Do you agree that Tsardom was destroyed by the length of the war?

Alex Pritchard

Essay Question

Do you agree with the view, expressed in Source 6, that 'What destroyed Tsardom was the length of the war'?

The length of the war was a big factor in the downfall on the Tsar because the longer it went on the more unrest there was in the cities due to hunger, the poor course of the war and the persecution of the population. The war also drained Russia, economically, politically and socially. However other factors such as the Tsar's poor management, the state of the Russian army and Professional revolutionaries also had an effect on the destruction of Tsardom. The Tsar’s personality was the most significant and would be the main factor in the downfall of Tsardom.

The war drained Russia and caused massive hunger across the country because of the need to get grain to the front-line and the decreased output. This caused wide-spread panic and countered the initial morale boost of the war as Source 4 shows. Source 4 also says that the refugees move in a solid mass destroying meadows and woods, which suggests unification and this would be a threat to the tsar as if they directed their attacks against him, they could cause a revolution. Source 4 is from the Minister of Agriculture who would be in a position to know about the treading down of fields and destruction of meadows and woods. This idea is also supported by Source 5 which states there was a marked increase in hostile feelings among the peasants. However Source 5 also talks about the oppression of the Tsar as another cause for discontent, it also mentions Professional Revolutionaries implying that they are invoking hostility among the workers and peasants. As the war went on this effect got worse and Russia kept being drained. Source 6 mentions the Russo-Japanese war that happened 12 years earlier, although this defeat was one of the major factors in the cause of the 1905 revolution, showing that a short war with great defeats still caused great strain on Russia. Even if WW1 had been shorter the effects of the defeat on Russia would have probably still collapsed Tsardom. So the length of the war was significant in the destruction of the Tsar because it meant the revolutionaries would have more support if they wanted to overthrow the Tsar, and the likelihood of a spontaneous revolution would be greater due to widespread unrest, but the war would still have caused great strain on the country no matter how long it was, and the Revolutionaries would still have great support.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However Russia was already in a bad state before the war and a revolution would have been inevitable, but the war provided a distraction to the poor state of living. So after the initial morale boost, the war would no longer act as a distraction and unrest would go back to how it was before the war. Also because the war was going badly this added to the effect meaning that Russia would be in a worse state that it was before the war with more unrest and the peasants’ and workers more likely to revolt. However if the war went well for the Russians, this may have provided a further distraction and give the Tsar time to make changes to stabilise Russia. However the Tsar's poor management, both of the military and political matters meant that the army was not in a fit state. So the fact that Russia was in a poor state before the war meant that even if the Tsar ended the war early, unrest would still revert back to pre-war levels though a lengthy war added to the unrest.

The Tsar's poor management affected both the military and its poor organisation, and also political and social issues which made the population unhappy. The army was very poorly equipped due to a lack of major industry and a poor rail network in Russia. The army was also not very well trained compared to the opposition, on top of being poorly fed and using old technology. This meant that morale was quickly reduced and unrest increased among the peasants. Also the decision of the Tsar to become Commander in Chief greatly weakened his position and he was not very competent and any defeats were blamed on him reducing faith in Tsardom and inciting its downfall. Furthermore, while the Tsar was away the Tsarina was left in charge of Russia, who was very incompetent and kept re-appointing ministers. This left Russia very vulnerable and it would be easier for revolutionaries to incite revolution and they would have more material for propaganda. So although the length of the war did cause lots of problems for the Tsar and made it easier for revolutionaries to incite revolution it was the Tsar's decision to go to war and under better management the war could have gone the other way, and the country could be stabilised with new political polices.

So the Tsar’s personality and his stubbornness was a major factor in Russia’s involvement for the war. So it was the Tsar’s fault for going to war, which greatly depleted Russia’s resources which were not ready for a war due to the Tsar’s poor management. Furthermore it was the Tsar’s idea to become Commander in Chief against all advice which created a Political vacuum and also put all blame on the Tsar for the defeats causing an increase in hatred for the regime leading to its downfall

| Page