More handpicked essays just for you.
The collapse of communism in the ussr
The collapse of communism in the ussr
Collapse of ussr and the end of the cold war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How Far Nicholas the Second was Responsible for the Collapse of the Tsarist Regime
For the duration of Tsarist autocracy, Russia was considered by far
the most rampant of all European nations. Under indispensable law, the
despotic Tsar would be the solitary power ruling over all of the
Russian empire. Equipped with such an immense power, the ability for
an individual Tsar to practice articulate policies and rule
efficiently was critical to Russia’s survival. Under a coherent and an
unwavering leader, one such as Alexander III, Russia had enough
demeanor and agility to prosper as a nation. However the succession of
his heir, Nicholas II brought with it a ruler who proved to be both
weak and indecisive. Nicholas’s faltering nature under mounting
remonstration from the Russian public, allowed for the total
disintegration of the tsarist regime, thus making Nicholas II entirely
accountable for the dissolution of his tsarist establishment.
Succeeding the assassination of Alexander III, a considerable number
of liberal reformers and aggressive revolutionaries came into
existence. Such reactions were stimulated partly due to the abrupt
halt of the rapid industrialization that was undergone by Russia
during the reign of Alexander III. In addition however Nicholas’s
policies of tsarism and Russification shaped circumstances in which a
large number of liberal and nationalistic groups were becoming
gradually more aggravated (Tsarist Russia). Regardless of increasing
police scrutiny, numerous well established opposition groups formed
against the tsarist regime (history.com).
In an endeavor to divert interest from domestic revolutions, Nicholas
initiated conflict against Japan in 1905. Nicholas’s primary
aspiration in engaging in such a war was perhaps to merge and
amalgamate the Russian public with the tsarist government. Conversely
Russia’s degrading defeat in the Russo-Japanese war enthused the
opposite reaction. Tsar Nicholas II was entirely liable for the inept
result of the military. In actual fact the significance of the Russian
anti-tsar protest well dissevered the value of the description “the
1905 revolution”. The implications of 1905 revolution required
Nicholas to unenthusiastically compromise with the demands and
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.
After the assassination of Alexander the Great in 1881 by Russian socialist revolutionaries, Alexander III ascended to the throne and began to develop a reactionary policy that would be used to suppress the power of anti-tsarist rivals (Kort 23). In the late 1800s, Tsar Alexander III was faced with growing insurrection from the populist peasants, who were demanding more freedoms and land under the Tsarist regime. However, he was unwilling to give up his traditional centralized authority for a more democratic system of ruling. Instead, he sought political guidance from his advisor, Konstantin Pobedonostsev, an Orthodox religious conservative and loyal member of the Russian autocracy. Pobedonostsev was quick to hound revolutionaries by means
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.
...he Russo-Japanese War. Despite the changes, Russia remained technologically inferior to the rest of the world. It was due to its great resources and population that Russia was able to compete with the other world powers in war and in commerce. Russia did not have the succession of leaders that supported industrialization like Japan did. Therefore, Russia, with Alexander II as czar, made few reforms to encourage industrialization. It was only through the multiple peasant revolts that Russia began to change. Both of these nations experienced changes in government, an increase in economic strength and transportation, and radical changes in the structure of the social classes.
Nicholas in the end was the one to blame. He had the ability to aid in the situations and make different choices but didn’t. In the end it was evident that there were many contributing factors to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty, such as the Revolution, the influence of Rasputin and Alexandra and World War I, which all lead to the social and economic issues in Russia. Even with all these factors it still all comes back to Nicholas. His incapability of supplying the Army with the needed weapons and aid, the lack of preparation and direction to the Army and his failure to provide for or even listen to the needs of his people certainly do not make Nicholas look good. Even though it seems that Nicholas had good intentions he was incompetent as a leader and he in fact was one of the main causes of the demise of a 300 year Romanov Dynasty.
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.
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.
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.
Wood, A. (1986). The Russian Revolution. Seminar Studies in History. (2) Longman, p 1-98. ISBSN 0582355591, 9780582355590
Why Nicholas II Survived the Revolution of 1905 but Not that of 1917? When Father Gapon and his followers marched peacefully in the Winter Palace on 22nd January in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday. to the extreme reaction leading to the massacre of the protestors, it sparked the revolution of 1905, consisting of workers' strikes and protests in addition to terrorising the wealthy and important upper classes. The.
But the Tsar had least central control. After the 1905 Revolution the Russian people were granted civil rights, an... ... middle of paper ... ... ressed the Tsars lost support from the nobles and power, after 1905 revolution Nicholas II had very little central control.
When war broke out in July 1914, Russia’s internal divisions were temporarily forgotten and Tsar Nicholas II rode a wave of support. The Times wrote, “For perhaps the first time since Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, the people and their Tsar were one”. However it would be a mistake to see the short term rise in patriotic support for Russia and The Tsar as having anything other than a transient effect on Russian government and politic. As the war dragged on, the toll of casualties, hunger, and economic privation were exploited by the Tsar’s enemies.
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.
Revolutions have taken place almost everywhere around the world, so why don't we compare one of the biggest revolutions allegory, to an other one to see if it is still relevant to read the allegory to today, so let's look at the real thing versus the allegory. Animal Farm, was the allegory for the Russian Revolution, simplifying it to farm animals running their own farm. From executions, ambition, power struggles, and propaganda were shown in this allegory. So, what was the thing that was most pronounced in this revolution, to see if it is still relevant to today, was revolution and corruption. So, let's look at why we're looking at Animal Farm and to its real counterpart,