Why Is Tsar Nicholas II's Failings

974 Words2 Pages

“The February Revolution was entirely due to Tsar Nicholas II’s failings.” How far do you agree or disagree? (25 marks.)

Tsar Nicholas’ autocratic rule over Russia placed him in a position of personal responsibility over the country’s political, social, and economic affairs. In light of this, it should be argued that the discontent leading to the revolution of February 1917 came as a direct result of the Tsar’s weaknesses.

On the one hand, there is evidence to challenge this statement. It can be said that upon his death, Nicholas’s father Alexander III handed his son a poisoned chalice. Alexander’s domestic policies, which included attempts to homogenise the deeply multinational Russia into a country which spoke a single language and had …show more content…

While the Tsar had allowed the creation of a legislative Duma following the 1905 Revolution, it is clear that he refused to relinquish any of his autocratic powers to it. An example of this is his refusal to replace his largely ineffective cabinet with a ‘Ministry of National Confidence’ led by members of the Progressive Bloc, a side-group of the Duma consisting of Russia’s progressive parties. This in turn led to the Progressive Bloc becoming a focal point of political resistance, and meant that the Tsar would never again have the support of the political parties which could have supported a constitutional monarchy and the continuance of the Romanov …show more content…

The most prominent example of this is his appointment of Sergei Witte as Finance Minister, whose economic reforms hit the peasants and working classes the hardest, leading to growing resentment. Witte not only increased state taxes and taxes on everyday items such as salt, kerosene, and alcohol, but kept urban workers’ wages low so that all available capital went to industrial development. This was supposed to lead to huge industrial growth, but following the international slump in 1902 and bad harvests in 1900 and 1902, peasants were pushed past their breaking points. The periodic famines suffered by peasants combined with grievances such as poverty and high taxes led to widespread violence in which the homes of landowners were looted and burned. This economic mismanagement further increased the suffering of the lower classes and thus led to a growing hatred of the Tsarist regime, which ultimately led to the strikes which began the February

Show More
Related

  • Does Nicholas And Alexandra Show Inadequate Leadership That Led To The Collapse Of The Old Regime

    1380 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime. Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country.

    Read More

  • Essay On Tsar's Power Crumbled In 1917

    572 Words  | 2 Pages

    Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These people were the urban working class of Russia and they were not as eager to accept the poor wages and conditions as the peasants were.

    Read More

  • Czar Nicholas II's Abuse Of Power

    128 Words  | 1 Pages

    I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.

    Read More

  • The Failure of the Provisional Government and the Rise of the Bolsheviks

    1871 Words  | 4 Pages

    Three "Whys" of the Russian Revolution, The Russian Revolution, and Rethinking the Russian Revolution. Writing of an annotated bibliography of the topic. 2. Selection and reading of the sources to determine which ones are the most relevant and comprehensive 3. Finding opposing arguments to give and analytical view with multiple perspectives 4.

    Read More

  • Russian Revolution Dbq Essay

    465 Words  | 1 Pages

    It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.

    Read More

  • Czar Nicholas II

    683 Words  | 2 Pages

    Czar Nicholas’ poor leadership forced him to abdicate and caused the Bolshevik takeover. One of the reasons I say that is because of the way he handled “Bloody Sunday”. “Bloody Sunday” was when troops killed over a thousand people in a peaceful worker assembly. After “Bloody Sunday”, workers all over Russia went on strike, and peasants caused uprisings that were suppressed by Nicholas II’s troops causing tensions to increase. Another reason was his disastrous involvement in World War I. In the beginning of the war, Russia’s armies did not do well. To fix this, Nicholas became the commander. Now under his command, their continued failure reflected the Czar himself, further decreasing his popularity. Lastly, civil unrest grew as food riots, chronic food shortages, and labor strikes continued to proceed. This eventually erupted into open revolt, and Czar Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate. Soon after, the new government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin.

