Firstly the food shortages took their toll. How can any leader expect a hungry nation to be a peaceful one. The problem lay not in the fact that Russia simply did not have enough land, but in the fact that it lay rotting by the side of the unmanned railways, and the fields were, in the main part left fallow, because of the sheer lack of workers in t Russia. Excessive over militarisation by the Tsar had left with a vacuum of 13 million jobs unfilled, in industry, logistics and industry, which in turn had repercussions on the war. One Rouble could buy one sixth of the food in 1917 it could four years ago. Thus people grew hungry, and hungry people inevitably become angry people. This was not a problem of people, but of poor leadership and control.
Secondly strikes had risen to epidemic proportions. All over Petrograd workers rose up and demanded their daily bread, bread they had not seen for 4 years. Discontented with the war, meager pay and criminal working conditions, and with from essaybank.co.uk no Cossacks to stop them this time, Russian began to implode. This is not a picture of fragmented incidents, but a series of closely intertwined factors. All this could have been put to a halt by a competent leader. .
Instead of efficient, industrious leaders in the Kremlin, you had a German housewife and a mystical monk 'governing' in Petrograd. After dismissing all competent leaders, she was left with the charred, skeletal remains of an 'infrastructure.' None of her commands were effective any way as she was the enemy, who in any case was supposedly involved in an extra-marital affair with a hated Russian monk called Rasputin. The major failure of the Tsar was in the war. After taking over the reigns of the Russian military beast, every single failure could now be attributed to him, despite not being an unproficient strategist. Coupled with this was the fact that the eastern front was no better than a slaughter-house with over 9 million casualties, a death rate of over three-quarters.
