• 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. Why did the Tsar survive the revolution of 1905, but not that of 1917?

    and even with this, he made his own rules. Therefore, there was no idealistic sense of democracy as he was still a strong autocratic monarch. Moreover, the World War in 1914 came along, and this accelerated the uprising of another revolution. Instead of humility, this time there were numerous and more dramatic casualties, military defeats and territorial loss.

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

    Factory workers also faced problems, such as overcrowding, terrible food, disease and alcoholism. Working and living conditions were atrocious, and talk of a revolution soon spread through the overfull dormitories and work spaces. After this, things became progressively worse as people became more and more malcontent with the state of the country.

  1. Why does the Tsar abdicate in 1917?

    There were the reforms of Stolypin and Witte and the run of good harvests from 1909 to 1913. And liberals even argue that the prospect of further progress as a whole grew strong, however in reality economic hardship persisted and would only get worse.

  2. Examine the importance of Russian weaknesses in WW1 in explaining the start of Revolution ...

    because 80% of Russia's population at the time were peasants, and in 1881 only 928,000 people were living in St Petersburg. By 1914 the population of St Petersburg had increased to 2,217,000 this caused a lot of problems. It caused social unrest, their were on trade union or legal representation and bad living conditions because the city was so crowded.

  1. Why did the Tsar abdicate in 1917?

    Out of it the entire Tsar got the blame. Because the Tsar got the blame for all the grievances in Russia, it meant that he lost a lot of support and gained a lot of opposition from various groups. The middle class didn't support the Tsar because he was keeping

  2. Why did Tzar Nicholas II abdicate in 1917 and not in 1905?

    As most of Russia's population was in the west of the country this war affected most of the population so people knew what was happening unlike the previous Russo-Japanese war. Secondly the Tzar's reputation as ruler was worsened because of the strength of their opposition.

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

    However, the 15% of peasants who borrowed from the peasants bank inevitably became poorer as they couldn?t pay off their loan, had to sell their land and scour the countryside for work. Some travelled to the cities trying to get jobs and passing on their stories criticising the Tsar.

  2. Lenin's Importance in the 1917 Revolutions.

    His dedication can also be witnessed as he was focused around ensuring the revolution when the time came ran like clockwork. This appears obvious since ?in an effort to produce conformity he slipped back into Petrograd? therefore this shows that he was based around being ready.

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