The February/March Revolution of 1917 ended centuries of Tsarist rule in Russia, exposing deep political, economic, and social fractures exacerbated by war.
The State of Russia Before 1917
Political Backdrop and the Role of Tsar Nicholas II
Russia was an autocracy, ruled solely by Tsar Nicholas II, who held absolute power over government, military, and law.
Nicholas II was seen as weak, indecisive, and resistant to political reform. His inability to address demands for constitutional change after the 1905 Revolution fuelled opposition.
The Duma, created in 1905 to appease reformists, had little real power as the Tsar could dissolve it at will, undermining any sense of representation.
Political parties and revolutionary groups operated illegally or underground, but repression only strengthened their resolve.
Economic Conditions
Despite industrial growth, Russia remained economically backward compared to Western Europe.
The majority of Russians were peasants living in poverty, with outdated farming techniques resulting in frequent food shortages.
Industrial workers in cities like Petrograd faced low wages, long hours, and dangerous working conditions.
Economic modernisation did not keep pace with rapid urbanisation, causing overcrowding and poor living standards.
Social Discontent
A rigid class structure divided Russian society:
Nobility and clergy held privileges and land.
Peasants made up around 80% of the population, burdened by taxes and land hunger.
Urban workers grew in number, forming a volatile group demanding better conditions.
Intellectuals and middle classes, frustrated by political stagnation, supported liberal and radical movements seeking reform or revolution.
Impact of World War I
Russia’s involvement in WWI was disastrous:
Massive military defeats, high casualties, and inadequate equipment demoralised soldiers.
Millions of men at the front caused severe labour shortages in agriculture and industry.
The war effort drained resources, leading to inflation, food scarcity, and fuel shortages.
Tsar Nicholas II’s decision to command the army himself in 1915 linked him directly to military failures, eroding confidence in his leadership.
Causes and Key Events of the February Revolution
Long-Term Causes
Political repression and failure to implement genuine constitutional reform since 1905.
Worsening economic crisis due to war and poor government management.
Rising social tensions among workers, peasants, and the middle classes.
Short-Term Triggers
The harsh winter of 1916–17 led to food and fuel shortages in cities, increasing public anger.
Strikes and protests grew throughout Petrograd as workers demanded bread and an end to the war.
International Women’s Day on 23 February (8 March, New Style) saw thousands of women protesting food rationing, sparking mass demonstrations.
The Escalation
Strikes spread rapidly; by late February, over 200,000 workers were on strike in Petrograd.
Soldiers were ordered to suppress protests but many mutinied, refusing to fire on crowds and instead joining the demonstrators.
The breakdown of authority was clear as police forces were overwhelmed and government ministers fled.
Role of the Army, Workers, and Peasants
The Army
Soldiers’ mutinies were pivotal: regiments, already disillusioned by battlefield defeats and poor treatment, sided with protestors.
The Petrograd garrison’s defection removed the Tsar’s main means of repression.
The Workers
Urban workers organised massive strikes and demonstrations.
Factories shut down, transport halted, and workers’ committees began to emerge, demanding political change.
The Peasants
Peasants were less directly involved in the February events but their long-standing grievances against landlords and hunger for land added to the overall climate of unrest.
Many soldiers were peasants in uniform, bringing rural discontent into the army ranks.
The Tsar’s Abdication and New Power Structures
Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II
With authority collapsing, Nicholas attempted to return to Petrograd but was stopped by revolutionaries controlling the railways.
On 2 March 1917 (15 March, New Style), under immense pressure from military and political leaders, Nicholas II abdicated for himself and his son.
This ended more than 300 years of Romanov rule, leaving a power vacuum.
Formation of the Provisional Government
Former Duma members quickly formed the Provisional Government, intending to run Russia until elections could create a democratic assembly.
Led by Prince Lvov and later Alexander Kerensky, it promised civil liberties, amnesty for political prisoners, and preparations for a constituent assembly.
Emergence of the Petrograd Soviet
At the same time, the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies was re-established by socialist leaders and workers.
It represented workers and soldiers, controlling key infrastructure like the railways, post, and telegraph.
The Soviet issued Order No. 1, asserting control over the army and undermining the Provisional Government’s authority.
Dual Authority: Concept and Limitations
The Idea of Dual Authority
From March 1917, Russia had two centres of power:
Provisional Government: recognised internationally and formally held executive power.
Petrograd Soviet: held real power on the ground, commanding the loyalty of workers and soldiers.
This arrangement, known as Dual Authority, was an uneasy compromise to prevent chaos.
Limitations and Challenges
The Provisional Government lacked the means to enforce decisions without Soviet approval, limiting its effectiveness.
It struggled to address key demands:
Continuing the war alienated soldiers and workers who wanted peace.
Failure to tackle land reform angered peasants.
Economic problems persisted, with strikes and food shortages unresolved.
The Soviet, though influential, chose not to take power directly at first, believing Russia needed a “bourgeois phase” before socialism could succeed.
Consequences
The inability of the Provisional Government to solve urgent issues eroded popular support.
The Dual Authority structure meant conflicting policies and growing frustration.
This unstable power-sharing set the stage for further radicalisation, creating conditions ripe for the Bolsheviks to gain support and ultimately seize power later in 1917.
