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.
Examining the impact of wars on the issue of who ruled Russia, its ideological basis, its level of democracy and the level of repression that accompanied it, it seems fair to say that the First World War indeed had the most significant impact, though rivaled closely by the Russian Civil War in particular. Firstly, the effect of wars on who ruled Russia is a fairly distinct matter, given that only some had any direct influence on this issue. Most notably, only the First World War resulted in an actual change in the hands of power. This can be seen firstly with the abdication of Nicholas II as a result of the protests over the war following his decision to command the army in the war and leaving Tsarina Alexandria to rule, allowing discontent to proliferate and ultimately ending his and the tsars’ hold on power. Then the Provisional Government, having only held power for a matter of months, was swept aside by the Bolsheviks, again as a direct consequence of the Provisional Government’s precarious and undefined stance over the escalating crisis of the First World War, as well as the skilled way in which the Bolsheviks harnessed this frustration to gain support from naval bases and ultimately seize power.
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.
Even when he grew into his self-appointed role of Supreme Commander and learned from his earlier mistakes, it can be argued that his greatest victories, such as the battles at Kursk and Stalingrad, were less down to him, but rather down to the expertise of his generals, such as Zhukov. This, in addition to external factors that helped the Soviet win the war, such as British and American aid and Hitler's poor judgement, puts doubt into the overall significance of Stalin's role in winning the war. Although he was largely responsible for the successful propaganda and mobilisation drive on the domestic front, which helped to mobilise national support for the war, in context of the entire war period, his personal significance was overshadowed by his own initial ineptitude as well as the importance of these other factors. If we are to look at the importance of Stalin's role in winning the war, then his role in almost initially losing it must also be examined. It was clear from the outset that both Stalin and his appointed generals had a distinct lack of expertise in war.
After some debate, the German senior command agreed on a thrust deep into Russian lines out of East Prussia. The resulting "winter war" inflicted another 190,000 casualties on the Russians, but petered out when the Austrian forces to the south utterly failed to dislodged the Russians. They instead suffered another embarrassing defeat, and even lost control of Dukla Pass, a prime route onto the Hungarian plains. Only severe weather and their unfortunate supply situation prevented the Russians from cracking into the core of the Dual Monarchy's
However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power. One way and the main way that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government was the victory of the Civil war. In 1918 Russia was plunged into civil war when the White army, a group of pro tsarist and pro provisional government supporters attacked the Bolsheviks. However the reds won the war due the work of Leon Trotsky and his leadership of the red army. For example Trotsky organised and disciplined the army very well, he recruited ex tsarist army officers who were experienced in combat also due to his recruitment strategy membership rose from 7000 in March 1918 to 5 million in September 1920 and he also organised key victories such as the last battle between white and red forces between the 7th and 15th of November 1920.
How accurate is it to say that Lenin’s leadership was the most important reason, for Bolsheviks success in the revolution of October/November 1917? In February 1917 no one would’ve expected the Bolsheviks to take political power by October 1917. They were less popular than parties such as the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries. Also, some leading Bolsheviks such as Kamenev even supported the Provisional Government in February1917. This was why it was crucial for Lenin to show strong leadership which he did.
This strengthened the opposition against the Tsar. However, it is viewed as less significant in comparison to the refusal of co-operation with the Dumas. This is due to if the Tsar accepting the reforms which would have led a better shaped country into battle. This is because troops would be more motivated in the sight of war and will be committed to the chief commands orders. Another factor to the growth of opposition against the Tsar was due to the Rasputin becoming advisor to Alexandria as Nicholas the second went to war.
The Axis suffered from 500,000-850,000 casualties. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#Casualties) The reason the Soviet Union had so many casualties was because of the Germans' Luftwaffe bombing. The Luftwaffe bombing was countless of artillery strikes on Stalingrad before German forces advanced into the city. After the Luftwaffe bombing, the city of Stalingrad was virtually destroyed. With the city destroyed, the Germans had a slight advantage, but the Russians were still in their own city ,and they still had one major advantage besides that.
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.