Watson,Agreeing with Alex,BUT....

Ok. I do agree with Alex when he says that it was dumb for the Czar to up and leave when he was basically needed the most. Moore says that the reactions of the Russians were: "my leader did WHAT?! left his wife in charge and im starving to death" and causing anger and disrupt in the country, also the people could have a feeling of "I'm starving right now and he just left?" causing even more controversy of the purpose of his actions. I totally agree. These actions showed that he indeed made stupid decisions prooving that it was a collapse from within. However, I'm sorry but I have to challenge this statement. This evidence can go either ways because maybe he felt he needed to leave and that his wife would possibily help the situation, especially since he was doing anything else. Everybody looks at it like, the czar just up and left and then left his wife in charge. Would it been better if he left a man in charge?? I'm just saying maybe he had a mind set that she could do a better job at helping the situation. Maybe he thought it would be good for the country. His decision to leave someone else in charge may have been a better decision than just continuing what he was doing. But maybe he should have left a a man in charge. Would that have been better you guys? Something to think about.

Mallard-Opps

Sorry I posted my responce in the wrong spot. I reposted it in a comment under Morgan's post.

Mallard-Agree with...Collapse!

Within Morgan Schusterman’s post she states, “A government cannot function if it does not have the trust of its people. Due to selfish decision-making and lies, the February Revolution was a collapse from within.” I firmly agree with this statement because I would not want someone of power not having my best interest in mind, just as Czar obliviously did not. With almost every action the Czar made, the only thing he considered was himself. He wanted to make himself look the best so he made his decisions based on what he thought was best, for him. The Czar created the Duma in order to give the people a chance to have a voice. (2) Really, the Czar created the Duma in order to cover his tracks and be able to say, “I gave them a chance to speak up,” when he really did not. It was clever to have a cover up but it did not cover much for very long. The Czar went off the lead the military. (2) The Czar went off to lead the military in order to cover his tracks and say, “I did the best to lead the troops to victory,” when he had no military knowledge in order to lead the military.
Within most of the posts, the general census was the February Revolution was a collapse from within. Others than say it was an overthrow from without is not reading the fine print, just reading the surface of what really happened. Every action that lead to an over throw was due to an action made by the Czar. Thus the February Revolution was due to a collapse from within, I agree with Morgan and everyone else who said so.

Hossain-Collapse from Within

The February Revolution was the result of numerous factors that reached a critical point in 1917. While some causes occurred beyond the control of the Russian government, such as World War I, many were largely decided by the government’s actions, such as Russia’s response to the War. Considering the various reasons that led up to it, the February Revolution was largely a collapse from within.
Though I said before that WWI was outside of Russia’s control, this actually is not accurate because of Russia’s had in setting of the war. They chose to mobilize even though Germany had warned them that they would consider mobilization a hostile act tantamount to declaring war. Beyond this, however, Russia’s reactions to entering battle only exacerbated a bad situation. Tsar Nicholas’s II decision to place himself as head of the armed forces and leave Russia under the direction of his wife, Tsarina Alexandra (1) was doubly disastrous. On one hand, he had no military training and was entirely unqualified to lead an army. What’s worse, he replaced a general that had had notable success (1). His insufficient military skills lost Russia many battles and soldiers and contributed to the army’s loss of moral. This further led to increased lack of confidence from the Russian people in the government, because they were losing the war. The growing discontent of the people left them prone to revolt. The Tsarina was as unfit to run the country as the Tsar was to run the army. This resulted in growing instability in the country and increased rebellious groups. To make matters worse, the Tsarina tunred to the largely unpopular monk Rasputin for advice (1). Their close relationship spawned rumors of an affair and/or conspiracy. This further hurt the people’s confidence in the monarchy.
Other steps taken (or not taken) further contributed to the deterioration of the government’s stability. The Tsar established the Duma in order to appease the people and make them believe that their concerns would be addressed (2). However, the Duma did little to better the people’s situation, and instead only enhanced their unhappiness. During the war, both the Russian civilians and the army suffered severe shortages. The people lacked food and basic resources because of decreased production and lack of transportation (1). While the government cannot be blamed for bad harvests, they certainly could have worked to improve the transportation systems and/or the economy to ensure a reliable source of food. The government printed more money to solve the problem, but ended up only making it worse by increasing inflation and lowering the value of existing money (1). The army lacked proper equipment and training. Soldiers, who were mostly peasants, were expected to arm themselves with abandoned weapons from the battlefield (1). All these factors demoralized the people and ultimately the army, who increasingly turned against the government.
The many bad decisions made by the Russian government only served to worsen the citizens’ situation. Their growing discontent and the continued negligence of the government turned the people away from the Tsar’s rule. They became much more vulnerable to the increasing numbers of opposition groups. Later, when Tsar Nicholas chose to abdicate in favor of his son and his brother, who refused (3), he left the country in the hands of a weak, disorganized government that could not stand up the angry forces of the people. Ultimately, the collapse of order within the Russian government pushed the people to overthrow the government from without.

Jessica Hunter- February Revolutioin: A Collapse from within

The first of three stages of the Russian Revolution, the February Revolution in 1917 was caused by a collapse within the government. “It is impossible to run a country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs.” (Impact of WWI document) The government is powered by people and in order to maintain tranquility and organization within the government one must satisfy the needs of his people. The Czar openly chose not to do that. Instead, he ignored the grievances from the citizens as “cries rang out for bread and people exclaimed ‘’Down with the Tsar!’ By February 26, under the orders from the tsar, troops fired on demonstrators.” (Book Source) What did the Czar believe he was accomplishing by doing this? He lost his credibility in the eyes of his people and confidence in himself. His doubt originated from Russia’s loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and led him to “doubt his own ability in running a dynasty.” (Mr. Belk class notes) This doubt was the beginning of the end of the Czar’s rein as he allowed his uncertainties to influence his actions. Had the Czar not reacted in this manner and had instead coversed with the people, could the February Revolution have been avoided?

Mallard-Where is the stabilization in the foundation?

Where is the stabilization in the foundation?

The February Revolution was a blow up from a buildup of faults within the Russian Government. Without rulers knowing what they are doing, there cannot be any prevailing. Not only must the ruler have experience, but also consider the people’s best interest.

Nicholas II was guessing at his decisions that affected the entire country, without the input of the citizens that it was affecting. “It is impossible to rule the country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs, without a willingness to admit that the people themselves understand their own needs.” (1) Nicholas II was guessing that he knew what was best for the country and did not want to admit any fault. To show that he was the best one suited for his job, he wanted to show he knew what was best for everyone, even without his or her input. Obviously, Nicholas II did not know what was best because still coming out of World War I, the country was weak, struggling for food and very hostile. “Widespread discontent over the ghastly sacrifices of the war, food shortages, and high prices led to bitter strikes and hostile demonstrations.” (3) If Nicholas II would have considered the people and their struggles before he thought about himself and his abilities to provide the best for his country without any input from them, then tensions could have decreased. As more citizens began to lose faith in the Czar because of his inconsiderable actions, people began to take matters into their own hands. “More opposition groups to the Czarist Rule began to increase.” (2) Citizens began to believe that if they outright challenged the Czar’s rule then things would be fixed.

Ultimately, the February Revolution was a collapse from within. This collapse was due to the choices made by the Czar. The more poor decisions the Czar made the more resentment, hostility and tension rose over the way the country was being lead. Thus in order to save the country from ultimate destruction, all the Czar could do was to step down.

