• 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? Many believe that the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was the main factor in the fall of the Romanovs; however it could be argued that there are other reasons for this. For instance, many perceived Nicholas II as a very poor tsar as a whole, regardless of the war. There are also other issues such as the difficulty of governing Russia due to its sheer size, backwards economy, and poor communication and transport. Nonetheless, the war was evidently a major factor in the fall of the Romanovs in 1917. In any case, a war strongly affects the leaders of a country, and particularly as this was such a vast war, it wasn?t going to be any different. Firstly, one of the most crucial and ultimately devastating decisions made during the war, was one by Nicholas II in September 1915 when he decided to dismiss his uncle Nikolai as commander in chief of the Russian army and took command himself. During his spell as commander, Nicholas proved to be a very weak military leader, it is said that he didn?t look capable to command a single military unit, let alone an army consisting of millions. He also proved to be very poor in terms of communication, particularly with the railway which in turn led to shortages of military equipment, ultimately heavily influencing Russia?s war effort. ...read more.


Because of its great magnitude, communication and transport were consistently very poor throughout the country. Although the Trans Siberian had been developed and it looked like a promising prospect, it was only part done in numerous places thus still leaving Russia in a state of ?backwardness?. All in all, this left Russia a very difficult country to totally reform and modernise, meaning it trailed behind other great powers such as France and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, much of Russia was made up of a countryside setting, and peasants living here were often left unsatisfied by the Tsarist regime as many reforms were not enforced in relation to the countryside. Eventually, when someone in the form of Peter Stolypin, actually tried to make a difference to the countryside and help it progress, his plans were dismissed by Nicholas when he was fired in 1911, outlining Nicholas? reluctance to change and also his stark stubbornness. Moreover, the people Nicholas then employed were less qualified and far more repressive, meaning the peasants (80% of the population) that worked or lived in the countryside, who had previously tolerated or even supported the Tsar, now very much didn?t. In addition to this, the issues surrounding communication and transport were clearly highlighted by the war. This may be interpreted as being an argument for the war being the biggest factor in the fall of the Romanovs, however it also shows that Russia, and ultimately the Tsar were never prepared for such a full scale event and demand on resources that eventually occurred. ...read more.


The war effort also had a huge effect on the Russian currency. The problem of inflation swiftly arised and affected many people?s lives for the worst. Between 1913 and 1916 the Russian National budget rose by 800%, and this was by and large financed by taxes and borrowing from Britain and France. In order to keep up with the demand of the war effort, the government printed more money, leading to inflation, which made the currency virtually worthless. Average earning doubled between 1914 and 1916, however food prices quadrupled thus peasants in particular were left in a very poor situation. Conclusively, although I believe factors not concerned with the war somewhat contributed to the fall of the Romanovs, it appears to me that without the war the Tsar and Russia as a whole would?ve been in a far better condition and the Imperial family may have survived to rule for many more years. The war ultimately acted as a catalyst and sparked copious problems in Russia, leaving all social classes dissatisfied with Nicholas II. It could be argued that if Russia had performed better in the war, the Romanovs would?ve remained autocratic rulers; however it could also be perceived that Nicholas II was the reason for Russia?s failure during the war. Therefore, I believe that although the Tsarist government was in a fairly bad state prior to the war, WWI was the final straw for Nicholas II and was a more than big enough problem to finally end his reign. ...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)

    Historically Source B is more accurate and therefore more trustworthy. c) Study sources A, B, C and D. Does the evidence of Source C and D support the version of evidence given in Source A or in Source B? Source C is a table of the estimated workers on strike in Petrograd in late February 1917.

  2. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    mutinying soldiers before they had to resort to violence (they may have faced opposition in the form of soldiers which stayed loyal to the Tsar). The Photo is not useful to a historian studying the attitude of the Russian army towards Tsar Nicholas II in the opening months of 1917 because this source does not show the entire Russian army.

  1. "To what extent was World War One the main reason for the downfall of ...

    This was important as the opinions of the Duma were listened to by the people in Russia carefully. The effects on the armed forces during the war also worsened quickly as the army was not successful in influential battles. Also with Russia suffering high casualties, the conscription system began to fail.

  2. The fall of Tsarism in Russia.

    The Russian soldiers kneel down to the Tsar, which might be thought of as respectful but may also be seen as weakness. In England, they would have saluted the flag not the ruler.

  1. Which of the following views best explain the fall of Tsarism of Russia? ...

    He believed that the Tsar should have modernized and delegated some power to his ministers. Kokovstov says that the war was the catalyst that caused the fall of Tsarism. This can be shown by Source 7. It shows what a modern historian thinks about the Tsar's position in 1914.

  2. The blance sheet for russia.

    It was still necessary to use armed force to overcome the resistance of the old order. No ruling class has ever surrendered power without a fight. But resistance was minimal. The government collapsed like a house of cards, because nobody was prepared to defend it.

  1. History - USSR - The main reason for the February/March Revolution was The World ...

    This caused outrage in Russia. Because of this, Russia's economy was declining rapidly and conditions worsened. Russia was in chaos. The people were increasingly disillusioned by the war and further food and fuel shortages were caused during the harsh winter of 1916-17. The government, at this point were extremely unpopular.

  2. To what extent was Nicholas II himself responsible for the collapse of the Tsarist ...

    As Martin McClogan puts it ?this decision was to prove a serious error of judgement by the Tsar.

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