The Tssar's fall from power.

The influence of Rasputin was no more important than any other factor.  I think that he was used more as a scapegoat and his influence was not as great as it was made out to be.  For all we know, the Tsarina could have made the same rulings without Rasputin.  The people of Russia needed someone to blame, and Rasputin was the clear favourite.  The peasants of Russia were deeply religious.  The Orthodox Church was closely linked to the Tsar and supported his way of ruling.  The people of Russia named him “Little Father of Russia”, and it would be difficult to blame him for the situation at that time.  Instead, Rasputin was used as a scapegoat, someone who was conveniently there when Russia was in crisis.  

The start of World War I increased the problems for all Russians, and was a definite contributor the beginning of the 1917 Revolution.  When the Tsar went into war it was hailed as “patriotic” but then as the leadership was passed on the Tsarina (of German descent) and Rasputin (an immoral, religious peasant), many situations arose.  The Tsarina would not work with the Duma, and dismissed many able ministers.  Therefore, no proper organisation took place concerning food, fuel and other supplies.  The railway system fell into chaos and trainloads of food were left rotting.

Many male peasants were conscripted into the Army and therefore there was a shortage of farm workers and less food was being produced.  Many factories closed so industrial goods were in short supply.  As food shortages increased, prices rose, leading to starvation and strikes among the factory workers.  As the news came to the Russian peasants that many soldiers were left unfed and badly equipped, more uproar arose.  Many Russians did not even know why they were fighting in World War I.

Although the others were not less important factors than World War I, they did not set off the Revolution.  World War I was a trigger of the March 1917 Revolution, making all other factors more apparent.  If World War I had not happened, I am quite sure that Russia would not have had such a violent revolution.

After the 1905 Revolution, Stolypin took over the role of Prime Minister in Russia.  Stolypin was stern and cruel, these qualities were essential when dealing with the revolutionaries of the 1900s.  Stolypin was an intelligent man who was chosen on his merits, rather than his social status and riches.  He took steps to prevent the revolution from breaking out.  He encouraged the industrialisation of Russian, and while he ruled the output of iron and steel increased by 50%.  Other industries followed this trend.  This helped to settle the protesters, unemployment decreased, and so did the discontent among the workers.

He abolished many dated laws and set up a “Peasants’ Land Bank”, which provided loans for peasants to purchase land from their neighbours.  When the revolutionary, Lenin, heard of Stolypin’s success, he was alarmed.  He realised that the chance of a revolution was decreasing because of the peace in the countryside among peasants and industrial workers.  

Stolypin was murdered in 1911, this removed the only man with enough imagination to prevent another outbreak of revolt.  Russia may have accepted the Tsar’s autocratic rule for many more years had it not been for the death of Stolypin and the outbreak of World War I in August 1914.  When Stolypin was Prime Minister Russia settled down.  If he had continued to rule, would there have been a revolution?  In this case, this is all about “ifs”.  If one thing had not happened, would there have been a revolution?  

• Without an autocratic rule, would there have been a revolution?
• Without social and economic hardship, would there have been a revolution?
• If Rasputin had not been involved, would there have been a revolution?
• If there were no opposition groups, would there have been a revolution?
• If World War I had not occurred, could the peace of Russia have been maintained?

In all honesty, there is no way of saying which one is more important.  They all contributed in their own way to the violent revolts among the Russian people during the 20th century.  In my opinion World War One was the main trigger and the Romanov misrule was the main long-term cause.  I am quite sure that if the autocratic system of government had been abolished before the 1900 there would have been a different social structure and economy.  It is not for me to say whether it would have turned out better than an autocratic system.  For the same reason, the number a strength of opposition groups could have been different and the influence of Rasputin as well.