1

Why didn't the abdication of the Nicholas Tsar II duing the Russian Revolution solve Russia's political and social problems?

Can you give examples using primary or secondary sources?

Thanks :)

closed as too broad by Bregalad, Alex, Steve Bird, AllInOne, sempaiscuba May 13 at 17:20

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 5
    Welcome to HSE. Which research did you do about this subject? – José Carlos Santos May 13 at 6:27
  • 2
    "Political and social problems" are rarely, if ever, caused by a single person. – Annatar May 13 at 12:13
2

Brief Answer (but also clarifying OP's premise of this question):

Autocratic Russia under the Romanovs caused misery (lack of warmth, food, security, etc) during WW1. Abdication by Nicholas II to Michael (his younger brother) did not alleviate the problems faced by common folks.

Michael quickly abdicated as well because the populace did not support the Tsarist institution anymore. In other words, the conditions for Russian workers' revolt was not simply the existence of the Tsarist autocracy per se (altho' they clearly were the symbols and hence had the blame for it). It was the living conditions (daily life) of common folks (incl soldiers) who had to endure their contribution to WW1 as part of the Entente.

For very short read, see: G. J. Meyer, "A World Undone" (2006), chapter 27, "Revolution and Intervention". Many more detailed and authoritative books exist on the Russian Revolution, covering both revolutions, February & October (of 1917). Armistice between new Russia (officially Russian SFSR) and Central Powers happened soon after, December 2017. Clearly the new Russian government was acutely aware of the cause of the revolutions, and so they exited the Great War very quickly.

(Welcome to the site).

  • 3
    You ignored the Kerensky government, which is what I read between the lines as the real subject of OP' s question. It's kind of misleading to talk about "the new Russian government" when you just mean Lenin's. – Spencer May 13 at 12:58
  • @Spencer And before Kerensky, it was Prince Lvov's Provisional Government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Provisional_Government – Moishe Kohan May 13 at 15:08
  • @Spencer - In truth, there's so much more of course. Just to get new OP started was my intention, hence the brief answer with recommendation. – J Asia May 13 at 15:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.