In fact, its collapse was far from inevitable. In the case of the Russian Revolution, such forces existed for many years before 1917 yet the country was relatively stable during the time. An excerpt from Harrison Salisbury's analysis of the pre-Revolutionary period: "From the years 1903 up until the 1917 Revolution, there was the looming presence of economic and social turmoil in the land. It teetered back and forth, sometimes violently, sometimes slowly, but never far enough to the edge. In retrospect the revolts in 1905 looked as if they may have pushed the country over the edge, but they never did. Even before 1917, if you read the Russian or foreign press, or memoirs of the time, you find that hardly anyone expected the downfall of tsarism- (Salisbury 136). This passage stresses the point that these forces (economic and social) measured alone were stagnant and glacial, moving slowly and constantly. The structure in place consistently weathered their impacts and was never to be toppled solely by their effects (Pipes Three 32). Moreover, the initiated people of the times could not foresee the Revolution in their own status quo, showing conclusively that those present acting forces alone, could not ever conceivably add up to something truly significant, a greater push was necessary. In 1914, Russia emerged as a power and key participant in World War I. Needless to say, it was to cause tremendous friction to the already tense situation in Russia at home. The monarchy had been for a long time before this date battling a fierce war of ideology and propaganda with the radical intelligentsia and numerous political parties vying for power in Russia (Satter 36). War made the crown even more vulnerable because their attention and resources would be split between two fronts: the home front in addition to the so-called Eastern Front.