Allen- A Collapse From Within Caused By An Overthrow From Without

The February Revolution was a collapse from within the Russian government that was caused by an overthrow from without. For almost fifty years prior to the beginning of the Russian Revolution, the intelligentsia had grown more and more radical in its beliefs and actions (source 3). In this time, the radical revolutionary group had had a lot of time to improve their tactics in overthrowing the government and began gaining followers during World War I. Along with the intelligentsia, other opposition groups to czarist rule began to grow (source 2). With so many opposition groups on the rise, both the people and the czarist government began losing faith in the established form of government. How could they have faith in a government that was being picked apart by so many Russian citizens and people? In 1902, Lenin wrote a small pamphlet What is to be Done?, which made him popular with the underground Russian Marxist movement (source 3). In this, he began to be able to speak out more and tell his views on the government; Lenin strengthened the revolutionary movements by doing this. He gave people courage to stand up against the government by supporting them and speaking out himself. Lenin supported a group of revolutionaries dedicated to the overthrow of the czarist government; his view was that “revolution would be brought about not by elections and democracy, but by small cells of dedicated revolutionaries who would use violence and any means necessary” (source 3). By saying this, Lenin showed he did not expect the government to be easily overthrown, but was expecting and prepared to fight. Because of bad harvests, poor transport systems, and the loss of large areas of fertile land to the Germans following World War I, Russian citizens were starving in cities and soldiers were dying from the shortage of equipment (source 1). These food shortages, lack of military training, and lack of equipment caused the Russian citizens to become more enraged by their government. The government tried to combat this food shortage, which had led to high food prices and low wages for workers, by printing more money (source 1). However, this only caused inflation of the money (source1). By trying to improve the situation and printing more money, the government worsened the problem because the excess money made it all worthless. The czar created and ignored the Duma (source 2), but as World War II was starting up, the Duma dissolved itself to show support for the government (source 3). In doing this, the Duma stopped itself from working and can no longer blame the czar for ignoring their thoughts. It dissolved to symbolize full support of the Russian government, portraying to the people they should support the government also. However, how can the Duma dissolve itself and yet those people still spoke out against the government after saying they fully support the decisions of the czar? In this, the citizens of Russia were going against their word, not the government. Because of the low level of technical and economical development in Russia (source 1), the czarist empire “had the largest army in Europe but lacked the resources to fight a prolonged struggle” (source 3). Because of the revolutionaries speaking out against him, the czar was forced to try and rebuild his reputation. He attempted this by taking full control of the army from the front lines (source 1). He had no military training but saw it as his duty to fight alongside his peasant soldiers against the Germans. This, however, once Russia surrendered to Germany was turned against Czar Nicholas II, and he was blamed for the bad showing of the Russian army (source 1). On January 9, 1905 (source 3), the Russian government shot into a riled-up crowd of citizens (source 2). Though this action was to try and quiet the crowd, the government lost a lot of respect from its people in doing this. However, had revolutionary groups not gotten the people so outspoken against the government, the crowd never would have formed. The riot never would have happened. And the citizens never would have been killed by their own government officials. While the czarist government should have had more patience with its citizens and listened to their needs and wants more often, the revolutionary groups, such as the intelligentsia, are more to blame for the February Revolution. These groups gave the people courage to stand up, speak out, and take action against their government. In this way, the February Revolution was a collapse from within the Russian government caused by an overthrow from without.

Sanford- I'm going for the middle, always best to hit 'em right between the eyes, much more dramatic that way

The Russian Revolution, like many historical topics, cannot be traced back to just one cause, or in this case area of causes. The overthrow of the Romanov dynasty was a combination or a collapse from within, and an overthrow from without. Our previous unit showed that there is always a culmination of small events and building problems that end up leading to a large event that everyone focuses on. For example, World War I did not just begin like the snap of a finger; it took several things on top of each other to bring about the scale of the war, in the revolution, there were a multitude of problems needed to make the conditions right for an overthrow of an established government.

Leadership from the Tsar does hold a lot of blame in the revolution. Poor leadership led to the only European power to ever lose to an Asian empire in the Russo-Japanese war. This loss began to undermine the Romanov credibility to its people, as they began to question the power of their nation under the Tsar. The military’s morale also must have been devastated not only by the loss, but also by the reaction of the people when they learned of the defeat. The Tsar lost even more of his people’s respect during Bloody Sunday, when he had his military gun down a crowd of people at the palace who were protesting his rule, and saying they had no food. The Tsar’s rash decision showed his people that he did not care for their needs or views, and when a country sees this, it is hard for a leader to maintain their obedience, because no one wants to follow a man who has no care for whether they live or die. Tsar Nicholas’s arguably biggest mistake was deciding to take control of the war effort during World War I, and removing all of his military leaders. If he had been able to win this war, his credibility would have been restored, so as an act of desperation, this was a gutsy and arguably good decision, because with the enemy fighting a two front war, the victory should have been swift and absolute. The only thing the Tsar overlooked was his own lack of war leadership, and with the vastness of the Russian military, it would take a genius strategist for things to run smoothly. The loss of the war was the last straw for the Tsar, who ended up with no choice but to abdicate the thrown.

In terms of the Romanov dynasty being overthrown, there were many instances of outside causes manifesting themselves in the end result of a new government. Workers and peasants began to grow angry over a lack of food, and of rights. When the majority population of a country isn’t happy with the government, there comes a point when the government cannot keep control. This unrest gave rise to the Soviets, who wanted more rights for workers, and a more equal treatment of the lower classes. These soviets would play a large part in how the government was shaped during the revolutions. The soldiers began to go against orders, and actually joined the protesters in some cases (source 2), which shows a lack of structure in the lower branches of government. Also in source two, it talks about how western ideals of democracy were being spread through literature. These new ideals in the youth of the country would lead to a want for a better system than a monarchal rule. These factors began to change the view towards the Tsar, and show how an overthrow was a realistic view as to how the Romanov Dynasty ended.

Both a collapse from within, and an overthrow from without contributed to the Russian Revolution and set up the foundings of the USSR.

Boyle; The Collapse From Within

While an overthrow from without did spur the February Revolution, the collapse of the Russian government from within asserted the conditions under which this could occur. While Czar Nicholas II created the Duma (an organization meant to look after the needs of the people), this was more of a way to throw his people a bone without having to do anything about their needs (2). In fact, Michael Rodzlanko (the president of the Duma) wrote to the Czar several times, and instead of heeding the warnings, the czar called one letter a "load of nonsense" and refused to respond (1). This easily demonstrates that the czar was well-informed of the signs of a revolution, but refused to take actions to correct the issues. The czar did this again when he refused to allow the formation of the Ministry of National Confidence (1). Giving the people a dysfunctional--or, even more, a nonfunctional--group through which they can express themselves is comparable to giving someone with an infection a placebo medication; in theory, it may cure the problem despite the fact that it does nothing, but mind power is not always effective (although, where politics are concerned, it sometimes seems that way). Although this didn't necessarily cause the initial outbreak of revolution, the people to some extent understood that they were being ripped off.
Moreover, Nicholas II's command of the Eastern Front armies did a good deal of damage (1). Because of his distance from the public, Czar Nicholas II couldn't keep track of food shortages and other issues the Russians were forced to face with their ruler's leave (2). This in some cases caused young children and ladies to shout about hunger just to cause commotion (1). Sigmund Freud claims that one of the three driving forces of humanity is hunger, after all. If people are hungry, they're going to do what they have to to get food, even if that means riots and revolution (or worse). Look up "Donner Party" on Google if you don't believe me. The hunger added to the lack of rights in Russia led to the overthrow from without, not to mention Bloody Sunday's unmerited violence (2), and other poor political choices on the czar's part. In the end, the people decided the fate of Czar Nicholas II, but he personally put himself in the situation by ignoring the basic needs of the majority of people in his country.

