You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
In August 1914 the Russian Empire went to war amid scenes of patriotic enthusiasm; in March 1917 the Romanov dynasty, which had ruled for over three hundred years, collapsed in a matter of days. The connection between the two facts is the subject of this lesson. The First World War did not create the tensions that destroyed the autocracy — those, as the previous lessons have shown, were long in the making — but it magnified every one of them past the point of endurance and, crucially, destroyed the one thing that had saved the regime in 1905: the loyalty of the armed forces. When the soldiers of the Petrograd garrison refused to fire on the bread queues in February 1917, the autocracy lost its last line of defence and simply dissolved.
The analytical challenge of this period is to weigh the long-term structural weaknesses against the short-term contingent shock of the war, and to explain why the autocracy that survived 1905 fell so completely in 1917. The war is plainly the decisive variable — the regime had weathered comparable crises before without total war — but historians divide sharply over how "doomed" the system was beforehand, and this connects directly to the "optimist versus pessimist" debate of the last lesson. A second, subtler question concerns the character of the February Revolution itself: it was not planned or led by any party, but erupted from below with astonishing speed, and its very spontaneity raises the problem of causation in its purest form. Was the regime pushed, or did it fall?
The organising question is therefore this: did the First World War cause the fall of the tsarist autocracy, or merely reveal and accelerate a collapse already implicit in the structure of the regime? How one answers determines whether February 1917 is read as a contingent catastrophe that abler wartime government might have averted, or as the inevitable working-out of contradictions the war simply exposed.
By the end of this lesson you will be able to:
This lesson belongs to OCR H505 Unit Y219 (Non-British period study): Russia 1894–1941. Within our own teaching sequence it brings the tsarism-in-crisis thread to its terminus, tracing how the strain of total war converted the survivable difficulties of 1914 into the terminal crisis of 1917. We have organised the material around the analytical relationship between structure and contingency — the war as catalyst acting upon long-accumulated weakness — rather than following the specification's own listing order, because that relationship is the key to explaining why 1905 was survived and 1917 was not. This arrangement reflects our pedagogical judgement, not a transcription of the specification. (Refer to the official OCR specification for exact wording.)
Because Y219 is a period study, examiners reward command of change over time and judgements that reach across the wartime years rather than settling into the description of a single dramatic day. Keep asking how each pressure of the war altered the reach and legitimacy of the autocracy, and how far February 1917 differed in kind from the crisis of 1905.
The war was the decisive catalyst for revolution. By the winter of 1916–17, Russia's military, economic, and social systems were all in deep crisis, and the strain of total war had achieved what the crisis of 1905 had not — the destruction of the army's loyalty to the throne. The essential analytical point, to be held throughout, is that the war did not create Russia's problems but took every existing weakness and magnified it past breaking point.
| Battle / event | Date | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Tannenberg | August 1914 | Catastrophic defeat of Samsonov's Second Army in East Prussia; tens of thousands killed or captured |
| Masurian Lakes | September 1914 | Further heavy defeat; the early Russian offensive collapsed |
| The Great Retreat | 1915 | Russia surrendered Poland, Lithuania, and much of the western borderlands; immense loss of territory, industry, population, and a refugee crisis |
| The Brusilov Offensive | June–September 1916 | A striking initial success against Austria-Hungary, but it exhausted the army at the cost of enormous casualties and could not be sustained |
By early 1917 cumulative Russian casualties — killed, wounded, and captured — ran into the millions, among the heaviest of any combatant. Shortages of rifles, shells, and boots were acute, especially in 1915, though supply improved somewhat by 1916. Most corrosive of all, morale at the front and in the reserve garrisons was collapsing: desertion was rising, and the conscript-soldiers — peasants in uniform — grew increasingly receptive to revolutionary slogans of peace and land.
In August 1915 Nicholas II took the fateful step of assuming personal command of the army at the headquarters (Stavka) at Mogilev. It was perhaps his gravest error of the war, for reasons that were political rather than military.
The decision thus tied the prestige of the throne to the fortunes of the front while surrendering the government of the country to a widely detested regency. It is a textbook instance of how the war exposed and multiplied the autocracy's structural flaw — the concentration of all responsibility on a single, ill-equipped individual.
