...How far do you agree that the March Revolution of 1917 was due to the failures of Nicholas 2? The March Revolution of 1917 brought autocracy in Russia to an end, when ministers of the last Duma forced the Tsar Nicholas 2 to abdicate. The Revolution happened due to the Nicholas's 2 failures due his reign, however there was a number of problems which appeared before Nicholas 2 or happened without the will of Nicholas 2. When Nicholas 2 came to power in 1894, his main objective was to keep all power in his hand, in another words, Nicholas wanted to remain as an autocrat and be the only ruler of Russia. On the other hand, Nicholas 2 wasn't as reactionary as his father, because Nicholas was not prepared to be extreme in dealing with the social and political unrest in the same manner as his father. His weak leadership led to the policies which after worked against the Tsar. The first social reform was done by Nicholas 2 in 1897. It was reform which limited the working to 11,5 hours from Monday to Friday and to 10 hours on Saturday. However, these policy didn't change the attitude of workers against the Tsarist regime, because people still wanted more liberal social system and a new government which Nicholas was not intend to change. This unhappiness caused by the lack of changes or reforms led to the strike in Saint Petersburg by factory workers who were led by Father Gapon in 1905. The strike finished really dramatically, because a lot demonstrators were killed by...
Words: 1372 - Pages: 6
...How far were the divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? (30 marks) Around Europe the world’s great powers were developing, both economically and socially through the benefits of industrialisation, except that was for Russia, who was now the most economically backward. The climate for change was surrounding its empire. The people of the empire were ready for a revolution yet Russia’s tsarist rule managed to survived from 1881-1905 under the rule of Alexander III who ruled from 1881-1894 and his son Nikolas II who ruled 1894-1905. Tsarist rule in Russia had its many opponents from the larger radical parties such as the Social Democrats and the Social Revolutionaries, however some argue that it was the divides in these groups and society as a whole that had delayed the revolution whilst others believe it was the result of external factors that allowed the tsarist regime to continue through the animosity it faced. A major divide in the opponents of tsarist rule was class. The divide in personal wealth was larger in Russia than in any other world super power. With the landed classes obtaining most of the wealth and the peasantry and former surfs who made up 80 % of the population however barely getting by, this economic divide caused a major divide in society. The educated classes apposed the tsarist regime due the fact it halted their position in society not allowing them to move up and benefited only the landed classes...
Words: 1385 - Pages: 6
...World War to a large extent was culpable to the fall of Tsarism, the reason behind this argument is that before WW1 was to start Russia was stable and significantly moving towards political reform and then from there eventually to a constitutional monarchy, this is backed by the October Manifesto of 1905 which gave the population a voting and electoral process to set up the State Duma, however this reform was almost cancelled out by the advent of the Fundamental Laws in 1906. The Fundamental Laws were in actuality a regain of any and every control back to the government of the Tsar which was granted previously. Here we discuss another important factor other than the war involving the collapse of the Tsarist regime, and that was Nicholas II’s personality. In 1905 the Tsar had capable and trusted ministers who advised him to make compromises and grant concessions to settle the revolution; however in 1917 the Tsar did not have this asset on his side. Also, what historians know of Nicholas II’s character is that he wanted to be a supreme ruler and autocrat like his father who he...
Words: 1122 - Pages: 5
...TO WHAT EXTENT DID WW1 CONTRIBUTE TO THE FALL OD THE ROMANOV DYNASTY? The three-hundred year Tsarist dynasty collapsed during the Russian Revolution of February 1917, following Tsar Nicholas II’s abdication on the 2nd March. However, whilst the Revolution spurred this on, short and long-term causes were important. Most important was Russia’s involvement in the First World War, in which they suffered around two million losses compared to the British Empire’s one million and suffered embarrassing defeats. Historians suggest that victory in the war depended on a nation’s military effectiveness, economic strength, administration, and political stability. These were all challenges which the tsarist government failed to meet and led to the tsar’s downfall. The argument that the First World War led to the downfall of tsardom is supported by the military unreadiness of the Russian army. This is including the poor conditions that soldiers fought in, shortages and the low self-confidence of soldiers. Russian soldiers particularly experienced terrible conditions at war, including weaponry shortages. Despite having the largest army of all the countries who fought in the war, Russia did not send many men in proportion to its entire population to the war. This proved to be a mistake as the army was not as strong as it could have been. As well as this, up until 1915, a quarter of those men that were sent to the front were unarmed and were instructed to simply pick up what they could...
