Russia the only major belligerent power Why was Russia the only major belligerent power to experience a revolution and a successful coup d’etat during the war? Was the collapse of the imperial...

Russia the only major belligerent power

Why was Russia the only major belligerent power to experience a revolution and a successful coup d’etat during the war? Was the collapse of the imperial government in Germany at all similar?

Asked on by moocow554

8 Answers | Add Yours

brettd's profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

The economic situation was similar in France and Britain as well as Germany, but the United States experienced very little of that, in fact, quite the opposite as the industrial boom of the Merchants of Death was primarily responsible for the economic boom of the 1920s.  If there had not been a victory by the Allies, or perhaps only a cease fire where the Germans maintained their territorial gains, such revolts might have been successful in at least France, perhaps Britain as well.

kplhardison's profile pic

Karen P.L. Hardison | College Teacher | eNotes Employee

Posted on

Prior to the collapse of Imperial Germany, the U.S.and France formed a democratic alliance that helped stimulate and galvanize the French for the war effort of 1917 and 1918. In contrast, the military dictatorship of Germany, which set the Kaiser's authority aside, antagonized the populace who withdrew support for the war and began the lead-up to the collapse of the empire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/origins_01.shtml

accessteacher's profile pic

accessteacher | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

#5 makes a brilliant point. The aftermath of war created conditions of unrest and poverty in all countries involved. This is something that needs to be factored in to our consideration of Russia's revolution. Clearly, Russia's various tensions were worse than other countries which made the unrest have such dramatic results.

belarafon's profile pic

belarafon | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Responding to #5's point, we might also note that the United States did not have the same civil strife, perhaps because its own Civil War (1861-1865) was still such a recent occurrence; at the start of WWI (1914), there were still veterans and civilians alive who had experienced Civil War firsthand.

enotechris's profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted on

These posts bring up an excellent but often overlooked point -- during World War I, all of the major European powers experienced the rebellion of their citizenry to various degrees.  There were strikes and riots in Britian as the food shortage became severe, for an additional example.

Maybe the reason Russia experienced the greatest convulsions is because it began the war in the poorest conditions relative to her European cousins, and the war stressed an already anemic industry and government to the point of moribundity.

 

rrteacher's profile pic

rrteacher | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

The French Army also experienced a major mutiny that threatened to compromise their ability to fight in the early spring of 1917. Nearly half of their forces along the Western Front were in varying stages of mutiny after a disastrous series of decisions by Robert Nivelle. The mutinies were put down with a combination of more generous leave policies, several dozen (around 40) executions, and hundreds of mutiny leaders sentenced to hard labor. What is important to remember about the Russian Revolution is that it involved two stages- the provisional government, which emerged after the abdication of the tsar, and the Bolshevik Revolution, which overthrew the provisional government.

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

The Russian Revolution was spurred on by increasingly troublesome economic conditions that resulted from the war.  Every country in Europe was experiencing a bit of economic and social upheaval, but the right actors were there to influence the unrest into revolution.

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

It was a bit similar.  After all, both collapses were caused by failure in the war.  In both cases, the legitimacy of the imperial governments were tied up with their ability to function well.  If they could not do better than they did in the war, it was clear that they were defective.

Also, both collapses were started by mutinies within the armed forces.

We’ve answered 318,989 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question