Snider: Collapse from Within

I think that the February Revolution was a collapse from within the government meaning that it was mostly the fault of Nicholas II. There are many reasons why I think that the February Revolution was a collapse from within the government and not an overthrow from without. I used evidence from the sources we were given to make my decision. Here is some of the evidence that I found that helped me lean towards the February Revolution as being a collapse from within the government:
· “It is impossible to rule the country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs, without a willingness to admit that the people themselves understand their own needs.” (Source 1)
· “Your majesty, do not delay. Should the agitation reach the Army, Germany will triumph and the destruction of Russia along with the dynasty is inevitable.” (Source 1)
· “In July 1914 Russia mobilized to go to the aid of her ally, Serbia. Within a few weeks war was declared against Germany and Austria. At the outbreak of war, the Russian people put aside their long-standing grievances and supported their government. Nicholas II had welcomed the war to turn away the people’s attention from the country’s internal problems. On the other hand, Lenin and Bolshevik’s were against the entry of Russia into the war. Lenin viewed that the First World War was a war among the capitalist countries for markets and colonies.” (Source 1)
· Nicholas II assumes leadership of military (Source 2)
· People suffered from food shortages (Source 2)
These things are all evidences of the February Revolution being a collapse from within the government and not an overthrow from without. In the first bullet, I think that Nicholas II did not want to listen to the needs and wants of his people because he did not know how to handle the situation. If he was not willing to listen to the voices of the people, then he should not be the ruler of the country. Also, if he is not willing to take blame for things, then he is not strong enough to be a leader of his country. Nicholas II did not want to take all the blame for things that were happening so he created a group called the Dumas. The creation of this group led to collective responsibility for the things that were happening and the things that the people did not like. Nicholas II did this so he would not be the only one to blame for everything and he could have a group to help him out. With this happening, it led to a collapse from within because Nicholas II was not fulfilling his duty as ruler of the country.
This is also evident in the second and third bullet because when the war began, it said that Nicholas II welcomed the war. Most countries want to stay away from war, but he was glad to see it happen. The thought of war made the people come together as a nation and fight. The war also made people forget about the long-standing grievances. People were actually supporting their government for once instead of bashing it and creating revolts against the government. With all the people in support of his government in time of the war, I think that Nicholas II felt a huge amount of relief now that the people were supporting him and his government and not creating disturbances throughout the nation.
Also, in the last two bullets, Nicholas II assumes the leadership role of the military. People do not approve of this because it was a poor decision made by him. He is not a trained military leader and should not be in control of the whole army, yet he assumes leadership. He thinks that it will be an easy job and that he is best suited for the role, but he was mistaken. During World War One, the Tsar left for the front and left Alexandra, his wife, in charge of the country. She was to be his “eyes and ears”. To make matters worse she was German and during the war, the people hated all things German. This was not a smart decision on his part. He either did not care about his country and the people or he just had that much faith and trust in his wife that she would be a good person to leave a country in charge with. Once again, the Tsar is being blamed for the bad things that are happening to the country.
People no longer wanted him in power because of all of his poor decisions he made throughout his leadership and because they did not agree with the things he did. These are reasons why I think that the February Revolution was a collapse from within.

Miller –“ A collapse from within that caused an overthrow from without”

Miller- "A collapse from within that caused an overthrow from without"

The February Revolution was a collapse from within that caused an overthrow from without intertwined within each other. Events all were tied in together and that caused both, a collapse and an overthrow. One event that I think is relevant is when, Czar takes over the leadership of the military (Belk Notes). Once the Czar takes over the leadership of the military, sudden changes began to slowly come to the light. One change is that the men in the military are unequipped with the right equipment to fight a feasible war. Trying to take responsibility for everything and without help can become quite difficult. This is what Czar did; he wanted the people to have more respect a little bit more than they did. So, to prove that he was capable of running the country he took the leadership of the military. The leadership of the military left behind other continuing work that was left behind. "Guchkov pronounced the home front and military out of control" is quote that came from the First World War and the Russian Revolution. The home front, meaning the people, they that starved because Czar stopped being concerned about them. If the Czar would have been a little more organized in the planning the military and troops, and the concerns of the people, the people would have been more supportive. But instead of trying to please the people, he wanted to be great and mighty in his own will. This is when the collapse within While he forgot about the people on the home front, the people didn't forget about him. The people started to realize that the he was not being dependable. The people started to take action and began rioting and revolts took place. "Situation was caused by the mistakes of those in authority" (#3). This shows that the mistakes that were made were those that were in authority. Once these mistakes were made, it didn't become the people's fault that they were being mistreated. The government didn't take responsibility to adhere to the needs of the people. Once the people began feeling that way, which is when they thought that is was time to change government. The overthrow from without was caused from the over throw from within.

Moore-WITHIN all the way

From the sources given, the Febuary Revolution was a collapse within but unlike popular belief it was not only due to the "Inadequate equipment and shortage of materials", even though these factors were minor causes. a major cause was from source two "it is impossible to rule country with out paying attention to the voice of the people". This quote is referring to many occasions in which the Czar would ignore the people or make dumb/bad choices, making the people frustrated with the government slowly leading to more rebellious talk.

1) Czar had no military background, after taking over the army (1)

This is one example where the Czar makes a dumb/bad decision. After he feels the leaders of the current army arent getting the job done to make an analogy he feels that even he could do better so he tries but fails even worse then the leaders(considering he had little background), but if the Czar had never had tried to redeem themselves after the embarassing lost to japan but instead try to replace the leaders of the army then possibly it could have made the Czar seem like there was action somewhat being taken. The people had a right to say if they should go to war but instead the Czar jumped into it without a full plan.

2) While the Czar left for the front he left the running of the country to his wife alexandria

This is a small action that the Czar did that caused a great uproar by the people. Even though one may argue that this action was TOO small to affect anything, it is the build up of these little types of actions that have the people of Russia wondering "my leader did WHAT?! left his wife in charge and im starving to death" and causing anger and disrupt in the country, also the people could have a feeling of "I'm starving right now and he just left?" causing even more controversy of the purpose of his actions.

In the end it was the incompetence of leaders that led russia to its famous start of a new world AKA the Febuary Revolution, and the build of the Czars dumb ideas to leave his country in a time of need or trying to take control of something that he has nothing to do with and the people being constantly tired of having to deal with this leaders dumb and incompetent decisions.

-BOOM!

