Was the Tsar’s Personal Inadequacy That Led to the Revolution of Feb/March 1917?

2573 Words11 Pages
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. Secondly, the peasants lacking of land; rapidly developing a new a class of hostile landless labourers, also discontent existed in middle classes due to the growth in professional middle class, who wanted a greater role in national government. Therefore looking at these scenarios it seems the depth of frustration of the people about their situation and their disaffection with Russian society and monarchy was another cause of the 1917 revolution. The Tsar’s reaction to social discontent prior to the revolution was indecisive and his relenting attitude towards his autocracy further alienated the growing opposition groups. In 1915 when the moderates in the Duma joined together to form ‘The progressive Bloc’, compromising over two-third of the Duma member. They agreed a programme and were supported by the UOT, UOZ, and the war industries committee also they even won the majority in the council of ministers, at last a real chance of a government of national unity was surfacing. Astonishingly the Tsar’s response to these progressions was
Open Document