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

The February Revolution 1917 - Was Nicholas responsible for his own downfall?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Russia 1905-1914 The February Revolution 1917 Was Nicholas responsible for his own downfall? In Durnovo's memorandum 1914, he states that a long war is imminent and that Russia is not ready for it. They would lose causing the government to be blamed resulting in complete social revolution. Durnovo was completely right. He predicted that war would break out which it did later in 1914 with Germany. Russia then suffered heavy losses after the battle of Tannenberg 1914 and the loss of Russian Poland 1915. Then Nicholas decided to make himself commander-in-chief of the army but Russia still took heavy losses. As a result of this, just as Durnovo predicted, the government were blamed which resulted in a complete social revolution in February 1917. Source B is Alexandra's view of what is happening in 1917 a few days before complete revolution broke out. It says that people are protesting only to get attention and that everything will pass when they get bored, cold or hungry. It gives the impression that the situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away. Source C is Rodzianko's view of what is happening also written in 1917, just before complete revolution broke out. ...read more.

Middle

Source D shows the sheer number of workers that are on strike by the 25th February. This is a reason for the Tsar to abdicate because it shows that the strikes are very serious and that he may easily loose control of the city, Source E again gives the Tsar a reason to abdicate because it shows that revolution is inevitable and he is going to loose control. In Source F, soldiers are shown to be very serious about revolution and carry banners saying 'Down with the Tsar. Long live the republic'. These same soldiers, the day before had shot down demonstrators and therefore it is now obvious that all control is lost and there is almost no hope of regaining the people's support. Source G shows that the capital is in complete chaos and a new government is wanted and needed. It also shows that Nicholas ignored all the warnings given to him. This is a reason for his abdication because again, it shows that Nicholas has lost all control and is not wanted anymore. All these reasons show why Nicholas abdicated because when they are combined they show that there is no hope for Nicholas any more and the capital is in complete ruin and everyone blames him for it. ...read more.

Conclusion

Also if Nicholas had not been so oblivious to what was going on around him and listened to Rodzianko then maybe the revolution wouldn't have happened. However he chose to ignore any warnings, which meant that he was responsible for allowing the situation to get out of control However some people may argue that a revolution in Russia was inevitable for several reasons. First off, Russia was backward and different from other great powers like Britain, France and Germany, who all had elected parliaments and political parties, the Tsar ruled alone as and autocrat. Industrialisation had not yet happened in Russia as in the other great countries, and peasants made up 80% of it. However the peasants were not happy because they wanted the nobles land, because they worked on it and thought it rightly belonged to them. The workers were also not happy because of increasingly bad working and living conditions. For these reasons, it is also shown that although it was Nicholas who triggered of the revolution in February 1917, a revolution was bound to happen some time in Russia. However this is from other historical knowledge and when only looking at the sources, it is obvious that it was Nicholas' fault that the situation got out of hand in Petrograd in 1917. Juri Gregurec ...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?

    5 star(s)

    As the people ran the troops chased them and kill them. Many innocent bystanders got caught in the crossfire and were killed in their own homes. Official figures said that 96 were killed and 333 were injured but the actual figures were probably much higher.

  2. What were the causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917?

    This had serious following consequences, which the Tsar may not have thought of at the time. Firstly, the Tsar would be blamed for all the defeats in the war now that he has taken the responsibility of it. Secondly, while the Tsar was away in the war front, the Tsarina,

  1. How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

    The war lead to food shortages and unemployment, this would have happened whoever was in charge of Russia but due to the poor organisation these problems became worse and worse and the Tsar's downfall looked more likely. Nicholas' unpopular decision to leave Petrograd leaving the Tsarina and Rasputin in charge

  2. What were the causes of the february revolution

    These industries needed workers so peasants began to move to the towns and work in the factories, these peasants were know as the proletariat. More and more peasant began to move to the larger cities to fill the job vacancies, with too many workers crowded into one city, living and working conditions became appalling.

  1. Why did the Tsar abdicate after the 1917 revolution

    In both 1905 and 1917 the Army had a large influence on the out come of the rebellions but in different ways, also in both 1905 and 1917 Russia was fighting a war. In 1905 the troops suffered an embarrassing defeat to the Japanese but despite this they stayed loyal.

  2. Do you agree with the view that the revolution of February 1917 was the ...

    Source 4 says that many of the working class are becoming violent and hostile to the authorities; they are also calling for an immediate withdrawal from the war. The report goes on to say that many left-wing circles are convinced revolution is coming, this is a further testament to the

  1. Why was there a revolution in February 1917?

    She showed anti-German riots in Moscow in 1915. When she moved her husband became more and more dependent of himself and it could lead to against him authenticity. In this time on the top there is Grigorii Rasputin, who shows the figure of responsible and thoughtful lord for society - ladies.

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

    the economy; the National Budget, for example, rose eightfold between 1913 and 1916, financed out of higher taxes, loans and borrowing from Britain and France. In order to pay for the war, the government printed more money, leading to inflation, with prices rising over 200% between August 1914 and Christmas 1916.

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