Taylor- A Collapse from Within

The February Revolution was brought about mainly from the poor decision made within the government. Tsar Nicholas II was at fault because he put power before the people who depended on him, eventually losing there trust . Three main reasons why Tsar Nicholas II lost the trust of his people were attacking the people by force creating "Bloody Sunday", ignoring Duma who was a representation for the people, and leaving the country to take control of the war.
Before World WarI Russia was already heading for collapse due to there lost in the Russo- Japanese War. There nationalism and pride was destroyed causing the uproar of many people. Tsar NicholasII knowing of the countries downfall only contributed more problems . He reached the point to where he ordered the military to shoot innocent people who protested, which was the creation of "Bloody Sunday". He put his power first causing the people to look down upon him . Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich states " Its impossible to rule the country without paying attention to the voice of the people , without meeting there needs ,without the willingness to admit that the people themselves understand their own needs."(1) Mikhailovich saw that within a country whatever a country goes through it does not only affect the leader , but the country as a whole. Tsar Nicholas II never thought that once a country faces a lost in a war you have to put your difference aside and come together as one , to build it back up to where it once was.
Contorversy in Russia was on the rise and many people wanted Tsar Nicholas II overthrown(1) They felt this way because the Tsar focused on how he could gain more power while his people worried about how they would recieve their next meal. Well once the Tsar began to see the position he was in he decided to create the Duma or a voice for the people.The Duma was an example of a democracy in which we live today (2)This seemed great to the people , because they began to believe that the Tsar actually cared for them. But the Tsar only did this to protect himself . Tsar Nicholas II ignored the Duma completely , never listening to the ideas that were brought forth. The Tsar did not want to be overthrown , yet he did nothing to make things shift for the better. The ignorance of the Duma only made people lose there trust completely once they found out his hidden plan to save himself. The Tsar never realizes that the people just want to be heard ,by putting forth this democratic effort he could have made the life of the people improve and save himself altogether.
Lastly was the biggest decision ever made by Tsar Nicholas to take over the army at war,leaving his collasping country alone to suffer. This was the last straw for the Tsar , because the people were fed up. While the Tsar was at war he left his wife in charge of Russia, she was to be his "eyes and ears"(1). Not only did he leave his wife who knew nothing about running a government, but he took over a war where the solider did not have shoes or rifles to train with. The low level of technical and economical developement produced an army suffering form the shortage of equipment-even boots- and trained personnel. Many soliders often had no weapons at all; they were expected to arm themselves from discarded weapons of the killed and wounded(1). This was pitful on the Tsar's behalf , he truly showed how little he cared about his people and and more about gaining power. While he was away people faced severe foodshortages(1).Also sickness and the formation of bread lines surrounded the country. Tsar Nicholas II let his people suffer the hardships losing there pride and their dependency on a leader they thought cared. The people then saw by his actions that he never cared about there well being , but the way he could ignore them and gain power. Tsar Nicholas II treatment of his people lead to him being overthrown, he let power take over him completely . The people lost everything instead of rebuilding their society, it was torned down dragging them along with it.

Burris: A collapse from within that transformed to be an overthrow from without...

The February Revolution originally started off being a collapse from within, and over time it transformed to be the overthrow from without…

Czar Nicholas made some very poor decisions and caused many hardships upon the largest and known to be the most dominating empire at that moment in time, Russia. Russia upheld many citizens that had a lot of nationalistic pride, and the loss of the Russo- Japanese War was a horrifying loss for the Russian empire, as it was their first loss in history…and it happened under the regulations of Czar Nicholas. This event in history caused many citizens of Russia to dislike the ruling of Czar, because it was his decision to enter the war, and Russia lost the war. It was a bad decision for Russia to enter the war as the army was “unprepared and poorly equipped” (2). On top of that muddle, Czar decided that he would “assume leadership of the military himself” (2). Czar clearly set Russia up for failure. Czar put Russia into a dilemma that could have been avoided upon Czar’s decision upon entering the war. Czar was totally inexperienced with warfare, and he lead the military, then the troops went into war with poor equipment and a un-expectancy of what types of issues they may face in the war. This was a disaster on the behalf of Czar. Czar caused Russia to discover a depression, because of his awful decision- making. A result of losing the war the “people of Russia suffered from food shortages…the food was low and the prices of food was expensive” (2). This war was not only a loss, but it was a fatal loss that would require Russia to be under new government in order for it to be reconstructed. Although Czar made poor decisions, he did attempt to recover the large discrepancy in which he had caused within Russia, “the government tried to alleviate the situation by printing more money but this merely produced an inflationary spiral” (1). Czar had the impression that printing more money would solve the issues of depression within Russia, but along with money must come value, and this is what Czar did not realize. Czar also “created the Duma with an attempt to prevent himself from making unwise decisions, and to have input from people” (1). After Czar had gotten himself in so much pity with the people of Russia, he tries to finally include the voices of the people of Russia by creating a democracy type organization, so that when issues occur the people of Russia would not only blame Czar, but they will fault the Duma as well.
Because of the fact that Czar did cause many issues within Russia, the collapse from within slowly transformed to an overthrow from without. The people of Russia threw Czar out of his position. “It is urgent that someone enjoying the confidence of the country be entrusted with the formation of a new government. There must be no delay. Hesitation is fatal” (2). The people of Russia were tired of the depression and wanted Russia to rise again and retrieve its dominance that it gave up, under the rule of Czar. And the only way to achieve that victory was for Russia to THROW HIM OUT… “To prevent a catastrophe the Tsar himself must be REMOVED BY FORCE if there is no other way” (2).

It is clear that the Feburary Revolution was created by a collapse from within tranforming into an overthrow from without because of the unstable government and poor decision making of Czar Nicholas.

Torres- An collapse from within which led to an overthrow from without

The February Revolution was the very first stage of the Russian Revolution of 1917. In this stage, the Czar was eliminated. Although there is much debate over the cause of this revolution, it has become evident to me that the finger cannot be pointed at one single cause. After reviewing the facts pertaining to this event, it should be concluded that the cause of the February Revolution was a collapse of the Czar's government which enticed a revolution from without because the people of Russia realized they needed "new management."

In the years prior to and during world war one, it was obvious that the state of Czar Nicholas II's reign over Russia was steadily deteriorating. The Czar's actions, or lack there of, greatly contributed to this debacle:

1. His failure to lead the nation to victory over Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (2).
2. His reaction to social uprising which resulted in Bloody Sunday (2).
3. His failure to follow his own word (e.g. lack of recognition of the Duma and Civil Liberties) (2).
4. His lack of sufficient leadership during WWI (2).

As the Czar continously placed the nation of Russia into inferior situations, the people of Russia realized that something must be done to prevent the status of the nation from deteriorating even further. The loss to Japan was a major blow to the people. Upon entering the war, the citizens of Russia were under the impression that this war with the miniscule Japan would be "quick and easy." However, the Russian troops were embarrassed. They were not sufficiently organized of strong enough to take over Japan. This highly disturbed the people of Russia. It can be said that this loss, "hurt their pride." It also made them lose faith in their leadership. Russia had trusted that the Czar would always have the best interests in mind for the people. Nevertheless, this embarassment demonstrated serious flaws in the Czar's reasoning. Therefore, trust in Nicholas was deteriorating. To further the debacle, Russia was suffering tremendous loss as a result of WWI (2). Russia had suffered more casualties then any of the other countries participating in the war. Seeing that things were going poorly on the war front, the Czar thought that it would be best for himself to assume control of the military (1). This, however, was not taken too positively by the Russian citizens. By moving to the front lines, Nicholas left his German born wife in charge of the military (3). This move was looked upon very sourly. People had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that they were being led by a native of the country of which they had lost so many soldiers at the hands of. In addition to leaving the affairs of the nation behind him, Nicholas also did I very poor job handling the military. With no military training, Nicholas' tactics and strategies worsened Russia's position in the War (2). The citizens of Russia saw no end of this war in sight. The conditions were steadily decreasing. With so much emphasis being placed on the war effort, the people of Russia suffered drastic food shortages due to the fact that food had to be rationed to provide for the soldiers on the front lines (1). With such poor conditions, the people of Russia made their first move towards rising against Nicholas II's power. They marched to the palace out of protest. When the Czar took notice, he ordered his men to shoot and kill all of the protesters. This occasion became known as Bloody Sunday (2). This decision obviously angered the majority of the citizens of Russia. The leader of their country had not only ignored their requests, he took the lives of hundreds of Russians. Something had to be done in respect to this situation. Czar Nicholas II feeling desperate, promised another event of this nature would never occur again. In order to alledgedly protect the rights of the people, he created the Duma and Civil Liberties. He promised freedoms such as the freedom of Speech and legalized unions (2). Nevertheless, despite these promises, the Czar continued to ignore the civil liberties of the citizens. The tension on the rope holding back from the Russian Revolution could now hold no longer. The citizens were calling for a change. People wanted hope. They wanted a prosperous Russia. With individuals such as Lenin attempting to spread Marxists ideas around the country, the people found an escape from their dilemas. They found a way to get free of their troubles. The solution was a revolution.

