FALL OF TSAR AND WWI

The poor administration and planning of the military also revealed the tsar’s incompetence as a leader. The problem of Russia’s loss in the war did not merely lie in lacking war supplies, nor in the incompetency of soldiers itself. In fact, Russia had the largest and one of the most competent soldiers at the time. However, despite the government controlling the transport system, with poor planning, the military was as much a victim of lacking supplies as the civilian population. By 1916, evident shortages began to occur. In such cases, over two million of the six million men were disarmed in battles. Furthermore, not only were soldiers lacking artilleries, but they were also lacking basic food supplies. This evidently was a result of the tsar’s poor planning in entering the war in the first place. In fact, the representative of the State Duma, Rodzyanko, indicated that the strong central leadership which the war effort desperately needed was not being provided. This view became increasingly widespread in Russia, especially with the continuation of discouraging news from the war front that provoked much resentment. Consequently, the revelation of the tsar’s incompetence as a leader became evident as Russia’s entering of WWI brought continuous news of defeat from the war front --what started out with enthusiasm, ultimately ended up with pessimism and defeatism.

The downfall of the tsar is most notable when considering his refusal to cooperate with other organizations during the time of war. Firstly, non-governmental organizations that were willing to work with the government in the war efforts were neglected. Although officially uninvolved in the war, these organizations later devoted themselves to help many wounded soldiers. The growing success of these organizations not only emphasized the government’s failure in its efficacy, but also suggested to the public the irresponsibility of the tsar. Secondly, during the war, when the State Duma brought up their complaints directly to Tsar Nicholas II, who had been leading the army at the war front, in most cases, the tsar neglected the problems. For example, in September of 1915, the representatives of Duma met Tsar Nicholas at his military headquarters to express their discontent that there was no government ministry back in St. Petersburg. Tsar Nicholas, however, simply told them to go back to St. Petersburg and carry on working. The tsar made clear his view that he should be in sole control over the conduct of war. However, the far-standing distance between the war front and the central government in St. Petersburg allowed the tsar to receive minimal reports of problems that arose in his capital, consequently weakening his authority. Furthermore, in the mean time, radicals called out peasants, who were more susceptible to new political ideas, to strike and call for the removal of the tsarist regime. While the tsar was occupied in leading an army at war front, all Russian political parties came to unite against the monarchy in face of its growing weakness. And, after being pressured by an unofficial group of politicians from the Duma, Tsar Nicholas finally abdicated on March of 1917 and brought an end to the tsarist regime.

The main reason for the tsar’s downfall laid in his failure to realize that his people could only take so much. Russia’s joining of WWI brought-about many hardships for the country, which constantly fed discontent to its people. The lacking supply of food, the absence of a stable government in its most-needed times, let alone the continuous news of lost lives from the war front all aggravated its people. The tsar’s indifference and refusal to cooperate with his own supporters gave them little reason to support his regime as well, for they no longer had faith as an effective system for ruling the country. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest that the main cause of the tsar’s downfall was Russia’s joining of WWI, which aroused much social unrest, and proved the failure of the competence of a tsarist government.