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

How far was the First World War responsible for the downfall of the Romanovs in 1917?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How far was the First World War responsible for the downfall of the Romanovs in 1917? The peoples of the Russian Empire were governed by the autocratic ruler known as the Tsar. Since 1613 the Russian Tsars had been members of The Romanov dynasty, also referred to as the Russian monarchy which was hereditary. Between 1613 and 1917 Russia was ruled by the members of the house of Romanov. However the February Revolution was the final open move against the Tsar and his government where the range of opposition and the speed at which events turned from a protest into a revolution led to the abdication of the Tsar in 1917. The Tsar also renounced the throne on behalf of his haemophiliac son, and nominated his brother Michael the position as the new Tsar. However as Michael was unwilling to bear the burden of leading a disunited country, Russia was left without an emperor and Tsardom had collapsed. There were many reasons which could be held responsible for the downfall of the Romanov's. Russia in the late 1800s and early 1900s was a nation in upheaval. Factors which led to this national disruption included the misrule of the Romanovs themselves, especially in relation to Tsar Nicolas II, the devastation of the Russian army during World War I, the emergence of Rasputin, and the social-economic situation that was already established in Russia. ...read more.

Middle

Russia was ripe for revolution which would eventually cause the downfall of the Romanov's Nevertheless the War may have had huge long-term impact but there were other factors which also played an important role in the downfall of the Romanov's. A major factor was the autocratic ruler Nicholas II himself, he had continued the divine-right monarchy held by the Romanovs for many generations, with belief that the monarch had been appointed by god. Nicholas was responsible for being one of the most important contributors to the Romanov downfall. He was entirely unsuited to be the autocrat of so vast a country as Russia and made a number of crucial errors in his handling the country. The role of Tsar as commander in chief of the army heightened his unpopularity and failings as a leader and as he was forced to take the blame for disappointment of the war, the fate of the Romanov dynasty was tied to the success of the armies at war. He had introduced the Dumas' to help share the running of the country but in an attempt to restore his autocratic powers he introduced the fundamental laws which made sure the Duma had minimal authority and gave the Tsar complete power, this weakened his position and made him more vulnerable to opposition with his disregard to running the country democratically. ...read more.

Conclusion

government because it highlighted the weaknesses of Tsardom through failure of the institutions to cope with the impact of the war leaving the Russian people to face hardship. Rasputin and Alexandra also became the focal point of the growing hatred of Tsardom, the fact Rasputin was becoming very prominent within the Tsarist system convinced many and the system was not worth saving. In addition if there hadn't been the outbreak of war, Tsarina would not have been given a greater degree of power and therefore Rasputin's influence over the Romanov's would have been more restricted. Therefore I believe that the War was largely responsible for the downfall of the Romanov's and the single greatest issue which the war created was the Tsar's role as commander-in-chief of the army as every military failure was now directly associated with him. Furthermore the war had a significant number of by-products whereas Alexi has one by-product which was the emergence of Rasputin. If there hadn't been a war the mutiny of soldiers at the Petrograd garrison would not have occurred along with the other strikes in February 1917. Russia had many underlying issues dating to the 1905 revolution but the stresses of war eventually helped to weaken Tsar's position beyond repair and had whipped up opposition to such an extent that the Tsar had no choice but to abdicate, leading to the downfall of the Romanov's. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

or


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 AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Explain how the effects of the First World War caused the collapse of the ...

    4 star(s)

    These poor conditions were, again, blamed on the Tsar, as he was the only person capable of changing or dealing with these things, as it was an autocracy. The Tsar had no support or control, and the workers and peasants started a revolution.

  2. Was Rasputin to blame for the fall of the Romanov dynasty?

    So Rasputin brought scandal to the Imperial family; he made the Tsar break his own October Manifesto; he influenced important decisions in World War One. But was he the only reason? There are other factors to be considered when discussing the fall of the Romanovs.

  1. Vietnam war

    take a firmer stand on national reunification. In January 1959, under pressure from southern cadres who were increasingly being successfully targeted by Diem's secret police, the Central Committee of the VWP issued a secret resolution authorizing the use of armed struggle in the South. * In 1959, Diem launched the Agroville Program, its aim to 'protect' rural

  2. Why did the Tsar lose power in 1917?

    Nicolas II was in a position he didn?t want to be in, he wasn?t the right person to autocratically rule the country; he was weak. He relied too much upon the advice of others and wasn?t definitive enough in the choices he made.

  1. Essay plan. To what extent was the First World War responsible for the downfall ...

    was more conservative as the Tsar had replaced members who seemed critical of his government. * The third Duma consisted of only 45 seats for the kadels. * The First World War put strain on the constitution as Russia required an efficient government organisation, however the Tsar wouldn?t allow anyone

  2. How far was the Provisional Government responsible for its own downfall?

    This diminished their power outside of the cities which is reflected in the amount of land that was taken by peasants from landowners, showing little control over agricultural areas as well. This lack of recognized power by most outside of the major cities made it impossible for them to attempt reformations before they had held elections in November.

  1. How important was the First World War to the collapse of the Tsarist regime?

    up the crown and make peace with Germany, though Pipes does state this would have been embarrassing for the Russian army. The Tsar according to Pipes gave up his crown to protect the front instead of calling troops back to save Petrograd.

  2. The Impact of Stalins Leadership in the USSR, 1924 1941. Extensive notes

    The impact of the terror to 1941 The impact on the party, the armed services and the Soviet population: The scope of the terror: Although the Show Trials of 1936-8 received considerable publicity, the number of victims involved in them was relatively small compared to the millions of other Soviets who suffered much less publicly in these years.

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