Patel- Both a collapse from within and an overthrow from without

The February Revolution of the Russian Civil War was a result of equal factors of both a collapse from within, and an overthrow from without. The facts support both reasonings. When Russia lost the Russo-Japanese War, this shocked the Russian people. The admitted defeat of Russia was devastating to Russian pride and nationalism. This called for justification of their Russian pride, and was shown by the deep involvement with WWI. The defeated Russia desired to elevate their status level to being a supreme country again, so they led a full-fledged offensive attack against the oppressive Austria and Germany (1). The loss of the Russo-Japanese war was the origin of the instability in Russia, because of how it motivated Russia’s offensive actions. During this time in Russia, when Tsar Nicholas II was under power, major factors contributed to the instability of the Russian government. Many of these were results of the failures of the Tsar, which brings about factors that involved the Tsar, and factors that were not under the Tsar’s control. An example of this is when the Tsar took complete control of the Russian armies on the Eastern Front (1). When the Tsar took control, he did not provide the soldiers with what they needed to fight in the war such as, equipment and nourishment (1). This was one of Tsar Nicholas’s failures as a leader. This inadequate army did not agree to fight within these conditions, which then raised the issues that were outside the Tsar’s control such as mutiny within the armies, the demoralization of the armies, and the desertion of soldiers within the armies (1). Therefore, we see how the Tsar’s failures led to actions beyond the Tsar’s control. The soldiers were fighting for their country and felt that they should be given the decency of physical support, and because the Tsar did not provide for them, the Russian armies did not believe in him as a leader. The reason for the inadequate equipment and the dearth of food supply was that Russia was in a depression-like state because of the raised prices of food and the steady incomes that did not change, which meant that Russia did not have enough food to provide for everyone (soldiers and Russians) (1). The number of soldiers fighting for Russia was the largest out of all participating countries in WWI, which also meant that it was inevitable that there would be a scarce supply of equipment and food.

The Tsar was responsible for the country, and he could not stand watching the army fall apart within his rule, therefore he took control of the entire Eastern Front (1). In another perspective this was because the Tsar felt that it was his duty to show Russia how much he was willing to do for the country. Despite his disadvantages of fighting as a soldier, he represented a firm devotion to the country. Even if taking control of the army was a failure of the Tsar, the Tsar is seen as a respectable leader.

Another failure of the Tsar is his negligence to the Duma, a group representing the voice of the people (2). This was because his primary motive for allowing its establishment was only selfish because it granted him the position of Tsar by his support of the values of the Duma. The Tsar never actually wanted the advice of the group, but only the position of total power. When the Tsar never established any of his promises the people of Russia were dubious of his leadership and the result was the rise of opposition groups such as strikers and protesters (2). The nationalistic pride once felt by these protestors was shot down when the supposed “short, glorious war” became a four-year failure. This building of grievances led to another failure of Tsar, Bloody Sunday (2). When strikers and protestors violated the streets,(because protests were banned by the Tsar) the Tsar ordered his troops to shoot them down, which led to mass chaos and many lives lost therefore, “Bloody Sunday” (2). This was another example of when the Tsar’s failure led to an action outside of his control.

Overall, the failures of the Tsar led to the grievous effects that were outside of the Tsar’s control. The combined impact of both the overthrow form without and the collapse form within is what led Russia to be ripe for the February Revolution or the downfall of the Tsarist rule within Russia.

Lee Yard- An overthrow from without due to a collapse from within

The February revolution was an overthrow from without due to a collapse from within. The collapse from within began after Russia lost the Russo- Japanese war in 1905. As Russia continued the steady collapse from within the people became frustrated with their sufferings and eventually overthrew the czarist government.
The collapse from within began with the czar's actions before World War I and after. When Russia lost the Russo-Japanese war there was a since that Russia was losing its dominance in the world. In a nation full of nationalistic pride this lost had the people convinced that the czar was losing his power. Then, Russia entered World War I. The soldiers had inadequate equipment and shortages of materials (1). This showed the collapse from within because the government wasn't able to support its army. During World War I the czar decided to take supreme control of the military and left the control of Russia to the Czarina (1). This hurt the Russians on the battlefield because they were following a commander who didn't know how to run a military and it hurt the Russians back at home because they were under control of a woman, which at this time women still did not have a lot of social rights or respect. The collapse continued when the Czar created the Duma (2). The Duma was said to be a place where the people could voice their opinions and concern and have a role in the government. But the Czar ignored the request of the Duma and created it to draw attention away from the problems. The capital is at a state of anarchy, the government is paralyzed (1). This was a letter written by the leader of the Duma to the Czar talking about the problems of the government. Again, that fat-bellied Rodzianko has written me a load of nonsense, which i won't even bother to answer (1). This continued to show the collapse from within because the Czar wrote this letter to the Czarina saying that he was ignoring the Duma's letters.
Due to the conditions of the government and the Czar's actions there was a growing of opposition groups to Czarist rule (2). It didn't take long for these groups to take action and attempt to overthrow the Czarist government. In a short time the whole city was aglow (1). These opposition groups soon turn in to violent protest and riots that would eventually bring an end to the Czar. In a letter to the Czar, Alexandra says, "the striker's and rioters are in a more defiant mood than ever." (1). The people could no longer stand the suffering from shortages and the broken promises of the Czar and their anger grew as they became more impatient. When the Soviets began to gain the upper hand the people of Russia were excited that change was coming (1). This shows how the conditions of the government lead to the people's anger and lead them to overthrow the government.
The February Revolution was a combination of overthrow from without and within. It was because of the inner collapsing and continually downward spiral of the Russian government that lead to the people's frustrations and desire to overthrow the government. Because of the collapsing government it made it easy for the opposition groups to take control and get rid of the Czarist government. Czar Nicholas II lost his power when he grew apart form his citizens and was unable to support their needs.

