Why did the Czar's regime collapse in 1917?

[Terry Duncan]

More to play devils advocate than adopt a position I do not fully believe inevitable myself, but many would say the Tzar was rather lucky to have lasted until 1917 given the unrest in Russia in the period from 1900 onwards. The massacres of protesters, people in bread queues, or striking gold miners, had not made the regime popular, and there was less sincere attempts at the political reforms probably essential to the survival of the regime long term. Would it have fallen apart before 1917, maybe in less bloody circumstances, but with some drastic change inflicted on the Tzar in the way of reforms he opposed? The popularity of the regime does seem to have had an initial boost when the war began, but as losses mounted and deserters headed for the major cities, it dropped again, I would say to the extent that a loss of the war would mean the loss of the Tzar too. If the war had been run better then maybe the Tzar survives in office, but would people say his correct position was at the army headquarters or in St Petersburg to control the war effort?

[steverodgers801]

Probably the worse decision was when he took command of the army himself. It was common for the Russian people even up to Stalin's reign to believe that the Czar didn't know what was going on, that it was the fault of his subordinates. When Nicholas took command it was no longer possible to believe it wasn't his fault.

[James A Pratt III]

To # 15 From the point of view of Sukhomlinov and other Russian generals the Russian army in 1914 was in fine shape by Russo-Japanese War standards unfortunetly for them WW I was not the R-J war!

Back to my posts:

Nicholas by early 1917 was a tired man. With the way things were going in Russia I can't blame him. Adding to his problems there were a number of plots in the works to either oust him in a coup or kill him or his wife or both and possibly their children. Some people can't understand why he was so happy after he abdicated.

Sadly for Russia after he abdicated the Provisioal government proved to so hopelessly inept that the country disintegrated into total chaos which they did nothing to stop. The result was Lenin and the Bolsheviks were able to sieze power later that year in a almost bloodless coup.

One must add some comments on the Petrograd garrison in early 1917. It consisted of 160,000 soldiers in barracks designed for 20,000. Many of the soldiers were disgruntled as mentioned. Rations had been cut. There was plenlty of anti-war and anti-government propaganda for them to read. It was really boring because the weather was too cold for much training to be carried out and there were few officers to conduct training when the weather was good. Most of their senior leader were desk generals who proved inept in a crises. Why is one not surprised the soldiers when ordered to shoot the protesters mutinied.

[amcl]

Probably the worse decision was when he took command of the army himself. It was common for the Russian people even up to Stalin's reign to believe that the Czar didn't know what was going on, that it was the fault of his subordinates. When Nicholas took command it was no longer possible to believe it wasn't his fault.

Taking personal command can only have been the worse (or even the worst) decision if there was a better option available, no?

From a vantage point in - say autumn 1916 - it would have been easy enough to produce a quite different narrative, one that began with the Tsar dismissing his wicked cousin, the man responsible for the great retreat and accompanying horrors in 1915. Once the Tsar took personal command of his brave - but baffled - peasant soldiers, the retreat stopped. Food, uniforms, weapons and ammunition appeared in almost unbelievable quantities, like manna from the heavens, as the Tsar's loyal servants set to work at the front, in the STAVKA, and across the Russian lands. Daunted by the restored Russian resistance and growing power, the Germans stopped attacking and the army went on to score some notable victories.(*)

Angus

(*) Author's note: any resemblances to a later war are entirely intentional

[James A Pratt III]

On Nicholas II taking command of the army the commander Grand Duke Nicholas had lost control of the situation and was on the verge of a nervous breakdown. He had to be replaced. So the tsar took command. Also note the command position was designed for him and with the grand Duke in command things were sort of ackward see The effectiveness of military institutions online. Things were better after the Tsar took command.

sources:
The Russian Revolution R Pipes
A whole Empire Walking
Nationalizing the Russian Empire
The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Russian anti-war movement
Carpathian disaster
Th End of the Russian imperial army
Between War and Revolution
Rasputin and the jews
The Murder of Grigory Rasputin
Prelude to the Revolution The murder of Rasputin
Autocracy Under Siege
The Wathfull State
Thou Shall Kill
Fontanka 16
The Foe Within
The brussilov offensive
Breakthrough
Sailors in Revolt
The Russian Revolution and the Baltic Fleet
The Russian Imperial Army 1796-1917
Prologe to the Revolution
Tide at Sunrise
Rising Sun Tumbling Bear
The Tsar's last armada
The Fleet that had to die

[steverodgers801]

Regardless of any improvements, the Czar became responsible for the defeats inflicted by the Germans, especially after the initial victories of the Brusilov offence.