Questions that need to be asked about the end of Romanov rule

Why was the Tsar overthrown in February 1917? Was it the work of revolutionaries like Lenin and Trotsky? Certainly not - they were mostly either in prison or in exile. Lenin had said that he feared that he would not see a revolution in Russia. Was it the War? The war certainly had a serious impact on all aspects of Russian society. Defeats undermined the army, and economic problems alienated much of the population. Lack of food and fuel in the cruel winter of 1916/17 certainly caused many strikes, unrest and disruption. Inflation meant that people’s savings were being eroded. War production meant fewer consumer goods. Mobilisation limited food production. Transport difficulties made things worse. Certainly the war had a major part to play in the revolution of February 1917.

Or….. Did the War merely hasten things that were already happening in Russia? Peasant unrest because of land shortages, worker unrest because of low wages, long hours, poor living conditions were long standing issues. Did the War help to make these pressures too much for Tsarism to bear? Or did the War hinder the revolution? In 1914 most of the country rallied behind Nicholas II in a great surge of patriotism. Food production increased in 1914, 1915 and 1916. Perhaps without the war there might have been a revolution in Russia sooner?

The Tsar’s role in his own downfall He was a weak and indecisive leader - not what you want in an autocrat. He found it hard to decide what was best to do. He relied heavily on his wife and family for support. He did the honourable thing and went to lead his armies in a horrible war. He desperately wanted to retain the autocracy. He tried hard to change Russia, to make it stronger and more powerful, but was not prepared to accept political change. Popular ministers were removed as they may have become a threat to him. He would not delegate authority to the Duma, or share power with them. He did not even accept the support of the moderates. His family’s links with Rasputin did not help either. But given his background and upbringing, could he have done any different?

Or…….. Was it just bad luck? The fact that it was such a cold winter and the trains could not deliver enough food and fuel seem to have been the rigger for revolution. What if the Petrograd garrison had stayed loyal to the Tsar? What might have happened then? Or if the Tsar had been in Petrograd and acted quicker?

In any event….. It does seem that by Feb 1917 the Tsar had lost the support of most people. The generals thought they could not win the war with him as ruler. The politicians who wanted to unite the country behind a renewed war effort felt they had been snubbed by Nicholas. The workers who could not get enough to eat, and the peasants who didn’t have enough land. The intellectuals who he would not make concessions to, all wanted change. Even Russia’s allies began to think that the Tsar must go if the war was to be won. What is surprising is the ease with which the Tsar was persuaded to abdicate in Feb. It was almost as if he was too tired to struggle. He abdicated for himself and his son, naming Grand Duke Michael as the new Tsar. When it became obvious that the Duma would not support Michael he wisely declined the throne, and 300 years of Romanov rule ended. The Tsar was replaced by the Provisional Government set up by the Progressive Bloc of the Duma.