‘The downfall of Tsar Nicholas II in February/March 1917 was due to popular discontent with the tsarist regime.’

'Let those in power make no mistake about the mood of the people… never were the Russian people… so profoundly revolutionised by the actions of the government, for day by day, faith in the government is steadily waning'. Quoted by Lenin 2 months prior to the events in 1917 to which Tsar Nicholas II was assassinated; this quote symbolises the dissolving of the God- like 'Little Father' figure Tsar Nicholas II had with the people of Russia. One may argue that popular discontent was a pivotal reason for the Tsar downfall, this is seen in the factors of War, The Tsars popularity and the lack of political reform. By 1917 the First World War had been waning, the war had produced heavily unfavourable press for the Tsar as he failed to command respect from his troops due to his military strategies, this had led to Russia having quick defeat in the fronts to which they covered. These defeats as well the general economic hardship that comes with war had led to domestic high food shortages, as well as suffering hyperinflation. By 1917 it was reported that that Russia's gold roubles had declined to 85%. WWI is a key factor to the damaging of relations between the Tsar and his people as the bad press coupled with food shortages, led to the people feeling abandoned by their 'little father'. Additionally, another factor we must consider would be the Tsar's popularity both with the proletariat class and the bourgeoise elite, albeit conversely. As mentioned, prior, the food shortages and heavy strikes had led to the disillusionment of the God like complex the working class had for the Tsar, for he no longer lived up to the expectations of a ruler let alone a 'Little Father'. The disillusionment of the bourgeoise elite however presents a more complex narrative. The elite had been disillusioned on twofold. One with the scandals emerging from the palace in the empress of Russia and Rasputin. It had been reported that Rasputin was a comforter to the Queen, as she had often turned to his guidance in regard to her personal spirituality and of the nation. This had led to many of the elite believing that the monarchy had become discredited; Rasputin was not of their class and had been injected into the lives of the elite by a weak monarchy. The second aspect of elite dissatisfaction with the Tsar lays within the theme of lack of political reform. The Duma by 1917 had ill relations with the Tsar, as he had rejected reforms from the Progressive Bloc. The central narrative of the reforms was for the Duma to possess greater say in the running of the country and for the Tsar to sharpen his focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people via land reform. The factors given demonstrate the loss of the people across the class spectrum, irreparably crippled the Tsar’s rule in the nation. For the nation had rejected him.However, an opposing view would suggest that popular discourse within Russia was amicable to the Tsar. The key reason by behind this line of argument would be the lack of mass movement towards the Tsar, there was some organised political opposition to the regime within the factories and general discontent for bread shortages and long queues for limited food, but this was not a new phenomenon by 1917. The Tsar had survived the same number of general grumblings and discontent in 1905, despite the key event of ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1905 where he commanded the troops to open fire to his people approaching the winter palace for help. If popular discontent was truly a factor to be considered credible for the reasons for the Tsars downfall in 1917, then why didn’t it happen in 1905 where one could suggest there was more cause for upheaval via the people. Despite this argument given, I believe that the citadels of Tsars downfall in 1917 lay within popular discontent as 1905 had only affected the working man and therefore wouldn’t have caused a full upheaval.