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

The collapse of the autocracy in February 1917 signified the end product of the interaction of multiple factors relating to both domestic and foreign issues. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The collapse of the autocracy in February 1917 signified the end product of the interaction of multiple factors relating to both domestic and foreign issues. The traditional historiographical view of a rapid insurrection catching the autocracy by surprise is increasingly called into question - Hasegawa sees the abdication of Nicholas II as the product of disillusionment with the war being translated into popular protest1. The experience of 1905 left workers and soldiers more prepared for rebellion and the long - term factor of war accentuated the domestic problems in Russia. The pressure created by the war rendered the autocracy vulnerable, hence the unrest from the 23rd of February onwards had such an impact. It was ultimately however the loss of military discipline and loyalty in Petrograd, coupled with liberals' decisions and autocratic choice, which caused the regime to fall, not as a result of previous unrest, but a fear of what rebellion may be still to come. This fear was what dictated the nature of the revolution. It was this combination of long and short - term factors that caused the Russian autocracy to fall. It is pertinent to tackle this issue in a chronological form, beginning in 1915 / '16. One must however bear in mind that unrest in Petrograd, almost irrespective of the rest of Russia, was enough to cause the collapse of autocracy. ...read more.

Middle

Nicholas often did not have the full picture, and this made shrewd responses near impossible. There was however a good deal of blame to be directed at Nicholas, who failed to appreciate the domestic situation, or the folly of his taking symbolic control of what was already a sinking ship of a war effort10. It is in this context that the growing urban unrest must be seen. Russia was trapped in a war it could not afford to leave, as allied loans were staving off economic collapse. Russia could not socially afford to continue, however, as peasants became opposed to a regime requisitioning grain, and the industrial sphere became increasingly frustrated by the lack of regular food deliveries or industrial war materials. Russia was not equipped economically, industrially or socially to compete in a military capacity with the industrial powerhouses it fought with, and against. The war thus provides the backdrop to the unrest, a general climate in which being opposed to the war, and increasingly the Tsar and his government, was seen as acceptable. The war, accordingly, has to be seen as a key reason in the fall of the autocracy. Without the domestic unrest that increasingly accompanied it however, it would not have been enough to topple the regime. ...read more.

Conclusion

While the problems of war, and the February strike movement provided the context in which a drive for abdication was viable, it was the actions of the Tsar and his family which ultimately signalled the end of the autocracy. 1 Hasegawa, T, 'The Problem of Power in the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia' in Canadian Slavonic Papers, 1972; 14ii p.611 2 Burdzhalov, KN, Russia's Second Revolution: The February 1917 Uprising in Petrograd, 1987, USA, p.18 3 ibid., p.19 4 ibid., p.21 5 Read, C, From Tsar to Soviets, the Russian People and Their Revolution, 1996, London, p.38 - 39 6 Westwood, JN, Endurance and Endeavour: Russian History 1812 - 1992, 4th ed., 1993, Oxford, p.226 - 227 7 Burzhalov, Russia's Second Revolution, p.72 - 73 8 Read, C, From Tsar to Soviets, the Russian People and Their Revolution, 1996, London, p.35 9 Diakin, VS, 'The Leadership Crisis in Russia on the Eve of the February Revolution', in Soviet Studies in History, 1984;23, (1), p.13 10 ibid., p.12 11 Hasegawa, p.613 12 Smith, SA, 'Petersburg in 1917: The View from Below, in Kaiser, DH (ed.), revolution in russia, 1917 The View from Below, 1987, Cambridge p.62 13Longley, DA, 'The Mezhraionka, The Bolsheviks and International Women's Day. In Response to Michael Melancon', in Soviet Studies 1989; 41 p.632 - 633 14Hasegawa, p.613 15 Kerensky, A, 'Why the Russian Monarchy Fell', in Slavonic and East European Review, 1930; 8 (24) p.497 ...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. How convincing is the argument that WW1 was the main factor in the collapse ...

    Whilst the Tsar was absent from Petrograd Rasputin's influence extended to giving the Tsarina advice on ministerial appointments. The Tsarina had always been ostracised by the masses but her close and contentious relationship with Rasputin heightened their condemnation of her and led to a loss of faith in the Tsarist regime as a whole.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    Because the Russians were used to autocracy, they did not object to it. Opposition groups stirred up the people and presented them with the chance of a better life - without autocracy or aristocracy. The activities of opposition groups (before and during WWI)

  2. Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917?

    Nicholas II's personal mistakes such as accepting all responsibility for the War, the suicidal 'ministerial leapfrog' and the career damaging association with a drunkard/ monk by the name of Rasputin, all equalled political failure. "Simply changing ministers could not, however, solve the difficulties which the war was creating for Russian society as a whole" (Waldron).

  1. The fall of Tsarism in Russia.

    This source indicates that Russia is emerging as an industrial power. This evidence suggests that during the Tsar's reign, Russia was kept industrially behind other leading countries such as the U.S.A.

  2. To what extent was the Revolution of February/march, in Russia 1917, due to the ...

    and all government ministers and army had to answer directly to him. According to Ben Walsh in GCSE Modern World History on page 82, "These Laws agreed to the existence of the duma, but they put so many limitations on its powers that it could do virtually nothing."

  1. How did living conditions change in towns as a result of the Industrial Revolution ...

    This is since , there were hardly any upsides to be found during the start of the Revolution . Though , I do htink that the changes taken during the early stages had benefited in the way that it provided more jobs , especially where machines and transportation are concerned .

  2. The blance sheet for russia.

    end to the imperialist slaughter and the conclusion of a democratic peace. In short, the Kerensky regime in the course of nine months gave ample proof of its total inability to meet the most basic needs of the Russian people.

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