Nicholas Withdrawal Of Tsar's Autocracy

301 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Tsarist vs communist rule

We, the commoners of Russia, demand the withdrawal of the Tsar from his office. Nicholas the second has absolutely no idea how to run an autocracy. When we asked for reformation, that was desperately needed, he gave us a medieval system that is ineffective in modern society. He forced us into a grieving war and for what; for countless innocent young men to die. Our successful farm found their labour and materials extracted for the war. This put many of our hard working farmers into debt with no chance of recovery. These poor wages we receive from the factories causes us to not be able to afford a loaf of bread. Our farmers are issued small amounts of land, and in return, they have to pay a sum to the government. This sum becomes even further

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

    For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.

    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

  • Czar Nicholas II: The Fall Of The Tsar Of Russia

    2251 Words  | 5 Pages

    The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,

    Read More

  • The Collapse of the Tsardom

    501 Words  | 2 Pages

    In order to be able to assess the reasons as to why it was that the

    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

  • Changes Brought by The Russian Revolution

    785 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nicholas was considered a selfish ruler with no love for his very own people. Nicholas was forced to give up his throne by a strike that broke out in Petrograd on March 1917(Kindersley). After Nicholas getting forced out of his throne a party called The Mensheviks formed a govern-ment made up of revolutionary’s but failed. The Bolsheviks came right after seeking to enforce Marxism and gain power. The Czar Family were arrested and all killed after a year,

    Read More

  • Tzar Nicholas II - Downfall of Russia

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    Nicholas 2's firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a liberal zemstvo head before his coronation. "I shall maintain the principal of autocracy just as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable dead father (Alexandra 3)"(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative political outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If there were any doubts about Nicholas' belief in autocracy they would have been put to rest. Pobenonstev was once called "The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation". He once declared, "Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people".

    Read More

  • Russian Revolution

    631 Words  | 2 Pages

    The resignation of Nicholas II March 1917, in union with the organization of a temporary government in Russia built on western values of constitutional moderation, and the capture of control by the Bolsheviks in October is the political crucial opinions of the Russian Revolution of 1917. The actions of that historic year must also be viewed more broadly, however: as aburst of social strains associated with quick development; as a disaster of political modernization, in relations of the tensions sited on old-fashioned traditions by the burdens of Westernization; and as a social disruption in the widest sense, concerning a massive, unprompted expropriation of upper class land by fuming peasants, the devastation of outmoded social patterns and morals, and the scuffle for a new, democratic society.

    Read More

  • Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rule of Lenin vs the Tsar The beginning of the 20th century saw a great change in the political structure of the Russia. A country once led under an autocracy leadership. was suddenly changed into a communist state overnight. Dictatorship and communism are at separate ends of the political spectrum. This study so clearly shows both involve the oppression of society and a strict regime in which people are unable to voice their opinions.

    Read More

  • The Family Romanov Sparknotes

    1032 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in

    Read More

  • The Fall of the Czarist Regime in 1917

    790 Words  | 2 Pages

    out of touch with his people. 'He heard of the blood and tears of the

    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

More about Nicholas Withdrawal Of Tsar's Autocracy

Open Document