The war economy broke down under the strain of total war, and it was this breakdown that ultimately drove the people onto the streets.
| Problem | Detail |
|---|---|
| Inflation | Prices rose several-fold between 1914 and 1917 as the government printed money to fund the war; real wages collapsed |
| Transport breakdown | The overstretched railways buckled under military priority; grain existed in the countryside but could not reach Petrograd and Moscow |
| Food shortages | By early 1917 the capital was receiving only a fraction of its normal grain; bread rationing was rumoured, triggering panic-buying and queues |
| Fuel crisis | Coal and firewood shortages closed factories and left homes unheated in a savage winter, throwing workers onto the streets |
| Labour unrest | Strikes surged through 1916–17, increasingly political as well as economic in character |
The bread and fuel shortages of the bitter winter of 1916–17 were the immediate trigger of the February events. Grain existed, but the collapse of the transport system meant it could not reach the cities — a failure of the war economy rather than of harvest, and a direct product of Russia's incomplete and overstrained modernisation.
The war corroded the regime's support even among those who should have been its natural allies. Millions of men were mobilised, stripping the countryside of labour and draught animals; women and children laboured in the factories under harsh conditions; and the urban population swelled with refugees and war-workers. More dangerously still, the educated public and the Duma grew increasingly alienated. In November 1916 the Kadet leader Milyukov delivered a famous speech cataloguing the government's failures, each paragraph punctuated by the refrain "Is this stupidity or is it treason?" — a direct, public challenge to the regime from within the establishment. The Progressive Bloc in the Fourth Duma demanded a "government enjoying public confidence", which Nicholas refused, squandering the loyalty of the very moderates who might have saved a reformed monarchy. By early 1917 the autocracy had alienated not only the workers and peasants but the propertied, educated classes on whose cooperation it depended.
Grigori Rasputin, a Siberian holy man (starets) who appeared able to ease the suffering of the haemophiliac heir Alexei, gained an extraordinary and damaging influence over the Tsarina Alexandra, especially after Nicholas departed for the front in 1915.
The historian Orlando Figes captures Rasputin's significance by describing him as both a symptom and a cause: a symptom of the monarchy's isolation and dysfunction, and a cause of the elite's collapse of confidence in the regime. The "Rasputin scandal" meant that by early 1917 even committed monarchists had concluded that Nicholas and Alexandra were leading the dynasty to ruin — a crucial point, because it was the withdrawal of elite support, as much as popular anger, that sealed the regime's fate.
The revolution erupted from below, without plan or leadership, and unfolded with remarkable speed.
| Date (Old Style / New Style) | Event |
|---|---|
| 23 Feb / 8 Mar | International Women's Day — women textile workers in Petrograd struck for bread, joined by Putilov workers already locked out |
| 24–25 Feb / 9–10 Mar | A near-general strike paralysed the capital; very large crowds filled the streets, and banners read "Down with the Tsar!" and "Down with the War!" |
| 26 Feb / 11 Mar | Troops fired on demonstrators, killing dozens; the regime appeared briefly to regain control |
| 27 Feb / 12 Mar | The decisive turn — soldiers of the Volynsky, then the Pavlovsky, Preobrazhensky, and Litovsky regiments mutinied, refusing to fire and joining the crowds with their weapons; the Petrograd Soviet and a Duma committee formed the same day |
| 2 Mar / 15 Mar | Nicholas II, advised by his own generals that he had lost the army, abdicated — first for himself, then for the sickly Alexei in favour of his brother Grand Duke Michael |
| 3 Mar / 16 Mar | Michael declined the throne, effectively ending the monarchy |
The single most important event of the revolution was the mutiny of the Petrograd garrison on 27 February. The comparison with 1905 is the essential analytical tool: in 1905 the army had remained loyal and the rising was crushed; in 1917 it did not, and the regime had no other line of defence. The Petrograd garrison was largely raw recruits and reservists — many of them recently conscripted peasants and workers who shared the demonstrators' grievances and dreaded transfer to the front. Once a few units broke, the example spread and the chain of command dissolved. The regime that had survived a general strike, mutinies, and peasant risings in 1905 fell within days in 1917 for one reason above all: the loyalty of the armed forces, which had held in 1905, finally broke under the strain of total war.
The collapse of the dynasty was completed not by a crowd storming a palace but by Nicholas's own high command. On 1–2 March (OS) General Alekseev polled the front commanders; to a man they advised abdication as the only way to restore order and continue the war. This is a crucial point of analysis: the autocracy was ended with the consent of the generals, the very men whose loyalty had saved it in 1905. Nicholas abdicated first for himself and then, controversially, for the sickly Alexei in favour of his brother Michael; Michael, refusing a crown not offered by a constituent assembly, effectively ended the monarchy on 3 March. The Romanov dynasty, which had governed for over three centuries, expired in a railway carriage at Pskov with scarcely a shot fired in its defence — a collapse that owed as much to the withdrawal of elite and military support as to the anger of the streets.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.