The effects of the war and the influence of Rasputin

What the specification asks for

“Economic, social and political effects of the First World War on Russia. Influence of Rasputin.” — examined through causation and consequence. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

What the war did to Russia

Russia mobilised around fifteen million men, the largest army in the world and the worst equipped. Losses were enormous — several million killed, wounded and captured by 1917 — and the Great Retreat of 1915 gave up Poland, Lithuania and much of Latvia. Some equipment shortages were real and some were exaggerated afterwards; by 1916 the Brusilov offensive showed the army could still fight and cost around a million more casualties.

Economically the war broke the transport system before it broke production. Munitions output rose substantially by 1916; what failed was distribution. The railways were committed to military traffic, so grain reached the cities erratically while it existed in the countryside. Peasants, unable to buy manufactured goods, had less reason to sell. Inflation ran fast as the government printed money, and by early 1917 Petrograd was receiving a fraction of the flour it needed.

Socially the cities filled with new workers in appalling housing, and the winter of 1916–17 was severe. Queueing for bread in extreme cold became the daily experience of working-class women in Petrograd, which is where February begins.

Rasputin, and what he actually signified

Grigori Rasputin was a Siberian peasant and self-appointed holy man who came to court because he could apparently relieve the bleeding of the haemophiliac heir, Alexei — a condition kept secret from the public, which made his presence inexplicable to outsiders and therefore open to any interpretation.

His actual political influence has been consistently overstated: he had no office, and appointments attributed to him often had other sponsors. What he did was more damaging than what he decided. The Empress Alexandra, German-born and unpopular, relied on him and defended him; rumours of drunkenness, sexual scandal and treason circulated freely once censorship of court affairs collapsed; and cartoons showing him controlling the imperial couple were sold openly.

That is the examinable point: his significance is a lesson about reputation as a political fact. A monarchy whose legitimacy is personal cannot survive its personal reputation being destroyed, and it does not matter whether the stories are true. He was murdered by nobles including a prince of the imperial family in December 1916 — an act intended to save the monarchy, which demonstrated instead that its own class had given up on it.

September 1915: the decision

Nicholas dismissed his cousin, the Grand Duke Nicholas, and took personal command at Mogilev. Every minister advised against it.

It had three effects and all were bad. It made him personally responsible for every subsequent defeat, since he was now the commander. It removed him from Petrograd for long periods, leaving government in the hands of the Empress, whose German birth made every decision suspect. And it produced ministerial leapfrog: in the sixteen months to February 1917 Russia had four prime ministers, five interior ministers, three foreign ministers and three war ministers, so that no policy could be carried through.

By November 1916 Milyukov could stand in the Duma, list the government's failures and ask after each whether it was stupidity or treason — with the crowd answering — and go unpunished. When a leading liberal can imply treason at court in the legislature without consequence, the regime has already lost the argument.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

1914–15

Mass mobilisation; the Great Retreat gives up Poland and Lithuania. Why this date: The defeats that produced the pressure for the decision of September 1915.

September 1915

Nicholas takes personal command against all ministerial advice. Why this date: The single most consequential decision of his reign, and it is a decision rather than a circumstance.

1915–17

Ministerial leapfrog: four prime ministers and five interior ministers in sixteen months. Why this date: Government becomes incapable of policy, which is a measurable consequence of his absence.

November 1916

Milyukov's stupidity or treason speech. Why this date: Liberal opinion breaks with the regime publicly and without consequence.

December 1916

Rasputin murdered by nobles including a grand duke. Why this date: The court's own attempt to save the monarchy from itself, and it changed nothing.

The figures, and how far to trust them

• About 15 million — Men mobilised by Russia, the largest army in the world.
• 4, 5, 3, 3 — Prime, interior, foreign and war ministers in the sixteen months to February 1917.
• Several million — Russian killed, wounded and captured by 1917. (Totals vary widely; Russian record-keeping was poor and prisoner numbers are especially uncertain.)

The people to place

• Nicholas II — Took personal command in September 1915 and made himself responsible for the defeats that followed.
• Alexandra — German-born Empress who governed in his absence and defended Rasputin; every decision was read through her origin.
• Grigori Rasputin — Court favourite whose significance was reputational rather than administrative; murdered December 1916.
• Pavel Milyukov — Kadet leader whose November 1916 speech marked the break of liberal opinion with the regime.

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: Rasputin ran the Russian government.

This: He held no office and his influence over appointments is much disputed. His significance is what his presence allowed people to believe about the monarchy, which was more destructive than any decision he could have taken.

Not this: Russia's armies collapsed because they had no rifles.

This: Shortages in 1915 were real and munitions output had risen substantially by 1916, when the Brusilov offensive was launched. The decisive failure was transport and distribution, which is why the cities starved while grain existed.

Two things students merge

Blurred: Food shortage and distribution failure.

The distinction: Russia had grain. The railways, committed to military traffic, could not move it, and peasants had nothing to buy with the money. Saying 'there was no food' misdescribes the cause and therefore the remedy.

Blurred: Rasputin's influence and Rasputin's effect.

The distinction: His influence on policy was limited and disputed; his effect on the monarchy's reputation was enormous and is not disputed. Separating them is what turns an anecdote into an argument.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer explains February with a decision rather than with conditions. Hardship existed in every belligerent country; what Russia added was a monarch who made himself personally responsible for defeat, left the capital to a wife whose nationality made her suspect, and produced a government that changed its interior minister five times in sixteen months.

3 · How it is examined

This strand is genuinely set through: Paper 2 Section A (a) (6 marks — “Describe TWO features of EITHER … OR ….”); Paper 2 Section A (b) (8 marks — “How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about …? Explain your answer.”); Paper 2 Section A (c) (16 marks — “Extract C suggests that …. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer.”).

What earns marks: The September 1915 decision, with its three consequences named. It converts an account of wartime hardship into an explanation that identifies a decision and its author.

4 · Prove it — the questions

Answered inside Incandio, where a marker checks what a correct answer must contain and tells you which half was missing. The marking stays in the app; the questions are here.

1. Describe TWO effects of the First World War on Russia. [6 marks · Paper 2 Section A (a)]
2. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about the influence of Rasputin? Explain your answer. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section A (b)]
3. Describe TWO consequences of Nicholas II taking command of the army in 1915. [6 marks · Paper 2 Section A (a)]
4. Extract C suggests that the First World War was the main cause of the fall of the Tsar. How far do you agree with this interpretation? Use Extract C, Sources A and B and your own knowledge to explain your answer. [16 marks · Paper 2 Section A (c)]
5. How far does Source A support the evidence of Source B about conditions in Petrograd in early 1917? Explain your answer. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section A (b)]

Decide it

This lesson feeds a Decide History judgement — a position you commit to, an objection you answer, a criterion you name: Would there have been a revolution in 1917 without the war?.

Carry on through the option

• Previous lesson, in key topic 1: The four Dumas, Stolypin's repression and land reform, and Lena
• Next lesson: February 1917: Petrograd, the army mutiny and the abdication
• Key topic 2 · Opposition to Tsarist rule 1914–17: the impact of war and the February Revolution · Russia and the Soviet Union, 1905–24 · the option's timeline · Incandio History
• The other key topics of Russia and the Soviet Union: Tsarist rule in Russia, 1905–14 · Provisional Government and the Bolshevik Revolution · The Bolshevik consolidation of power and the Civil War · War Communism and the New Economic Policy (NEP)