Leslie: Collapse from within led people to revolt

The Russian Revolution was brought about by many factors, so it cannot be declared a collapse solely from within or an overthrow from without. It was, in majority, a collapse within the government that enabled the revolution to take place. Czar Nicholas II held blame for many of the hardships Russia faced prior to World War I:

1. defeat in the Russo-Japanese War
2. attack on the protesters using military force on Bloody Sunday
3. unfulfilled promises in the creation of the Duma and in granting civil liberties
(source two)
These conflicts caused the country to lose trust in the Czar and question his power. The loss of the Russo-Japanese War was a major blow to Russian self esteem. Being the first major European power to lose a war to a "lesser" Asian power, the country was shocked and embarrassed. The most logical choice to lay the blame was with Russia's leader. Therefore the fault was left with Czar Nicholas. His credibility plummetted and the citizens were left angered by his reign. This event triggered Bloody Sunday, protests of the Czar which he handled in a very violent fashion. Czar Nicholas orders Russian protesters to be shot, bringing about many deaths. After the dispute, Russian citizens were enraged by the Czar's actions. In an attempt to please the country he made many promises to ensure the people that they will have representation in the government and be granted civil liberties such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. These promises were not however fulfilled. The Duma, established to advise the Czar to follow the will of the people, was not put to use. The Russian citizens, tired of waiting for the change they were promised, revolted against the Czar which eventually brought his downfall. Though the actions of the people brought about the Russian Revolution, they were influenced by the incompetance of the government.

Kennelly- The cessation of the Romanov Dynasty was a Collapse From Within

Although there is evidence that the ending of the Romanov Dynasty was contributed to both an overthrow from without and a collapse from within, strong supporting evidence has led me to believe that it was a collapse from within. Unwise decisions, made by the political leaders of Russia at the time, and an unbalance of beliefs and morals among the people of Russia contributed to an unstable and weak government that was facing an inevitable collapse.

In August of 1915, Tsar Nicholas II left St. Petersberg to take control of the armies that had mobilized to help Serbia in the war (1). In his place, he left his wife Alexandra to take charge in Russia (1). Of course it is known that without a political leader there in a country to take charge, different views and decisions will be made that do not fall in the pattern of leadership that the ruler would normally follow. On top of this problem of not having the proper leader present to keep order in the country, the Tsar's wife was born a German, A bitter enemy to the Russians at the time (1). Tensions would surely start to rise as a German was held as the leader of the country that showed great hatred towards Germans. A mistake Alexandra made while being in charge of Russia was taking advice from Rasputin, a despicable monk (1). The people of Russia began to become suspicious of the two, as they were rumored to be German spies (1). Eventually Rasputin was murdered and rumors and suspicians ended. The Tsar leaving to go to the army was one of the first early signs of a weakening country. In leaving, the Tsar put his wife in, raising tensions and an unbalance between the government and the people. Turmoil began to surface as suspicians of German interference within the country was beginning to take place. Surely this was an problem beginning from within the country.

The Tsar not only started distress within the country, but in the countries army as well. A trouble began in Russia, the Tsar took over supreme command of the Russian army in 1915 (1). being the supreme leader now, he was blamed personally for the armies poor performance (1). A poor recognition of a countries leader shown by the countries people can only mean a disturbance within the country as a whole. As a result of poor military leadership, the support of the army began to drift away, and the majority of the soldiers turned against the Tsar (1). Instead of coming to terms with the resentful army and bringing to their needs, the Tsar ignored all requests to from a "Ministry of National Confidence" (1). Of course even stronger resentment towards the Tsar would result. To have a strong system in a country, agreement and trust has to be present between the people and the people's leader. As seen here, the exact opposite was beginning to take place, as it was beginning to happen fast. This gives evidence and value to show that problems within were restricting Russia's ability to have a successful Dynasty.
Feeble equipment and a shortage of materials undermined the attitude of the army and caused many soldiers to desert (1). Such an inadequate technical and economic development led to an army suffering from the shortage of equipment (1). Many soldiers often had no weapons at all and in many instances had to use weapons from wounded or killed soldiers (1). Of course in any case such as this, soldiers would retreat and desert their stand, which was not a good for an army to be doing. This supplied evidence of a weak and unsupporting government towards the need of the army.

At the homefront, people were facing food shortages, causing many families in Russia starvation (1). As food prices rose, wages stayed the same. The food shortages became even higher as an Inflationary spiral occured, as the government tried to print more money (1). At this time, resentment towards the Tsar and the government was beginning to reach its peak. To quiet the people and their hatred, the Tsar sent military assistance to go in and kill civilians (2). this was Known as "bloody Sunday." The Tsar put this action forward to show that he was still and power and that he still obtained complete control. Of course this would only lead to rebellion, as opposition groups began to take form and increase dramatically (2). This was a weakness in the country, as people not only showed resentment, but began to take action and create groups that sought complete downfall of the Tsar. Finally, the built up of resentment towards the Tsar took its toll on February 23 as striking workers began to cry out, "Down with the Tsar" (2). Violence followed, and in the following month, the Tsar stepped down from the throne (2). The fact that the leader of Russia was to an extent forced to step down shows an incompetance toward the people and the government, and an evident imbalance that was in great desperation to be fixed.

The October Revolution was led by Lenin, a leader of the Bolsheviks, a group made up by Lenin himself (3). Lenin was involved in Russia's intelligentsia, a group that saw their own society as culturally backward (3). Groups such as these that showed such great resentment towards Russia mixed even more turmoil into the country of Russia. To make matters worse, these groups were growing rapidly. Groups like these growing at such speeds created a people that were soon to be influenced against their government and were spreading out all around Russia. Like a cancer cell, these groups would begin to demoralize the beliefs of Russia and would turn a whole country against its government.

Lenin was turning Russia away from democracy, and was favoring the positioning of a dictatorship (3). Lenin encouraged "armed insurrection" and "mass terror" and pushed aside any form of liberal democracy (3). Sporadic violence followed. There were in addition an unknown number of crimes against the people, including murder (3). In December of 1917, Lenin forced his idea of dictatorship, an idea that was against the people of Russia (3). This provoked massive havoc onto the people of Russia. Crimes were taking place, and no sustainable government was in place to keep order. Russia found itself not in order and peaceful agreement that Lenin dreamed of in his dictorship idea, but in complete disorder and in a weakening state as all of Russia was against itself. The last straw caused a complete crumble in Russia as the Petergrand Soviet allowed soldiers to elect committees to run the army (3). They abolished military codes of discipline, and in result, hierarchies crumbled everywhere (3). Factories and business owners were humiliated and assaulted. Peasants began seizing land speratically, and murder others. The old order of Russia was falling apart, and led to a complete downfall. Lenin and his idea for dictatorship pulled Russia into its inevitable downfall, as complete caos erupted. The value of this shows that dictatorship and groups leaning towards the idea of an overthrow of the government and control of the people under dictatorship within the country brought decadence to Russia. Factors from within the leaders and people of the country led to an imence and horrific collapse.

benson-collapse from within led to overthrow

The February Revolution was an overthrow by the people due to the incompetent leadership by the czarist regime. Decisions made by Czar Nicholas II prior to February 1917 inevitably caused an overthrow. First and foremost (and I'm sorry to be repetitive) was the czar's decision to enter the Russo-Japanese War. Russia was surprisingly defeated, the first European nation to be defeated by an Asian nation. This loss infuriated the people of Russia, and blame fell on the czar. His imperialistic approach on Manchuria and Korea commenced the conflict in the first place. The international prestige of Russia was eradicated and something had to be done to reinstall Russian nationalism and respect from other nations. This something was World War One, deliberately initiated by the Czar, and the collapse from within begins...