By spring 1917, the Russian Empire had crumbled, and a fragile, divided government struggled to hold a vast, war-weary nation together.
FAQ
The February Revolution succeeded primarily due to the scale of support it gained and the breakdown of state authority, which contrasted sharply with the failure of the 1905 Revolution. In 1905, Tsar Nicholas II was able to suppress dissent with promises of reform, including the October Manifesto and the creation of the Duma. However, these reforms were later undermined, and the Tsar retained significant control. In 1917, by contrast, Russia was embroiled in a devastating world war, which magnified economic hardship, social unrest, and military discontent. The Petrograd garrison, which had remained largely loyal in 1905, mutinied en masse in 1917, depriving the Tsar of his coercive power. Moreover, revolutionary groups were more organised by 1917, and the masses had lost all faith in the monarchy. The Provisional Government formed rapidly to fill the power vacuum, while the Tsar lacked both support and means to resist. These factors made the 1917 uprising far more decisive and irreversible.
Order No. 1, issued by the Petrograd Soviet on 1 March 1917, had a profound and immediate effect on the authority of the Provisional Government. The order instructed soldiers to obey the Provisional Government only if its orders did not contradict those of the Soviet, effectively placing the Soviet in a position of supreme military influence. This undermined the government's ability to enforce policies and maintain control over the armed forces. As a result, the Provisional Government became reliant on the Soviet’s goodwill, leading to the phenomenon of Dual Authority. In practice, this meant the Soviet could veto or delay any action that required military support, limiting the Provisional Government’s capacity to govern effectively. The army’s loyalty shifted from the state to the Soviet, leaving government ministers with little real power. This inability to control force or act independently weakened the Provisional Government from the outset and contributed to its eventual collapse later in 1917.
Railway workers played a crucial but often underappreciated role in the success of the February Revolution. As Russia’s vast geography relied heavily on rail for both civilian life and military logistics, disruption to this network had a severe impact. By early 1917, railway strikes were widespread, crippling food deliveries to urban centres like Petrograd and worsening shortages. The inability to move grain from rural areas to cities directly fuelled unrest, leading to bread riots and strikes. Moreover, railway workers had strong organisational links and often collaborated with other urban labourers, strengthening the revolutionary momentum. Their strikes also had a political function—by paralysing troop movements, they isolated the Tsar from the capital. When Nicholas II attempted to return to Petrograd in early March, revolutionary railwaymen redirected or halted his train, cutting him off from loyal forces and hastening his abdication. Thus, rail workers contributed materially and strategically to the revolution’s success.
The collapse of the police force in Petrograd was pivotal to the success of the February Revolution. As unrest grew, the Tsarist regime relied increasingly on the police to maintain order, particularly in controlling strikes and demonstrations. However, by late February 1917, many police officers were overwhelmed or unwilling to act, and some were even targeted by angry crowds. Revolutionary activists encouraged the destruction of police stations and the release of political prisoners. The disintegration of police authority created a power vacuum on the streets, allowing workers and soldiers to take control of public spaces. Without police enforcement, the Tsarist regime could no longer suppress dissent or protect government institutions. In contrast to the army, the police had no broader institutional base or alternative command structure to stabilise the situation. Their rapid collapse signalled the end of state coercive power in Petrograd, making it impossible for Nicholas II to reassert control, ultimately forcing his abdication.
The Provisional Government remained committed to continuing Russia’s involvement in World War I despite widespread public opposition, due to a combination of political, diplomatic, and economic factors. Firstly, many government leaders, particularly liberals and moderate socialists, believed that a swift withdrawal would undermine Russia’s credibility with the Allies. They feared that abandoning the war would lead to diplomatic isolation and a loss of support, especially financial and military aid from Britain and France. Secondly, they hoped that a victorious conclusion to the war might strengthen the new government’s legitimacy. Economically, the war effort had tied Russia into international financial arrangements that the government feared unravelling. Lastly, internal divisions within the Provisional Government and its reliance on military leadership for stability made it difficult to shift policy. These strategic calculations, however, clashed with the demands of workers, peasants, and soldiers who wanted peace—deepening discontent and fuelling revolutionary sentiment that later benefited the Bolsheviks.
Practice Questions
Explain why Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in March 1917.
Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate due to his failure to implement political reforms, his disastrous handling of World War I, and widespread social discontent. His autocratic rule alienated liberals and radicals alike, while military defeats demoralised both soldiers and civilians. The food and fuel shortages in cities ignited strikes and mass protests, which escalated when the army mutinied rather than suppress unrest. With the Duma and army leaders withdrawing support, Nicholas lost all authority. Cut off from loyal troops, he had no choice but to abdicate, ending centuries of Romanov rule.
How significant was the role of the Petrograd Soviet in undermining the Provisional Government in March 1917?
The Petrograd Soviet played a crucial role in undermining the Provisional Government from its inception. By issuing Order No. 1, it effectively took control of the army, removing the government’s main power of enforcement. Although it formally allowed the Provisional Government to operate, in practice it limited its authority by influencing workers and soldiers directly. The Soviet controlled communication networks and transport in Petrograd, weakening government decisions. This dual power arrangement created confusion and eroded confidence in the Provisional Government’s ability to tackle war, land reform, and economic hardship, paving the way for Bolshevik influence later.
