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

Why did the Tsar abdicate after the 1917 revolution

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Why did the Tsar abdicate following the February 1917 Revolution, but not after the 1905 Revolution? Russian kings called themselves 'Tsar', meaning emperor. Unlike the rulers of the other great powers, by 1900 the Tsar still ruled the country on his own, with help from ministers he chose, who answered only to him. The people in Russia had no right to vote and there was no parliament. Local government was in the hands of provincial governors appointed by the Tsar. The whole system depended a lot on the ability of the Tsar. If the Tsar was talented and a strong leader then the government might work well, despite the size of the country. But in complete contrast if the Tsar was weak the country may slip back into anarchy. Therefore most of the Tsars were harsh and repressive in the way that they ruled. In many ways, Russia was still in the middle ages. Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918) was Russia's last emperor, he was born on 18 May 1868 in Tsarskoe Selo. Nicholas succeeded his father's throne, Alexander III, when his father died from liver disease on 20 October 1894. Nicholas was 26. The same year Nicholas married Princess Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt, the grand daughter of Queen Victoria. Alexandra played a huge part in convincing Nicholas to resist ever growing calls for increased democracy within Russia. ...read more.

Middle

Therefore because they worked together they had one strong rebellion instead of a few smaller ones like in 1905. Also in 1917 there was no one to crush the rebellion because the soldiers were fighting in WW1 and the soldiers that weren't fighting had rebelled as well and were helping the people. In 1905 the rebels/opposition didn't work together so they were crushed by the force of the soldiers whereas in 1917 they rebels worked together to form one big rebellion. Also one of the key reasons the rebellion worked in 1917 and not 1905 was the fact that there was no soldiers available to crush the rebellion as they were either helping the rebellion or fighting the war. The Tsar had the biggest effect on his own abdication, what were the things he did differently in 1905 than in 1917? In 1905 the decision that I believe saved him was the peace treaty with Japan as this enabled him to keep his troops trust and so he could bring them back and crush the rebellion. If he hadn't of done this then he would not have had any protection and the rebellion would probably have spiraled out of his hands. In 1905 he also indirectly sparked of the rebellion, this was because of his troops opening fire on an unarmed group of protesters which had women and children in it. ...read more.

Conclusion

Also in 1917 everything was worse there was little food little money so the people were already annoyed and unhappy before the rebellion. I believe that there are a lot of reasons that the Tsar abdicated in 1917 and not in 1905 but there are a few very key reasons. I believe that the two combined main reasons were the Tsar's actions and the war. Firstly the Tsar created most of his own problems in the first place like creating the October Manifesto, it saved him in 1905 but arguably it lost him trust when he abolished it so the people didn't trust him in 1917 and they wouldn't settle for anything like the October Manifesto. The other main points were affected by the Tsar's actions. This was the war. In 1905 the war saved the Tsar as it finished and he was able to bring his troops back to crush the opposition. Whereas in 1917 the war made some soldiers desert and therefore the soldiers joined the rebellion instead of crushing it. Also in 1917 the war made economic problems worse because there were awful conditions everywhere and a huge shortage of food. So I believe that the war and the Tsar's actions were the main reasons for the Tsar's abdication in 1917 and not in 1905, were because they were much worse in 1917 and they had a completely different effect on the army the opposition and the economic problems in 1917 than in 1905. Bibliography * Modern World History text book * My exercise book * Wikipedia * http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWtsar. ...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 chose to ignore this in his reaction. 'That fat fellow Rodzianko has again written me all kinds of nonsense which I shan't even bother to answer.' This ignorance led to the revolution finally taking place. If Tsar Nicholas had taken notice of Rodzianko and had taken appropriate measures to

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

    was due to the influence of the Bolsheviks who foresaw the revolution and encouraged it. Although Soviet historians claim that Bolsheviks were amongst the leaders of the unrest this seems unlikely when we take into account that Lenin at this time was in exile in Switzerland, Trotsky was in America and Stalin was living in Siberia.

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

    Many , perhaps even the majority of employee's working in bare feet and machines had no protective equipment over it .In some cases , young children had to crawl underneath machines in operation in order to retrieve excess cotton .In general , both adults and children had been put at

  2. Why did the Tsar abdicate in 1917?

    all the power back and didn't like his autocratic way of thinking. The Tsar also lost support fro the liberals who were the middle class, the generals who were in charge of the army and the monarchists who were in favour of them monarchy.

  1. Why was the Tsar Forced to Abdicate in 1917?

    There were strikes, protests, and eventually it all came to a head. On Sunday, 22 January 1905 a crowd of 200,000 marched to the Winter Palace to give a petition to the Tsar. Marchers carried pictures of the Tsar out of respect, but their leader had already fled at the first sign of trouble.

  2. Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to ...

    During the February Revolution, strikers carried slogans such as "Down with the autocracy" written on them. With no support from the masses, Nicholas II had lost a key ally in his battle to remain in power. On the 30th of October he issued the 'October Manifesto', this proved enough to

  1. How and why did the Bolsheviks seize power in 1917?

    The Tsar lost the respect of the people of Russia. And it would be remembered. For the following 10 months, it seemed Nicholas might lose control of Russia. His Uncle had been assassinated in Moscow where striking workers had barricaded the street.

  2. Was World War 1 the main reason for the abdication of the Tsar

    Firstly, an important reason for the abdication of the Tsar is because of the food shortages created by priority for the soldiers to receive food and lack of communication about the distribution of it all. The seizure of horses for soldiers made it hard for the peasants to maintain enough

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