    Read More

  • Russia's Condition before the Bolshevik Revolution

    988 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the late 19th century Russia had been notably behind Europe economically, they weren’t in possession of the modern farming technologies that could efficiently provide for a large country. As a result 90% of the Russian population were peasants (Massey, 4). The serfs lived in deep poverty; they didn’t have the appropriate apparatus to produce enough crops and most of their landlords had unbelievably high demands. In an effort to reform the economy’s recession tsar Alexander II liberated the serfs. However this created more bad for both the serfs and the nobles. In the beginning the serfs saw this is a great victory and another reason to be thankful for their tsar. But as timed pass by the peasants saw this life of liberty and freedom to be increasingly difficult. The government directly compensated the nobles, while the less desirable land was sold to the peasants at a much higher price. They monthly rent they paid the nobles was replaced with paying the state (Massey, 5). And while the population nearly doubled between 1861-1917 poverty increased not only with the peasants but with the nobles as well. Nobles found it hard to assimilate them to a new life style where they would have to trade their lavish goods with farming tools and as result many of them acquired a large amount of debt. This period signifies a time where the people of Russia opened their eyes to the deep poverty and lives of oppression they were living. This is the point where the feelings of peasants who previously worshiped the tsar turned bitter. After consistent resistance to industrialization the tsar had finally given in, aggressive approaches were put in place and railroads grew more than 15,500 miles in 1880 (Massey,6). As the Industrial production con...

    Read More

  • Essay On The Causes Of Russian Revolution

    1114 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Russian revolution of February 1917 was a momentous event in the course of Russian history. The causes of the revolution were very critical and even today historians debate on what was the primary cause of the revolution. The revolution began in Petrograd as “a workers’ revolt” in response to bread shortages. It removed Russia from the war and brought about the transformation of the Russian Empire into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, replacing Russia’s monarchy with the world’s first Communist state. The revolution opened the door for Russia to fully enter the industrial age. Before 1917, Russia was a mostly agrarian nation. The Russian working class had been for many years fed up with the ways they had to live and work and it was only a matter of time before they had to take a stand. Peasants worked many hours for low wages and no land, which caused many families to lose their lives. Some would argue that World War I led to the intense downfall of Russia, while others believe that the main cause was the peasant unrest because of harsh living conditions. Although World War I cost Russia many resources and much land, the primary cause of the Russian Revolution was the peasant unrest due to living conditions because even before the war began in Russia there were outbreaks from peasants due to the lack of food and land that were only going to get worse with time.

    Read More

  • Tzar Nicholas II - Downfall of Russia

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia

    Read More

  • The Iranian Revolution and the Russian Revolution

    1667 Words  | 4 Pages

    Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590

    Read More

  • The Causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917

    871 Words  | 2 Pages

    The. Economic reasons are probably the most obvious. There was an unbearable poverty amongst a large number of peasants. The poorer, the poorer. non-land-owning peasants have lost their jobs shortly after the 1905 revolution due to the new creation of a middle, land-owning class.

    Read More

  • 1917 Russian Revolution Essay

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.

    Read More

  • Challenges Faced by the Tsar Nicholas the Second of Russia

    871 Words  | 2 Pages

    The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.

    Read More

  • Historical-Cultural Context of Animal Farm

    1882 Words  | 4 Pages

    This turned into a revolt against Czar. By the year of 1917 lots of Russian citizens lost faith in their leader Czar Nicholas II. The citizens lost faith in Czar’s leadership due to the governments corruption, Russia’s economy, and Czar constantly affecting the success of the Duma ( the Russian legislative assembly established by Czar Nicholas II in 1905) .This impacted Russia in a disastrous way, which caused Czar Nicholas II to be overthrown. A few months later after Czar was overthrown, the new provisional government was overthrown by Bolsheviks.

    Read More

  • How accurate is it to say that Lenin’s leadership was the reason for Bolshevik success in November 1917.

    765 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...was alone, Lenin’s leadership that enabled the Bolsheviks to seize power in November 1917. On the other hand, if we consolidate the facts we have covered in the essay we can identify key points that were capitalised on by Lenin such as the weakness of the provisional government and using his influence to motivate the Bolshevik Central Committee, we cannot deny that these were some of the more crucial factors regarding the Bolshevik seizure of power and without them a November Revolution may not have happened. A result of that would be a legitimate leadership within Russia and the Bolsheviks would then be seen as the aggressors. Concluding this we can make the decision that it was not Lenin alone who was the reason for the success of the Bolshevik coup rather an overall period of instability within the Russian leadership and the Bolsheviks offered an alternative.

    Read More

More about Why Is Tsar Nicholas II's Failings

Open Document