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

Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? What can you learn from Source A about the situation in February 1917?

Extracts from this document...


James Taylor 11MA Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? a) What can you learn from Source A about the situation in February 1917? Source A is an extract from Tsaritsa Alexandra's diary from the 25th February 1917. After reading through the source I believe it to be inaccurate and not very reliable. This for a number of reasons, the first sentence reads: 'Young people run and shout that there is no bread, simply to create excitement'. This is very incorrect, the workers weren't demonstrating just to create excitement; the workers wanted the price of bread lowered. Also the source says: 'But all this will pass and become calm if only the Duma will behave itself' The truth is the Duma was behaving itself, and although they wanted to take over the Empire, the Duma in fact had nothing to do with the demonstrations led by the peasants. The Duma was the Russian parliament, which Tsar Nicholas II created in an effort to make himself popular, but he later ignored the Duma and led the country using the army. Source A is inaccurate, although I believe there is a simple explanation. Tsaritsa Alexandra has written in her diary what she believes to be true. As the Tsar's palace is far outside Petrograd, I think the information from the centre of the city must have been altered slightly by the time it reached Tsaritsa Alexandra. As source A is quite inaccurate you cannot get a lot of truth from it. Although we can learn from it that in February 1917, the weather was very cold and the workers had gone on strike. However, this source is not very useful, as it does not give us a proper insight into what really happened on those days. b) Explain why Source's A and B are different? Source B is an account from Mikhail Rodzianko, president of the Duma writing about the events of February 27th 1917. ...read more.


The first two sources give us one of the first possible reasons for Nicholas' abdication. As there was no soldiers left in the city to fight the workers the Tsar could no longer control them, and he couldn't draft more in because most of the other soldiers were fighting Germany alongside the Tsar. Also a second reason we can get from the two sources is that as the workers were on strike factories ground to a halt and so no goods were being produced, Nicholas had to solve this fast, the pressure for him to do so was immense as some of the factories in Petrograd produced important supplies for the front line. Source C gives us numerical figures telling us how many workers approximately were on strike during the first few days of the revolution. I believe this to be trustworthy as it agrees with historical fact. This source also backs up the claim that Nicholas was slowly losing control over his capital city. Source D an extract from a British nurse's diary who was working in Petrograd at the time of the revolution tells us of how the tsars soldiers fired upon the people and it goes on to say that nothing now can stop the revolution. Also source E a photograph of soldiers taken on the 27th February showing their mutiny after being forced to fire upon their own kind. The photo shows banners which a said to read 'Down with Tsar. Long live the republic' I believe this source to be trustworthy as it is pictorial evidence and it is unlikely that it has been edited in any way. Again these two sources back up the fact that the Tsar was slowly losing control over the people and there was nothing he could do to stop them apart from meet their demands, as they were the greatest force in Russia. ...read more.


All these reasons contributed to the February Revolution in 1917. Many of the reasons are also closely linked. The tsar had left no reinforcements behind protecting his capital in case of any revolutionary plots, even when Rodzianko recommended that he did take action, the Tsars ignorance kept him form doing so. The same ignorance was seen with Durnovo's memorandum and the threat of revolution if Russia did suffer defeat. If the Tsar had taken action and planned for the future when the first warning of revolution was sewn in Durnovo's memorandum in 1914, the Tsar might have avoided the situation he was faced with in February 1917. Also if the Tsar had planned and prepared for war carefully and not created the huge strain on the industry, he might not have had the workers demonstrating over the price of bread that created a platform for the other problems, the workers and peasants faced, to be shown. All the reasons had a part to play in sparking off the revolution. However, as shown above if you took out or altered some of the causes the revolution might never of occurred. Without Tsar Nicholas' ignorance and lack of planning for war, he could of avoided revolution in February 1917. These reasons I think are the most important as they both sparked of a chain reaction previous to 1917. However, Nicholas' ignorance towards events and peoples advice building up to the revolution has the greater importance of the two as he could of crushed any stirring revolutionaries long before it reached a large scale. In conclusion, I think revolution in Russia was inevitable by 1917. Nicholas' ignorance is the main factor, which led to the revolution. This is evident in many of the sources where he refused to accept people's advice. Although Nicholas' ignorance features in other factors which led, in the short term, to the revolution. It was a character defect, which would have been with him most of life and therefore his ignorance along with other factors made revolution inevitable by 1917. ...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

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

4 star(s)

This is a well answered source paper, with many useful comments on provenance and a good understanding of why the revolution occurred. At times, the author could answer the question more directly and offer more explanation of points. 4 out of 5 stars.

Marked by teacher Natalya Luck 14/03/2012

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)

    Another contributing factor to Nicholas' downfall was Bloody Sunday, which was mainly Nicholas' fault because he should have stopped his troops from firing at the crowds. On January 22nd Farther Gapon led over 20,000 people through the streets of St Petersburg with a petition complaining about the poor conditions in which they had to live.

  2. 'The Five Year Plans brought glory to Stalin and misery to his people.' How ...

    the stronger position however they could be removed due to the NEP. When the Five Year Plans were launched it saw the removal of all the major leaders in the Right Party, this increased Stalin's power and strengthened his own personal power as he was the undisputed leader of USSR.

  1. What were the Causes of the October Revolution in Russia, 1917?

    This meant that obviously the soldiers were discontent because they wanted the war ended, so they started to support more extreme parties because they thought the present system didn't work. The Provisional Government had many issues to deal with and they couldn't really cope.

  2. Was the October revolution a popular uprising or a coup d(TM)tat?

    This view was probably quite biased as at the time there were hostile views to Russia from a majority of westerners due to the cold war. More recent historians such as Robert Service accept the views of the Revisionists and Cold War historians, and they believe that there was a

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

    However, then there was an industrial slump in 1902, which caused thousands of the new workers to lose their jobs. Strikes and demonstration broke out in many cities. To make matters worse, disaster struck in the countryside. There were poor harvests in 1900 and 1902.

  2. How successful were Stalins Economic Policies?

    needed to aim high if he was to modernise Russia in such a short space of time. The industries targeted by the Five Year Plans all increased their output dramatically, for instance coal production nearly doubled between 1927 and 1932, increasing from 35 to 64 million tons and nearly doubled

  1. Letter to Tsar Nicholas II about Russia's problems

    There are many reasons why this shall be an important step towards a greater nation, and here I will represent the major one. Firstly, It will regain the worker?s trust and stop them from trying to start a rebellion.

  2. Stalins Five Year Plans were a great success 1928-1941. Do you agree? Explain you ...

    The speed at which the industries were modernised was remarkable. It can be said that there were significant achievements made under the Five Year Plans. Under the Five Year Plans, many remarkable achievements were accomplished in the USSR. The production of coal and iron was doubled and the electricity production trebled.

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