February Revolution: Effects Of The War On The People
How far do you agree that the main case of the February 1917 revolution was the effects of the war on the people?
Whilst there is no doubt that WW1 contributed to the February revolution, it is difficult for historians to know whether the war was the main cause. As, that would be ignoring all the social and economic problems in Russia, as well as the problem with Rasputin.
The above statement is true because despite that the war had begun successfully for Russia, eventually in 1914 during the Battle of Tannenburg things started to go downhill for the Russians. As, by the time this battle had ended 30,000 Russian troops were killed or injured, however the Germans had only 20,000 casualties, in comparison this was not a lot of casualties. Therefore, …show more content…
As, the cost of fighting WW1 put strains on the Russian economy. For example, the National Budget rose eightfold between 1913 and 1916 and this was financed through higher taxes and borrowing revenue from Britain and France. The government also had to print more money, to help cover the costs of the war and this led to hyperinflation. Furthermore, it did not help that Russia had lost a lot of agricultural workers and horses, to the war, which anyway impacted food production but railway lines were taken over by the army, meaning there were food shortages in towns and cities. Lack of food and raw materials particularity impacted Petrograd and Moscow. All these shortages and lack of money due to hyperinflation and taxes made workers hostile towards the tsarist government. Peasants were also increasingly angry towards the Tsar because of the conscription of all the young men, who often died at …show more content…
As, Tsar Nicholas II was extremely dedicated to his family life and was not suited for life as Tsar. Tsar Alexander III had even described his son as ‘soft’. Nicholas II married a German princess -Tsarina Alexandra and this caused unrest amongst the Russians. To continue, Nicholas II had a son, who was a haemophiliac and because of the Tsarevich Alexa’s illness, the family called in a Russian monk called Rasputin, who was thought to have the power of healing. However, the Russians didn’t like the fact that a peasant had gotten close to the Romanov family, particularly the influence which Rasputin had over Tsarina also angered the Russian people and highlighted the faults within the government. Therefore, when Nicholas II left the Tsarina in-control of the government, whilst he was away fighting, the Russian people grew suspicious. As, between September 1915 and December 1916 there was constant changes to Russia. So, the Russian people did not like the influence that Rasputin had over these decisions and similarly were suspicious of the Tsarina because she was of German descent and so was thought to be in sympathy with the enemy. This shows how the 1917 revolution would have happened anyway because people were suspicious of Rasputin and Tsarina. However, it could be argued that this point isn’t valid because if it wasn’t for WW1 then the Tsar would have
Whilst there is no doubt that WW1 contributed to the February revolution, it is difficult for historians to know whether the war was the main cause. As, that would be ignoring all the social and economic problems in Russia, as well as the problem with Rasputin.
The above statement is true because despite that the war had begun successfully for Russia, eventually in 1914 during the Battle of Tannenburg things started to go downhill for the Russians. As, by the time this battle had ended 30,000 Russian troops were killed or injured, however the Germans had only 20,000 casualties, in comparison this was not a lot of casualties. Therefore, …show more content…
As, the cost of fighting WW1 put strains on the Russian economy. For example, the National Budget rose eightfold between 1913 and 1916 and this was financed through higher taxes and borrowing revenue from Britain and France. The government also had to print more money, to help cover the costs of the war and this led to hyperinflation. Furthermore, it did not help that Russia had lost a lot of agricultural workers and horses, to the war, which anyway impacted food production but railway lines were taken over by the army, meaning there were food shortages in towns and cities. Lack of food and raw materials particularity impacted Petrograd and Moscow. All these shortages and lack of money due to hyperinflation and taxes made workers hostile towards the tsarist government. Peasants were also increasingly angry towards the Tsar because of the conscription of all the young men, who often died at …show more content…
As, Tsar Nicholas II was extremely dedicated to his family life and was not suited for life as Tsar. Tsar Alexander III had even described his son as ‘soft’. Nicholas II married a German princess -Tsarina Alexandra and this caused unrest amongst the Russians. To continue, Nicholas II had a son, who was a haemophiliac and because of the Tsarevich Alexa’s illness, the family called in a Russian monk called Rasputin, who was thought to have the power of healing. However, the Russians didn’t like the fact that a peasant had gotten close to the Romanov family, particularly the influence which Rasputin had over Tsarina also angered the Russian people and highlighted the faults within the government. Therefore, when Nicholas II left the Tsarina in-control of the government, whilst he was away fighting, the Russian people grew suspicious. As, between September 1915 and December 1916 there was constant changes to Russia. So, the Russian people did not like the influence that Rasputin had over these decisions and similarly were suspicious of the Tsarina because she was of German descent and so was thought to be in sympathy with the enemy. This shows how the 1917 revolution would have happened anyway because people were suspicious of Rasputin and Tsarina. However, it could be argued that this point isn’t valid because if it wasn’t for WW1 then the Tsar would have