The fall of the Tsar in Russia in 1917 was the culmination of many factors. It was clear since the beginning of his reign that Nicholas II was not suited to his role as Tsar, mainly due to his character and personality. Although Nicholas II issued the October Manifesto to pacify the discontent of people temporarily, he still had to face some problems after the 1905 Revolution. To regain the support from people, he needed to carry out the reforms in the October Manifesto. His reform included different aspect; such as political, social and economic.
Was the Tsar’s personal inadequacy that led to the revolution of Feb/March 1917? Essentially, Tsar Nicholas II was a lacking ruler, he was unwilling to get rid of autocracy which then resulted to no reforms in government which was often corrupt mainly due to the fact that it was an autocracy. This led to the demands of the people being ignored causing there to be universal discontent all over the land of Russia, logically Nicholas’s inadequacy as a Tsar would be a reasonable consideration for what led to the 1917 revolution, however there were other reason not just Nicholas lacking strength in leadership which resulted to the revolution. For example, there had been lingering discontent growing especially with the industrial workers and peasants beforehand concerning their conditions of work. This led to an increase in strikes.
This was significant as it meant that in the times of potential danger for the PG, they couldn’t rely on the people to support them. This situation only got worse as the months went on. Although the PG were fighting in the war for a good reason, to ensure financial support from the allies, many of the soldiers were unaware of this and had little idea of what they are fighting for. Subsequently they weren’t motivated to fight, generally opposed the war effort and were a weak enemy to fight against. This was proven in June as they launched an offensive on the Germans in Russia; they suffered
During the events of the civil war the whites always suffered from the lack of proper unity. This was primarily caused by the fact that the whites were soldiers from different political backgrounds who wanted different fates for Russia. For example some were Tsarist who wanted a return to the old system while others wanted a democratic Russia. These conflicting ideologies were the primary cause for the lack of unity in the whites; in fact the only reason why they joined forces was because they all shared a common hatred of the Bolsheviks. The lack of unity especially in the high command of the white army was the reason why many of the generals such as Denikin and Yudenich refused to combine their forces for an all-out assault, and this then resulted in the total defeat of the white forces.
They were losing to a nation very few had heard of and it was humiliating. However, many of the defeats to the Russian military occurred after the Revolution had started, not causing its outbreak, but merely adding to the opposition to autocratic rule by the Tsar and prolonging the Revolution. The Russo-Japanese War brought economic problems for Russia, and this therefore meant there was a significant lack of money to solve any other problems present Russia, hence partly being responsible for the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. The war costed an extreme amount of money. As it resulted in failure no money could be gained from the invaded territories.
From the start there was economic instability because of the cost of World War One and there was widespread disillusion within the German people. The public did not support the Weimar, and the administrative branch of the government, including the Judiciary, also teachers did not back it up either. Mass unemployment, damages to the infrastructure also from World War One, and the demand for reparation payments put lots of pressure on the inexperienced democracy. Not only in Germany, but all over Europe, fundamental and anti-democratic movements gained support. 2.
Nicholas II was faced with various issues during his reign from 1894-1917. His ineffectual personality was partly to blame for his ineffectual ruling. He was not able to listen to the needs of his public, and so violent uprisings such as Bloody Sunday occurred. His response was to initiate the October Manifest and the instigation of the Russian Duma, but neither of these pleased the public and so the February revolution of 1917 occurred, which ultimately created the fall of Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy.
They were also in a country plagued by a financial crisis with the majority of the population automatically having hatred for the government. The treaty of Versailles also posed a serious threat to the government with the country left embarrassed by its ruling and the war guilt that Germany faced. The extreme right in particular were a threat to the republic. The actions of the Spartacists in particular concerned the leaders of the SPD as they knew that they could not rely on the support of the army in the face of a revolt. Thus a deal was done with the right wing (the pre 1918 military, judiciary and civil service).
These events highlighted the weakness of the military and caused national humiliation, thus contributing to the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. The crushing of Russian’s military added impetus to the 1905 Revolution, as it made the people of Russia aware of the weakness of their military and ashamed to be Russian. They were losing to a nation very few had heard of and it was embarrassing to the nation. The Russo-Japanese War produced economic
These losses sparked off political unrest and left the floodgates open for criticism on the incompetence of the Tsar’s government ministers. The Minister of War Vladimir Sukhomlinov and the Grand Duke Nicholas Nicolaievich ,who commanded the army, mutual contempt of each other greatly weakened Russian command. The lack of supply caused political crisis’s which were fuelled by the press. The Middle-classes were filled with criticism. The Tsar responded to this criticism