Preview

Factors Leading to Russia’s Poor Performance in WW1

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1104 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Factors Leading to Russia’s Poor Performance in WW1
Was Russia’s poor performance in WW1 the main reason for the fall of the Tsar in the February Revolution of 1917?

Russia’s poor performance in the war was an extremely important factor because it led to the Tsar becoming more unpopular. At the beginning of the war, there was a strong sense of patriotisms in Russia due to the excellent war performance. The decline in Russia’s war performance caused morale in the army and country to decrease. The situation of the war was made worse by the fact that in September 1915 after the Russians lost battles to the Germans (Tannenburg and Masurian Lakes); the Tsar took personal control of the army and dismissed his uncle, the Grand Duke Nikolai. As a result the performance of the army could be blamed directly on the Tsar himself.

The fall of the Tsar was also due to the many mistakes he made during his rule. Although the Tsar might have seemed to be a very powerful leader, he was actually very vulnerable and inexperienced in not only the leading of the army but the leading of the Russia as well.
One mistake the Tsar made was taking over the army. By being in control of the army the Tsar Nicholas II not only was blamed for Russia’s poor performance in the war but he also left the Tsarina to run the government; this didn’t sit well with the people as she was unpopular amongst the people. The Tsarina was unpopular with the people as she was German- at that time the Germans were their enemies was accused of being in sympathy with the enemy- and her decisions were under the influence of the hated Rasputin. Rasputin was despised as he had a bad reputation for living an unorthodox lifestyle and was known for his sexual promiscuity, which was frowned upon. Rasputin was acting as Tsarina Alexandra’s confidant whilst Tsar Nicholas II was fighting in the war. As a result of this, loyalists who believed Rasputin was a danger to the regime tried to kill him, and after many attempts succeeded. However, this left Tsarina to be the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    After the riots of 1917, the Tsarist regime collapsed, and many would argue that it was mainly as a result of the First World War beginning in 1914.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Czar Nicholas was famous for his autocratic ideas, meaning that he theoretically had total power. His autocratic belief led to an ineffective rule. Nicholas II was the leader of the Russian Empire; however, he was not prepared for the tremendous obligations of administration. The Britannica article, “Nicholas II” claims, “Neither by upbringing nor by temperament was Nicholas fitted for the complex tasks that awaited him as autocratic ruler of a vast empire.” This suggests that Czar Nicholas’s rule was doomed from the start of his czarship. Nicholas’s inexperience explained his ineffectiveness as a ruler. In addition, Czar Nicholas’s absolutist beliefs blinded him from change. Nicholas II’s belief that he had absolute power and stubbornness clouded his view of change. According to Encyclopedia.com’s “Nicholas II,” “[Nicholas] was too stubborn and very slow to recognize the need for change. Nicholas found it…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In July 1918, the royal Romanov line was suddenly and brutally ended by the Bolsheviks. The Romanov family had ruled the Russian Empire for over three centuries. The Romanovs reign was one of strict tyranny. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia made one big step toward a more equal Russia by freeing the serfs but because the serfs owned no land they had little to no money still. After WWI when nicholas led Russia to a crushing defeat there was lots of unrest throughout Russia. I think that the main reason the Tsar was forced to abdicate the throne and then was slaughtered is that he made a more equal Russia but in doing so he made the serfs more impoverished than ever, that he had led Russia into multiple wars that had ended badly and that the technology…

    • 151 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The reaction of this commander caused the Russians to collapse rather than succeed. While his offensive strategies gained the Russian army more territory at first the amount of soldiers lost was too devastating for them to come back. The communication with Brusilov, the high command, and the soldiers is another reason why the Russian army collapsed. The Russian leadership was sluggish receiving and distributing orders which caused the organization of their army to fail as well. The territory gained was then lost due to the sluggishness of communication and their failure to organize.…

    • 1709 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The government was an autocracy which meant that all power resided in the hands of the Tsar. Nicholas II, however, had a weak and stubborn personality. He was not willing to share his authority with the Duma (parliament) and his government relied on oppression to remain in power. The army and Okhrana (secret police) were used to stamp out protests. A further key feature was that the government was dependent on a narrow social base of aristocratic supporters, which left it vulnerable to opposition from the vast majority of Russians. During the war years the growing scale of strikes and demonstrations was becoming too difficult for the government to handle.The war caused huge casualties (9 out of 15 million soldiers) for very little gain and a series of defeats in battle led to a collapse in morale. Consequently, the Tsar was blamed for failure because he had taken command of the army in 1915. As a result the Tsar was absent from the capital and he left his wife in charge. The Tsarina was distrusted because of her German origins and she was under the corrupt influence of Rasputin, who had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers at will. This led to a major loss of confidence in the government.…

