Was the russian Tsar's abdiction in 1917 inevitable?

Question

Just wanted to know everybody's thoughts on the matter. I personally think that it was, but he abdicted too late.

Answer 1

The Imperial family were brought up to believe that they had total control over Russia and this was the case, but with industrialization and soldiers travelling many saw a different type of leadership and started to question their own.
I agree that if Nicholas ll have abdicated earlier the family would have had the opportunity to leave Russia and live in exile, but he didn't. He believed that the Romanoff dynasty should continue and continue in the same stately manor, so while millions were starving and living in poverty the Imperial family continued to live in luxury, with little concession to the economy. This problem was further compounded during WW1 when Nicholas took command of the armies. It caused a greater discontent among the troops and coupled with the rumours and speculation surrounding the Empress it was inevitable that he would abdicate or be assassinated.

Answer 2

I would say it was inevitable but it would have cost the tsar a far less price if had decided earlier to do it.The abdication occured in 1917 after the worst damage had been done to his forces in the field and the morale at the homefront was at an all-time low. If you add on the uprisings caused by the communists and Kerensky's people then the warning light should have been going off very brightly. we must also looked back to the Revolution of 1905 after the Russians lose to the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. and their cries for an autonomy of sorts was brutally crushed by a tsar who believed in the absoluteness of his rule which was outdated .

Answer 3

No. In February 1917, Nicholas was at Perm on his way back from the Eastern Front when he was confronted with the news of riots in St Petersburg and the news of mutiny of the army. When Kerensky spoke to Nicholas in his carriage, it was Kerensky who convinced Nicholas that abdicating was in the best interests of Russia.

If Nicholas was willing to implement changes and give up his claim to autocracy and to become a constitutional monarch - the situation might have been different. All Nicholas had to do was to show some backbone and Kerensky would have been without options.

Either way, Nicholas listened to Kerensky and abdicated first in favour of his son Alexei, then later changed the decision to Nicholas brother, Michael. But Kerensky also got into Michael's ear about abdicating and so Michael rejected the throne - and ending the monarchy.

Answer 4

absolutely - russia had, and still has, a very volatile social structure due to a feudal system that was particularly devoid of compassion for serfs/peasants. in the 19th century, feudal lords held sway over the masses...nowadays, its the oligarchs.