• 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)

    Nicholas II had huge pressures upon him to succeed; he was in power from 1894- 1917. The peasants were important to Nicholas' success but he couldn't keep them happy so in return they gave him grief. For most of Nicholas' rule Russia was unstable.

  2. The fall of Tsarism in Russia.

    The foot soldiers in Source J are peasants who have been forced to fight for the Tsar against their will. They suffered terrible conditions and very poor medical supplies that characterised the Russian army in the First World War. In Source E, unlike Source J, there is no banner and

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    This was not good, as ordinary Russians believed that a dirty, ragged tramp was controlling their country. This is well illustrated by source G, as it shows the Tsar and Tsarina in the palms of Rasputin's hands - as if he was their master.

  2. How convincing is the argument that WW1 was the main factor in the collapse ...

    But the deciding factor was the war itself."3 Although the war exacerbated social tensions in Russia, even before 1914 the urban workers were holding strikes and protesting. For example in 1905, in an event later named Bloody Sunday, workers protested outside the Winter Palace for a reduction in the working day, increased wages and improved working conditions.

  1. “Collectivisation was a political success but an economic failure and a human disaster” discuss.

    money, they paid them with 'workdays', these days are basically time off working on the communal farm to work at your own plot of land, the peasants seen little in the way of wages at all. Although economically this would be seen as a success it could be seen as a point proving it was a human disaster.

  2. Explain Rasputin's contribution to the collapse of Tsarism.

    She was easily persuaded, and German, so the Russian population disliked her. Rasputin was probably only trying to help the Tsarina, because running Russia was a huge responsibility, and it was a mistake for the Tsar to leave it in her hands.

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

    The immediate effect was to tranquilize the people, however, temporarily. Opponents to the Tsar became divided as the middle class liberals were delighted with the October Manifesto, and fearing more a radical movement, they decided to become loyal to the Tsar again.

  2. The February Revolution 1917.

    As this source is by a British historian it immediately suggests that it could be biased and exaggerated, but it doesn't mean that is unreliable. However it shows a huge rapid increase of support of the growing number of people who wanted down with autocracy.

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