With all of the unrest in the Russians and the czar's ability to lead their country at question, the czar had to show his competence. His actions include but are not limited to his encouragement of Serbia's unification for independence, advocation of partial then general mobilzation, and neglection of Germany's conciliatory proposal. The catastrophic WWI was then initiated. Nationalism was successfully restored, "Initially in August 1914, the nation rallied around the flag. Politicians and the urban middle classes welcomed the war, and the army went off to defend their "Slavic brothers" in Yugoslavia against German and Austrian aggression. The Duma, Russia's national assembly, dissolved itself to symbolize the country's support of the government" (3). The czar, purposefelly initiating WWI, achieved what he wanted: nationalism and support. This was his second chance. He already lost one war against a weaker asian nation, and Russia was now fighting the powerhouses of Europe: Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. If he were to win this war, the Russo-Japanese War loss would be forgotten. The dilemna Nicholas II faced here was that he had to win the war, but made poor decisions in doing this. "Inadequate equipment and shortage of materials gradually undermined the morale of the army and caused many soldiers to desert" (1). The railway system was also inadequate for war and the Russian army was suffering millions of casualties (1). Throughout Russia there was also a food shortage due to bad harvests and loss of fertile farming land, leading to starving families (1). "The government tried to aleviate this by printing more money but this merely produced an inflationary spiral which merely encouraged peasants to resort to subsistence farming rather than waste time trying to make a profit; this in turn exacerbated the food shortages in the cities" (1). Nicholas then dug his own grave for his power. HE took Supreme Command over the army (1). He had absolutely no military training and reemphasized the turmoil in Russia was his entirely his fault. He began the war, and was now providing Russia no chance to win because he was an incompetent military leader. To make matters worse, he left in charge his German wife Alexandra (1). Russia was fighting a war against Germany, and were being led by a GERMAN woman. The people were outraged at their government, and revolution was in the making. Michael Rodzianko, president of the Duma, sums up the state of Russia accurately in his telgram to Nicholas, "The government is paralyzed; the transport service has broken down; the food and fuel supplies are completely disorganized. Discontent is general and on the increase" (1). The Russians were losing a war the czar, and future of the Romanov dynasty, needed to win. At a time like this, the Duma would have been obvious to look for for suggestions, since it represented the people. Nicholas II was oblivious to the necessary consultation of the Duma. He deliberately ignored Rodzianko's telegram. He writes to the czarist, "Again, that fat-bellied Rodzianko has written me a load of nonsense, which I won't even bother to answer" (1). The Duma could have offered some exeptional advice on the present economic and political downward spiral of Russia, but Nicholas ignored them. At this point, the people were infuriated by their leader, and were ready for the installation of a new type of leadership. The czar had made Russia look inferior to neighboring nations, and also did not fullfill on his promises of civil liberties (2). Opposition groups started to form and increase, specifically the Marxists (a.k.a Bolsheviks). These groups then overthrew the czar, and provisional government implemented.

The February Revolution was an overthrow of the people of Russia, only becasue of the instability and collapse of the czarist regime. Russia lost one war and was in the process of losing another, the people were starving, and people took leadership roles in places they should not have been in. When the czar ordered troops to fire and kill his own Russian civilians, overhrow was inevitable (2). A leader cannot fire upon and kill his own Russian "kin" without severe consequences.

The February Revolution occured because of the collpase of the Russian government, and was the first major stage of the Russian Revolution and rise of Lenin.

Davis: Why the Motherland decided to kill itself. =D

Okay, well, I guess it wasn't really intentional, but whatevs.

Tsar Nicholas was too arrogant to truly rule a country, methinks. The entire Romanov family was living in some fantasy where they were loved by everyone, even though people were literally screeching for the end of their rule. Proof, you say? In a letter to the tsar after one of many riots, the tsarina writes "They all worship you and only want bread. (1)" It happens that I speak a little Russian myself, and "Down with the Tsar" and "FEED US!" sound nothing alike, making me wonder why the tsarina would say such a thing. (Other letters in source one back this claim up, but to be frank my eyeballs are on fire so I'll forgo typing them.) The fact that the Romanov family was either a.) too wrapped up in being awesomesauce to realize their waning popularity or b.) truly stupid (which I doubt, my research shows all the royal family had access to the best tutors available.) caused the trouble back home to increase, when they had all the opportunities to nip it in the bud. Or maybe the Tsar was truly trying to ignore it, hoping it would go away eventually, (like when you have a spoiled child that pitches a fit- if you don't give them attention, eventually they quit) but this still only illustrates more of his incompetence as a leader. Sort of like Marie Antoinette and Louis, you know? Louis was a smart guy, but he didn't know how to rule a country. (People also hated his wife, too. Oh, and they also had a revolution in their country because they were arrogant and failcakes at ruling. Hmmm...I SEE PARALLELS. ^_^) Oh, and, I think this can be said with their whole marriage- the tsarina needed some help with that whole honesty thing with her husband. He probably wouldn't have listened, but a, "Hey dear, just thought you ought to know the people here want your head to roll." may have changed things and opened his eyes a little instead of "THEY WORSHIP YOU, OH MIGHTY TSAR."

Just throwing this out here before I move on to my next topic, but royal European families (Romanovs included) had a tendency to interbreed. So maybe that was the real cause of the Revolution. Anything is possible.

But, I guess I have to be fair and say this much: though the Tsar did jump into the game late, he did try to get the people back on his side. He had a lot on his plate (in public and private- there were rumors his wife was hooking up with the Rasputin creeper.) and those who he considered advisers really didn't want him to succeed. So it seems like he continued following their half-baked advice...half-heartedly. I think he realized how deep a hole he was in, and tried (like he had at the beginning of his troubles) to ignore it and hope it got better by not making any drastic changes in policy. But by this time it was too late, because he had given his people enough time to really look at the things the royal family (and the exceedingly wealthy) had been getting away with on the backs of the workers. Even a few empty promises, like the ones made by the provisional government after his abdication, would have let him hold onto his throne for at least long enough to get true reform accomplished- not the sort of wishywashy junk he had been allowing. I think the Tsar really forgot his people and found some undeserved arrogance in the fact that his family had been in control for so long, and it made him feel sort of invincible. But, the people only allowed the Romanov dynasty to rule, and Nicholas made mistakes that let the people realize their own power in allowing them to do so.


Wow, I really abused parentheses in this. Forgive me, Mr. Koon. =/

Araam Borhanian: Collapse from Within

It's obvious that the February Revolution was a result of bad moves made by the government. In other words, a collapse from within. During World War One, Tsar Nicholas II would decide to become the leader of the military (Source 1). The reasoning behind this was simple; to improve his image. If the war were to start to turn out well, then he would get the credit. Of course, the flip side was true as well, where if the war started going bad, then he would look bad too(Source 2). It wasn't likely that he would have much success though in this position because he didn't have knowledge in the military area. He would most likely look bad to his citizens, which would lead to a revolt occuring against him. Not only this, but he would also not help with problems that were going on at home, such as the food shortage. According to Alexandra Fyodorovna in a letter to Nicholas II, the "youngsters and girls are running around shouting they have no bread" (Source 1). Because he wouldn't address this issue, the citizens would get riled up and would look for a different government to support, which would lead to the February revolution. The citizens would want to get rid of the government because of this need not being met, and would decide that getting rid of the czar would be the quickest way to do it. He didn't leave the government unkept, but instead left his German wife in charge (Source 1). Not only was a woman leading the government, but she was German. The Russians did not look favorably towards the Germans at the time, so this upset the citizens. Also, the fact that she went to Rasputin, the "mad monk" (Source 1), for advice would cause the citizens to become discontent with the government's actions, because Rasputin wasn't considered trustworthy. And though Czar Nicholas II would create the Duma, and he would say that he would grant liberties to the civilians, in reality the Duma wasn't listened to, and the liberties weren't granted to the citizens (Source 2). In Source 1, Michael Rodziano has sent telegrams to Czar Nicholas II stating the condition of mother Russia, saying that it was "growing worse. Measures should be taken immediately." What was Czar Nicholas II's response? According to the message he wrote to his wife, "Again, that fat-bellied Rodzianko has written me a load of nonsense, which I won't bother to even answer." (Source 1) This statement alone shows that not only does Czar Nicholas II not pay attention to the Duma, he also doesn't think of them on a similar level, throwing an insult at the president of the Duma (Source 2). The Duma would represent the people, so by disrespecting the Duma, Czar Nicholas II showed that he didn't care about the people, though that was already shown through Bloody Sunday (Source 2), which was the reason he created the Duma. Again, the government's actions would cause the citizens to ignite the fury against the government, and start the February Revolution.