Words: 1223 - Pages: 5
...the eve of world war? The stability and strength of the Russian regime (autocratic rule of Tsar Nicholas II ) had remained untouched for several centuries, in a sense that it did not alter or fault through the hardships amongst the peoples of Russia/Empire as a whole as a means of the 'sole,righteous' system of autocracy. It was successful in terms of maintaining Tsardom/Romanov dynasty since the early 17th century; surely a revolution would have occurred before the 20th century as most of Europe and America had experienced a mass cultural movement of emerging liberal ideas and reasoning, known as the 'Age of Reason' or 'The Enlightenment'. However this was not the case as the Russian regime under the Tsar had collapsed towards the end of the first World War when he was forced to abdicate from the throne; some would argue that it was inevitable due to the unpopular attitudes towards the social and economic conditions which left the majority of the population in severe poverty. Others may disagree with this inevitability due to such events that could not directly blame the Tsar such as 'Bloody Sunday' in 1905, the state that Russia had been left in by, Alexander III and most notably the role of Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin. The focus of analysis will be to explore key leaders/figures and events, and to create a judgement to which degree the Russian regime was strong or stable (or both) on the eve of World War One. The strength and stability of a regime simply refers to...
Words: 1724 - Pages: 7
...Why the 1905 revolution failed The 1905 revolution failed due to many factors, all of which helped the Tsar government overcome the revolutionaries. The aim of the revolutionaries was to gain governmental reform, however the Tsar’s aim was not to lose power. One of the reasons that the 1905 revolution failed was due to the loyalty that Nicholas II had from his armed forces. With these armed forces the Tsar was able to crush the disturbances that were part of the revolution meaning that he could arrest the revolutionaries and either execute them or exile them to Siberia. This in effect reduced the amount of revolutionaries making it easier for the Tsar to stay in power throughout the revolution. Having the loyalty of the armed forces was a very significant reason for the failure of the revolution because if the army had have turned against the Tsar he would not have been able to overpower the revolution. Nicholas II also had support from a group known as the Black Hundreds. This was a counter revolutionary group formed of mainly richer citizens such as landowners who supported the principles of autocracy and Russian nationalism. The Black Hundreds helped the government regain control as even though they did not have governmental approval they hunted down and executed thousands of know reformers meaning that it would be again be easier for the government to survive during the revolution. Another reason for the failure of the 1905 revolution was disunity among the revolutionaries...
Words: 697 - Pages: 3
...How did the Tsar survive the 1905 Revolution? The Russian revolution of 1905 was triggered by the event of “Bloody Sunday” and continued to escalate with various protests against the Tsar’s refusal to make political concessions and an accumulation of economic factors like poor working conditions, high taxes and famine. There were numerous aspects which contributed to Tsar Nicholas II surviving the 1905 Revolution. Collectively these enabled the Tsar to survive, however the most significant of these was the loyalty of the Russian army during the period. Without the reliance he had upon the Army, the Tsar may not have been ultimately successful in surviving the revolution. The army remaining loyal to Tsar Nicholas was indeed crucial to him keeping his power, as they were able to majorly control the opposing threats; the disturbances throughout Russia were crushed by the army. For example December saw an armed uprising in Moscow, largely involving the Bolsheviks; this revolt resulted in over 1000 people being killed as Tsarist soldiers controlled the situation. Loyal units identified in the army were used to close down the St Petersburg Soviet that represented 96 factories, while mutinies within the army were met with brutal suppression. Through the use of the army, over the next year the Tsarist Government were able to overpower all revolutionary activity. Their actions included the killing and exportation of thousands of workers, beating up children, arrest of thousands of...
