaries. The loss of support of the army generals was a blow the tsar was never able to recover from. ...read more.

Conclusion

The Tsar took no heed of this good advice and told Rodzianko to dissolve the Duma. If this did anything it made the Tsar lose more previously loyal supporters. Finally the final blow to the autocratic rule of Tsar came when he abdicated. The revolutionaries didn't mind that a new Tsar was to come they just didn't want it to be Nicholas. The Tsar chose his brother Grand Duke Mikhail to succeed him, however his brother refused when he say how difficult it was and refused the job. With nobody else to take the job Russian autocracy came to an end, as did the Romanov dynasty. In conclusion many factors of the revolution centred on Petrograd such as the police repression and the mass mutiny of the Volhynian regiment. However many factors centred on the war and other factors other that Petrograd. For example the desertion of the generals meant that the Tsar had lost the majority of the armies support. Also the fact that nobody else wanted to succeed Nicholas meant that the autocratic regime of the Tsar came to an end ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? What can you learn from ...

    4 star(s)

    They also help to support my views on the reliability of the sources by the strength of the connections with the other sources. d) On 2nd March 1917 Tsar Nicholas II abdicated. Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain why he did this?

  2. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    There was also no one at home to run the country, because the Tsar was away with the army. Back in Russia, The Tsarina was left in charge. This was also a bad situation as she was under the influence of Rasputin.

  1. Why did the Tsar survive the revolution of 1905, but not that of 1917?

    The government was failing miserably. Various organisations of factory owners were set up to arrange a supply of raw materials but Nicholas refused their help and did not want to be overthrown by the organisations as it challenged his authority.

  2. Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917?

    Such mismanagement, and bad leadership caused the other political players, such as Miliukov, to damn the Tsar. It was the personal failures of the Tsar to stop people from questioning his policies as either "stupidity or treason?"- that had the final adverse effects on the autocratic throne.

  1. Examine the importance of Russian weaknesses in WW1 in explaining the start of Revolution ...

    With Tsar being away from home a lot it allowed opposition to grow and problems to occur like the strikes by workers and peasants. Agrarian reform was also another factor that could have helped cause the Revolution in 1917. A man called Stolypin who was a big supporter of Tsar wanted to change the way peasants were farming in Russia.

  2. China 1945-90 - source based questions.

    depression, China, with her booming economy, national unity ever closer and a stable political environment is looking towards a brighter future. Her history shows that political life and economic fortunes weave as intricate a web as any other major nation, but not withstanding the inevitable twists and turns, the third millennium certainly looks exciting for China and her inhabitants.

  1. The blance sheet for russia.

    The Kronstadt garrison of 1921 was composed mainly of raw peasant levies from the Black Sea Fleet. A cursory glance at the surnames of the mutineers immediately shows that they were almost all Ukrainians. Another lie concerns the role of Trotsky in the Kronstadt episode.

  2. The February Revolution 1917.

    Looking at the large amount of protestors it shows an idea of growing unrest. It shows that the state of the Russian people is extremely volatile and on the boiling point of revolution this being said because, back then the average women would be in her home doing the daily

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