    • 286 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nicholas II being the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty that lasted for over 300 years, is accountable for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917, however, there are various other reasons too that involved in the ultimate fall of tsarism in Russia in February 1917. While Nicholas’s indecisiveness played a major role in portraying his negligence, the other factors that involved the fall of tsarism were, the declining economic standards and the growth of political opposition along with Nicholas II’s penultimate absence when he was most needed in his country, due to the involvement in the first world war, which was another mistake made by the tsar.…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Great War was the main cause of the February 1917 Revolution. The Russian army suffered badly in the First World War due to a lack of equipment, inadequate training and poor leadership. The Tsar decided to take personal command of the army. As a result, he was blamed for the army's problems and defeats. World War I was a total disaster for Russia due to the Russian army suffering defeat after defeat at the hands of Germany. Cost of the war led to the economic collapse which then led to more anger and outrage, this shows that the Great War started a chain reaction of problems for Russia. Morale during this time was at an all-time low and soldiers and civilians alike were looking for someone to blame. In 1915, Tsar Nicholas II took personal command of the army and left St. Petersburg and moved to army headquarters in Russian, Poland. Nicholas II may have believed that, by taking charge, his army would be inspired and would fight with renewed vigour, however this had the opposite effect. Unfortunately, the Tsar knew little about the command and organisation of large military forces, and the series of defeats and humiliations continued. The organisation of the Russian army deteriorated and there were massive shortages of ammunition, equipment, and medical supplies which led to possibly the largest asset Nicholas had, the army, to lose belief and faith in…

    • 1065 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II was a very poor leader for the people of Russia, he lacked leadership skills. His poor leadership qualities lead too many problems within Russia that were not dealt with efficiently. For example he did not trust the Duma, in 1906 the first Duma was introduced; after 72 days Nicholas dissolved the Duma as he did not believe in their policies and he did not trust them. This angered many people, Nicholas was not giving anyone a chance to speak and help him to change Russia.…

    • 1510 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure.…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It was the political naivete and extreme obstinance of Tsar Nicholas II that led to the outbreak of the Russian Revolution . Some aspects of the Tsar's behaviour definitely contributed to the fall of Russia , however lots of these qualities were not weaknesses in his character, but rather poor leadership qualities . Some of the causes included Tsar Nicholas II's autocratic rulership, the socio-economic changes happening at the time , famine and also the outbreak of WWI.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    He also agreed to a constitution that limited his monarchy. It looked like had had weathered the storm of revolt, but then came World War I and the loss of 250,000 soldiers. Russia was at war with Germany. A huge Russian army was formed by forcing the working class and peasant men to join. The soldiers were not equipped or trained to fight.…

    • 2089 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II succeeded in making a bad situation in Russia even worse. He became a leader at a difficult time, and could never stop the process of revolution. The Tsar was not a good leader, and was out of touch with the Russian people. He was also weak and indecisive, and extremely stubborn. Nicholas II was not equipped to effectively rule a country the size of Russia, and with a vast variety of people with different language, religion, race and culture. Additionally, Nicholas II was mainly concerned with family issues, instead of being concerned with political issues. It was these traits in Nicholas II?s personality that hindered him in being able to attempt to steer Russia away from revolution.…

    • 1455 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    History

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages

    I believe that one of the main reasons for the Tsar’s abdication and the collapse of the Romanov rule was the poor state which Russia was in. Russia’s economy was at the worst it had ever been. The economy was far worse than other countries in the War. There were millions of peasants in Russia who had very limited amount of money. With such a limited amount of money, many peasants were unable to buy food, and drink to help them to survive. Peasants believed that they weren’t getting rewarded fairly for the work which they were doing. The upper classes’ benefit greatly due to work done by the Peasants. This created a negative atmosphere around Russia and helped fuel the need for a change. Peasants wanted change; they wanted to be rewarded more for their efforts at work. Russia was in an economic crisis. They had borrowed a huge amount of money from capital countries in order to fuel Russia’s war effort. This was a problem for Russia because they simply didn’t have the money to repay these countries. During the war the country had suffered inflation. Prices had risen dramatically for everyday items such as bread. The country was suffering and the Russian people’s families were dyeing in a war which wasn’t being funded. The Russian people were bound to be discontent and they only had one person to blame and that was the Tsar.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Romanovs Fall

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I should probably sum up what I'm trying to say: The fall of the Romanovs certainly cannot be blamed on Rasputin. Like I mention below, I believe that the main reason was the inability of Nicholas to either crack down like a true tyrant, or yield to the demands of the 1905 revolutionary liberals, and make Russia a constitutional monarchy (like the UK).…

    • 550 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays