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

Upvote: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).

More post

Search Posts

Related post