Words: 1048 - Pages: 5
...Alexander III, Tsar of Russia, 1881-1889 Alexander III of Russia was born on 26th February 1845. Clumsy and gruff as a child, he grew up to be a man of great physical strength. Everything about him suggested imperial power. He was six feet four inches tall, broad and very strong. Stories circulated about Tsar Alexander bending (and then restraightening) iron fire pokers, crushing silver roubles in his fingers, and tearing packs of cards in half for the entertainment of his children, and about the occasion in 1888 when, after the imperial train was derailed by terrorists at Borki, he held up the wrecked carriage’s roof on his shoulders while his family escaped. (It seems that Alexander’s kidney disease dated back to this incident.) The first tsar to wear a full beard since the time of Peter the Great, whose Europeanising reforms changed fashions to such an extent that untrimmed facial hair had become a sign of a lack of western sophistication, Alexander suited the imperial Russian stereotype. He could be rude and blunt in conversation, and was terrifying when angry. He used foul language when frustrated and senior officials were intimidated by him, though they felt secure when working for him, partly because they were confident of his personal support and partly because Alexander’s physical and personal strength heightened the sense of autocratic might surrounding him. Alexander was the second son of Tsar Alexander II, and as such was not provided with the education necessary...
Words: 789 - Pages: 4
...After the loss of the Crimean war in 1856, Tsar Alexander II of Russia, his people, and its surrounding major powers realized the true conditions of un-industrialized Russia. The strength of its military ended up being an illusion, and now the country faced both an incredible backwardness and a lack of credibility in its own potential in protecting itself against competitive and rival countries, bringing into question some of the very basic structures of Russian politics and society. Russia’s backwardness in all key institutions compared to surrounding great powers was massive, and the loss of the war had a critical effect on the faith the people of Russia had in their Tsar. Because of this intolerable humiliation, Alexander II found his back pushed against a wall and was forced to make all sorts of reforms in order to ameliorate the poor conditions of his country. As one of Alexander’s first reform, in 1861 Alexander II declared “the edict to emancipation”, in other words, the abolishment of serfdom for fear that it would “reform from the below”. Even though Slavophiles stressed the importance of serfdom in the preservation of political and social stability, Westernizes emphasized its role as a brake upon Russia’s economic development in relation to other countries surrounding it. Alexander therefore decided to free the serfs from their landowners and give them land that they could now grow crops on without being governed by the landowners. However, right from the very first...
Words: 1643 - Pages: 7
...‘The Main objective of the reforms of Alexander II (1856 – 1881) was to establish a liberal-democratic monarchy in tsarist Russia’. Do you agree? Give reason for your answer. The Main objectives of Tsar Alexander II were in a sense to support certain aspects of Liberal Democracy in Russia but his main objective was to ascertain Tsarist Autocracy. I will be discussing what his reforms were and the events leading up to them and their influence and whether it improved Russia. In Tsarist Russia, it was one of the largest land empires which covered one sixth of the surface of the world. It mainly stretched from Poland and the Baltic Sea (West) all the way to the Pacific Ocean (East). The Economy of the country was mostly a rural economy with agriculture as the main source for Economy. The large population had to be provided for and Russia also possessed other natural resources such as coal and iron ore. There were only a handful of main industrial developed towns (Moscow and Petersburg). The Society of Russia was ruled by the Tsar who held absolute power (Political) over Russia. Tsar Alexander II came to power in 1855. The Crimean War (1853 – 1856) is important to take note of as this influenced the Concert of Europe. This was a league of monarchs who banded together to ensure that political and diplomatic was stable by ensuring that there was not even a single power that dominated another in Europe. This was to ensure a balance of power. Russia did also play an important...
Words: 1168 - Pages: 5
...The Russian monarch was known as the Tsar, and in 1917 the Tsar was Nicholas II. He believed that God had made him Tsar and that he therefore had absolute authority to rule Russia, without parliament. The Tsar was very naïve to the situation in Russia, as he rarely went outside the grounds of his palaces. The growth of industry meant there was a large working population in the towns, but conditions in the towns were cramped and the workers were badly paid. There was opposition to the Tsar and in 1905 a protest by industrial workers broke out into a revolution. There were other protests and strikes in the years 1905-1914. By 1914 poor working conditions, food shortages and the opposition parties had created a very tense atmosphere in Russia. The First World War broke out in 1914 and patriotism and loyalty to the Tsar were revived, however this didn’t last very long as the Russian people thought the war was going to be victorious and short, but this was not the case. The Russian army was not really a match for the well-equipped Germans as there was a shortage of rifles and other munitions equipment. There were high casualties, which decreased moral in Russia. Food supplies to Russian cities was very poor, as Russia relied so heavily on its railways and they were engrossed with the supply of ammunition and food to the war front, food for the people was left to rot in the sidings because the engines and carriages were simply not there to carry them, so people just starved. Fuel deliveries...
