His army also consisted of millions of poor, starving peasants with bad equipment, poor supplies of rifles and ammunition. In 1916, two million soldiers were killed or seriously wounded, and one third of a million taken prisoners. The Russian population was horrified. They considered the Tsar irresponsible for taking over the army and held him responsible for everything; as a result instability was growing at an alarming rate for the Tsar who had once held himself so assuredly in power. Nicholas II took this course of action to assure himself he still had complete control of Russia.
The October Manifesto, though not actually creating significant change in Russian political policies, officially signified the end of Russia’s autocratic government. The manifesto also raised expectations of political representation which were crushed through the Fundamental State Laws of 1906 and electoral changes in ’07. Through this, Nicholas lost the confidence of his supporters and the people of Russia and from 1906 to 1917, he was gradually abandoned by the bureaucracy, the ruling classes and the church. Despite this, however, Nicholas remained stubbornly unwilling to recognise the isolation of his government. This was demonstrated when he assumed that him taking personal control of the army during the First World War would unite the nation.
He soon became her confidant and personal adviser, and also convinced her to fill some governmental offices with his own handpicked candidates. Many of whom had loyalty to him and not to the Tsar What evidence is there for the total lack of support for the tsar in the period of 1916-1917? Despite miltarys successes in 1916, the Russian war effort is still characterised by shortages, poor command, death and desertion. Away from the front, the conflict causes starvation, inflation and a torrent of refugees. Both soldiers and civilians blame the defeats in the war and the growing crises on the home front on Tsar.
Some peasants left to work in the cities as the Tsar wanted Russia to be an industrial power, however the living conditions there hardly improved, which matched their dreadful working conditions. This poor treatment is what led to the 1917 strikes that helped force the Tsar to abdicate from the throne. This was an important factor in bringing down the Tsar because with so many people opposing him (over the years, because of food shortages and war failures, they were supported by women and army members, and the number of workers on strike rose to 250 000), he had no choice but to give up. However, I believe there is more causes behind this so I wouldn’t label it the most important factor of the Tsar’s abdication. Russia’s poor performance in WW1 played a very significant role in bringing down the Tsar too.
It is without a doubt that the great war was a major factor for the outbreak of the February revolution in 1917, however many other factors have to be taken into consideration when dealing with a complex issue such as this. Issues such as the decisions made by Tsar Nicholas II whilst in power, the lack of political reform since the October manifesto was issued in 1905, the socio-economic position of the proletariat which was ever worsening and the fact that this revolution was much more organized than the 1905 revolution all contributed to the outbreak of the February revolution. When Russia mobilised against Germany on its western front, families were to each send a male who was capable of fighting to conscript in the Russian military. The Russian military at the time was poorly trained and equipped compared to that of Germany. Russian train infrastructure was relatively new and underdeveloped, when war broke out the rail lines were used to transport troops and supplies for war, food shortages in cities were afflicting the masses, this caused discontent at home.
In the battle of Tannenburg the loss was very drastic; 30000 men wounded or killed, 95000 captured and 500 guns. This portrays the heavy defeat that Russia and this dropped moral in the army and at home in Russia. This shows the losing of the battle created a growth in opposition against the Tsar due to the public of Russia blaming the Tsar as he commanded the troops to go to war. Peasants felt annoyed and angry and Nicholas. This strengthened the opposition against the Tsar.
In the year of 1877, employees working for the four largest railroads went on strike due to the fact that their employers cut their wages by 10 percent; this was known as the Great Rail Road Strike. This strike was unsuccessful because it got out of hand, and President Hayes called in the federal troops to quell the unrest brought by the striking laborers. Because of the failure of the Great Rail Road
Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
Preliminary Modern History Task: Decline and fall of the Romanovs Alex Lai Due: Wednesday 28 March 2012 Under the repressive and conservative rule of Nicholas II from 1894 to 1917, the Russian autocracy experienced a failure in satisfying the demands of its populace. Through the reversal of earlier policy and further imposition of repressive policy, this inability to govern fuelled the mentality of revolutionists and secured the fall of Tsardom. Nicholas’ conservative upbringing concerning the maintenance of autocracy within Russia largely influenced his policy platform and how he responded to the various situations he encountered during his reign. His mindset was heavily influenced by his personal tutor, the arch conservative Pobedonostev, who possessed a concrete belief that autocracy was the only viable
How far was the impact of World War One the crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. This essay will argue that the impact of World War One was a very crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. The events in the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 also show that Nicolas II was not a good leader and these events led to the fall of the Romanovs. World War One caused many problems for the Government, the army and the people at home. Having a war caused inflation, government spending rose from 4-30 million, taxation increased, and money became practically worthless and the price of food and fuel quadrupled.