Historians have divided and often conflicting views about the fateful collapse of the Tsarist regime in early 1917. Some historians, known popularly as ‘optimistic’ historians believe that Russia between 1905 and 1917 was on the road to follow a western path of modernization and liberalization. And even creating a constitution had it not been for the war, which in their opinion created problems for the regime and led to its eventual downfall. On the other side of the coin, there are the ‘pessimistic’ historians who argue that the First World War was simply a catalyst or a speeding up of events that were inevitable, and unavoidable in the long run as there were severe socio-economic grievances that were being harbored since the 1905 revolution.
The optimistic view agrees entirely that the First World War to a large extent was culpable to the fall of Tsarism, the reason behind this argument is that before WW1 was to start Russia was stable and significantly moving towards political reform and then from there eventually to a constitutional monarchy, this is backed by the October Manifesto of 1905 which gave the population a voting and electoral process to set up the State Duma, however this reform was almost cancelled out by the advent of the Fundamental Laws in 1906. The Fundamental Laws were in actuality a regain of any and every control back to the government of the Tsar which was granted previously.
Here we discuss another important factor other than the war involving the collapse of the Tsarist regime, and that was Nicholas II’s personality. In 1905 the Tsar had capable and trusted ministers who advised him to make compromises and grant concessions to settle the revolution; however in 1917 the Tsar did not have this asset on his side. Also, what historians know of Nicholas II’s character is that he wanted to be a supreme ruler and autocrat like his father who he