• 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...


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.


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.


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

    establishments .This lead to couples marrying earlier in life and being able to afford more than one child .City factory owners had also provided apprenticeships to the poor to enable them to explore the working environment that village areas couldn't offer.

  1. How and why was Nicholas able to survive the 1905 revolution?

    helped by the defeat to Japan and the mass killing of 100's of peaceful protesters. There was little structure, and what structure there was, Nicholas was able to break it down with ease. "It is impossible to maintain this form of government except by violence" (Nicolai Tolstoy), this is proved

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

    satisfy many, especially the middle class who withdrew their support for the strike leading to its collapse. The apparent release of some of his total power proved to be crucial to the Tsar's survival, as the people would not have rested had there been concessions.

  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 was the Tsar Forced to Abdicate in 1917?

    There, it was preached that the Tsar was chosen by God, and was to be obeyed. However, not all peasants were loyal, and those who weren't supported the Social Revolutionaries. Peasants discontent was caused mostly by land, as most of it was owned by the church, aristocracy and the Tsar.

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

    These strikes showed that people wanted change. Many people though loved Tsar at the beginning of the war because it made them feel patriotic towards their country and they were willing to support him because they wanted to win the war.

  2. The February Revolution 1917.

    Through out his marriage it seemed that the Tsarina was in complete control because the Tsarina was in control of the Tsar like a puppet. Secondly was the failure in the war (WWI). And because he realised the failures, he hesitantly and quickly appointed himself commander of chief; which meant

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