Words: 1371 - Pages: 6
...On January 9, 1905, in the midst of war against Japan and a lack of institutionalized modernization, a mob of workers led by Father Gapon marched to the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg to peacefully present a petition of grievances, including labor reforms and an end to the war, to the tsar. In the heart of St. Petersburg, the commander of the soldiers instructed the procession to disperse or suffer consequences for challenging the regime. The crowd refused. Under strict orders to prevent the crowd from reaching the palace, the commander gave the order. One by one, troops opened fire on the peaceful demonstration; by the end of the gunfire, 10 men lay dead in the snow while dozens crawled away wounded. All across St. Petersburg, the same scenario played again and again; by the end of the day, 96 were dead and 333 were wounded. Upon hearing the news of his soldiers shooting and killing the crowd, the Tsar mourned, “A terrible day… God, how painful and awful!” After public outrage over Bloody Sunday, Nicholas II (1868-1918) issued the October Manifesto, granting civil liberties and...
Words: 1467 - Pages: 6
...What were the causes of the 1905 Revolution? Why did the Revolution fail to overthrow the Tsarist Regime? The Revolution of 1905 was the first time the Tsar had faced open opposition from so many groups in Russian society at the same time. It involved peasant disturbances, strikes, naval mutinies, nationalist uprisings and assassinations. This essay aims to examine the different causes of the Revolution of 1905. Short and long-term causes will be considered, and economic, political, military and social factors will be discussed. The essay will also explain why the Revolution ultimately failed to overthrow the Tsarist regime. A long-term social and economic cause of the 1905 Revolution was the continuing dissatisfaction of both peasants and landowners to the Emancipation Edict of 1861. Although this piece of legislation had brought an end to serfdom, peasants still remained tied to the village commune (mir) and were angry at the redemption payments they were expected to pay in return for the land they had received. They believed more, and better quality, land should have been given to them at no cost. Their anger was made evident during the peasant disturbances of 1902. The landowners were also unhappy with the terms of emancipation. They lost the free labour of their serfs and a large amount of land. As a result many were facing huge debts by 1905. Another long-term cause of the 1905 Revolution was the general disappointment with which many Russian people viewed the...
Words: 1375 - Pages: 6
...How far did Alexander III strengthen Tsarism? It is possible say that Alexander III strengthened Tsarism because he reversed the policies of his father and enforced his policies of “Russification”. Alexander III believed that the policies of his father had led to the decline in authority of the regime, and that it was this that led to his father’s assassination. Through “Russification” (the attempt to consolidate Russian identity) Alexander III asserted the Russian Culture and Language throughout its region. This was mainly achieved through repression and it helped strengthen the control of the regime. On the other hand revolutionary activity became increasingly violent. The People’s Will was re-formed in 1886. The group was committed to assassinating key figures in the tsar’s regime and there was a failed attempt to assassinate Alexander in 1987. There was continuing liberal opposition to the regime and a preference for Marxist ideas. It is therefore possible say that Alexander III strengthened Tsarism through reforms. Alexander was influenced in his opinions by many people. One such great influence was Konstantine Pobedonostev, his tutor. He was a reactionary that encouraged Alexander III to reject liberal ideas and to see tsarism and the best form of governance. Others included members of the aristocracy and army. Alexander wanted to therefore reverse his father’s policies in order to avoid his father’s fate, by strengthening Tsarism. It was not possible to reverse the emancipation...
Words: 1060 - Pages: 5
...government could suppress these political parties one by one. Besides the division between the political parties, there were many disagreements within each of the political parties: the right-wing Liberals disagreed with the radical Liberals, the Mensheviks disagreed with the Bolsheviks, and the Social Revolutionaries disagreed with the radical Social Revolutionaries. The inside division within each party massively weakened the strength of its struggle against Tzardom. And therefore meant that the groups were easily little worry for the tsar. The chief driving force of the 1905 Revolution was the main population, the peasants. But this class were not properly led by the political parties to seize power. Both the Social Democrats and Social Revolutionaries had wrong conceptions of the role they should take in the 1905 Revolution. They believed that the middle class revolution should take over the socialist revolution and that they should wait for the liberals to establish a middle class government in 1905. Thus they did not make use of the potential revolutionary strength of the masses to capture power from the Tzarist government as soon as the 1905 Revolution broke out. But...
Words: 460 - Pages: 2
