Additionally there were developments that occurred without war, which illustrates that involvement in war was not the only cause for change. Therefore war was an important catalyst and factor to significant changes but was not the sole cause of change. The war that caused most change was Word War One due to its role in the February revolution in 1917 and the fall of the provisional government in the October revolution. The defeats of the war dwindled support from liberals and Octobrists for the Tsarist regime, which was further worsened by criticism from organisations including the Central War Industries committee and the union of Zemstva. This formed support and reason for the Progressive Bloc.
Both soldiers and civilians blame the defeats in the war and the growing crises on the home front on Tsar. Even the Tsars only army stated it wouldn’t support him if a revolution occurred. Explain the importance/significance of World War 1 to the downfall of the Tsar WWI was a very significant event on the rule of Tsar Nicholas 11. Although it initially bolstered his position, it then became a large factor that contributed to Nicholas’ downfall. The Country was ecstatic when the Tsar made the announcement that Russia was going to fight against Germany in WWI.
It also forced some crucial US losses which, due to the bi-polar nature of the US-USSR relations, translated into further Soviet victories. With all these long-term victories, the results of the crisis were a triumph for the USSR. The immediate outcome of the crisis was a huge propaganda loss for the USSR with the withdrawal of Soviet missiles; the USSR was seen to back down from the USA, showing the USA to be powerful and the USSR to be weak. This terrible propaganda loss was made even worse by the recent propaganda disaster in Berlin in 1961, with the building of the Berlin Wall. The two huge propaganda losses were so damaging to the USSR that it even resulted in Khrushchev being ousted from power in 1964.
This caused a lot of distress amongst Russia’s population as well as depression. The war was thought of as a strategy to boost Russia’s morale and unite all the communities together to help the war effort, most importantly, to distract them from the current tension in the country. The war encouraged patriotism; it was soon obvious that Russia had hugely underestimated Japan’s strength and ability. This was also the first spontaneous outbreak of unrest which was directed at the Tsar, it made people lose their confidence in him. However, the Russo Japanese was not the only factor leading to Bloody Sunday, the start of the Revolution, other factors such as the Great Spurt and Alexander III’s manifesto – ‘the reaction’ also led to the start of the revolution.
The German high command halted as the army was about to go for the kill (on orders from Hitler who at times would lose his nerve temporarily). Goering promised to destroy them with the Luftwaffe but despite the intense attack by the German air force, thousands of British soldiers escaped to fight another day. It was a psychological victory for England because it showed they were down but not out. Germany had won the day for sure, but despite the bloody beating England received, she was still standing.
Why, despite the disasters of 1941, was the USSR able to defeat Germany by 1945? Despite centuries of economic futility, domestic disputes and poor politics, Stalin managed to turn things around for Russia and claim a glorious victory over Germany, due to a series of factors: The five year plans, Nazi failures, effective nationalisation of the home front and patriotism. The following seeks to recognise the disasters made by Stalin, alongside the achievements, post 1941, in order to deduce how Russia managed to conquer Germany by 1945. Arguably the most considerable reason for this is down to economics; American and British assist and a shift in investment from industry to armament. During 1941, Russia faced severe domestic issues.
Finally the failures of the Provisional Government made them vulnerable which coincidentally worked to advantage the Bolsheviks. Personally, I believe that the vulnerable position of the Provisional Government, timing of the governments mistakes, discontent of the soldiers as well as the workers and the occasional guidance from other Bolshevik leaders, was exploited by Lenin, alongside his popular policies and leadership skills he catalyzed the revolution that was inevitable, planning it in such a way that it would benefit long term and not short-term as it had done in 1905 and February 1917. In disagreement, the failures of the provisional government to make the correct decisions led to the Bolsheviks’ success because the Bolsheviks were efficient in using this time to take control of the vulnerability of the Provisional Government which had caused this upon itself. The first mistake was allowing Lenin return from Germany in April as a part of democracy terms, since Lenin, despite being
Hitler's racial ideas did contribute much to his defeat. They made enemies for the reich and contributed to its isolation. When nazi armies invaded the USSR, some Germans thought that the bulk of its citizens would be glad to be rid of Stalin and would support them. Many did but for the most part the Russians and other slavs could not support a racist system which relegated them to inferior status. Ergo, they not only opposed the reich but did so strongly.
Communism and capitalism was not really a big issue, the big issue was the Axis Powers. Conflicts started escalate when Germany was defeated. Germany was unified among the allies after the war but there were two distinct groups. Russia wanted control over Germany because they suffered the most out of anyone and they were the main reason the Nazis were defeated. They feared of a future German invasion.
This is implying of course that the decision by Nicholas II to go to war against Germany and it’s allies in 1914 was wrong, but this is not the case. Russia actually had many reasons to risk war again; the war was weighed heavily in the allies favour as the combined forces of Great Britain, France and Russia were far stronger than that of Germany, Austria and Hungary. Russia was aware of it’s major failing though, it’s slow modernisation had left it trailing behind that of the other countries, and Russia would have to be prepared for the rapid social and economic change that a war brings. This was Russia’s best chance to modernise and not be left behind. Russia’s early hopes were soon dashed however.