Overthrow from without due to an Internal collapse-Albowicz

The February Revolution was an overthrow from without caused by a collapse from within.

Before the first World War, the country of Russia was suffering. They had lost soldiers, dignity, and pride all to Japan when they were defeated in the Russo-Japanese war. By this point, the country is at a pretty low state, and they are willing to say that. Because they do, the Tsar issues soldiers to fire at innocent civilians, which became known as Bloody Sunday. (2) This was the Tsar’s way of saying “Hey, I’m still here and you won’t forget that!” (<-remember this) This very forceful example of power puts the Tsar in a bad light to the people. It was criticized by Mikhailaich that “It is impossible to rule the country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs, without a willingness to admit that the people themselves understand their own needs.”(1) In response to the attack on his competence Tsar Nicholas II creates the Duma. Along with the Duma, Nicholas II promised the people some more freedom including that of speech, press, and even more say in the leadership.(2) He was basically promising a more democratic government, but these promises were not met. The Duma was basically what we know as the Cabinet.(2) It was supposedly the Tsar’s advisors, given the status as “voice of the people” but in reality, they were fairly ignored. It was a political ploy to make himself look good to the people and let them know “Hey, I’m still here and I’m for you” (looks like a trend is starting. Keep reading) Tsar Nicholas II was even quoted saying “Again, that fat bellied Rodzianko[leader of the Duma] has written me a load of nonsense, which I won’t even bother to answer” (1) As the country is still under a mental defeat from the Russo-Japanese war, the Tsar, without listening to the Duma, decides to enter the war to be a status booster. He then joins the military on the front lines, despite his lack of military background, leaving the country to be led by his German wife, who is not only from an enemy country, but is rumored to have an affair with the monk Rasputin.(1)
Not only were these occurrences putting Tsar Nicholas II in a bad light with the citizens, but the citizens had previously seemed to have troubles with the tsarist rule. The group called the intelligentsia assassinated Tsar Alexander II on March 1, 1881 (3) They then tried to murder Alexander II’s successor, Alexander III on the anniversary of Alexander II’s death, but authorities caught the group and arrested them before this could happen. (3) The fact that attacks on the Tsars came one after another leads me to believe the Bolsheviks did not favor the tsarist government much in general. Because there was already resentment towards tsars in general, Nicholas II’s actions did not bode well for the Russians. When they tried to act up and speak out, Nicholas repeated the past and had a repeat of Bloody Sunday. (3) (I think we’ve seen that before)
So, since the Bolsheviks were not thrilled with the ideals of the tsarist government, each Tsar was criticized further because of their title. So, when Tsar Nicholas ignored the warnings and the signs, and cared more about his position than his people, the Bolsheviks stepped up and spoke out. That is why this was an overthrow from without. But, because of the actions of Tsar Nicholas II such as, controlling the army, ignoring the people, breaking promises, and caring more about position than people, the people were ready to fight for themselves. All of this could have been prevented had Tsar Nicholas followed through on his promises and not ignored the warning signs that were given to him from all sides. Had he decided to listen to the so called “fat bellied Rodzianko”, the leader of the Duma and the main voice of the people, he could have prevented the majority of the dispute. Therefore, it was in his control which would make it a collapse from within. So because of said collapse, the people stepped up and made their own change. It was an overthrow from without that was caused by a collapse from within.

Schusterman: A Collapse From Within

The overthrow of Czar Nicholas II in the February Revolution was due to a collapse from within the government. Russian civilians did not have confidence in the autocracy, which does not show that the February Revolution was an overthrow from without, but rather a culmination of all the things the Czar did to make his citizens not trust him. A government cannot function if it does not have the trust of its people. The loss to Japan in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 (2 Belk notes) left Russians uneasy. How could one of the largest nations with the largest army of the time lose to Japan? Poor governing could only be to blame for the loss. To keep the citizens quiet the Czar then picked people to create a small group that would represent the thoughts of the people, called the Duma (2 Belk notes). The problem was that his motive for creating this group was simply to make people believe they had a say in government decisions, even though he didn't plan on relying on their opinion (2 Belk notes). This decision was selfish of the Czar to make because it shows that all he really wanted was power and to continue ruling Russia, but he didn't care about the well-being of the citizens which should have been his main priority. By doing these things the Czar was single-handedly creating a weak government because it was a government based on lies. The Czar took this so far as to turn against his people on Bloody Sunday, an event where he ordered troops to begin shooting at civilians that were speaking out against the government (2 Belk notes). This event made the Czar appear to be leading a governing body that was an enemy of Russia, rather than one that was leading it. Michael Rodzianko, President of the Duma, said, "There is wild shooting in the streets; troops are firing at each other. It is urgent that someone enjoying the confidence of the country to be entrusted with the formation of a new government," (1 Impact of WWI). Even a member of the Duma, which he created, was against him based on the instability he had evoked in the country. The Czar made other poor decisions when World War I arose as well. Many Russians did not want to enter in the first place, but the worst decision he made was to begin mobilizing first without adequate supplies (1 Impact of WWI). "Replacement troops were being trained without rifles and sent onto the battlefield, where they were to go among the dead and wounded to pick up the weapons they needed," (3 Book source). Soldiers were being asked to fight without proper clothes, equipment, and training, which made them resent the Czar. It also made all Russians angry because they had strong feelings of nationalism because after they lost the Russo-Japanese war the government had promised the country that they would regain their prestige during World War I, which didn't appear to be starting too promising. I believe the Czar's final mistake was to leave the country and go lead the military, while leaving the Tsarina in charge of the country to be his "eyes and ears" (1 Impact of WWI). The Czar assuming leadership of the military made citizens believe that Russia would lose even faster in the war because if he wasn't a good leader of the country, than he certainly would not be a competent leader on the front lines. What enraged citizens even more than that is that they were left to obey the Tsarina who, "was German by birth and in the climate of the war the people hated all things German. To make things worse she turned to the disreputable monk, Rasputin for advice," (1 Impact of WWI). At this point, the Czar was looked at as an enemy for lying and shooting against his people and the Tsarina was looked at as an enemy for being of German origin, the Germans being the immediate enemy of Russia in World War I.
Some historians might believe that the February Revolution was due to an overthrow from without because of the same reasons, but the reason why each thing happened can be traced back to a decision that the Czar made. The Czar manipulated and was in control of everything that happened in Russia during this time therefore he is directly responsible for the political instability that was created. Due to selfish decision-making and lies, the February Revolution was a collapse from within.