Nicholas II attempted to rule Russia as an autocrat as he believed that autocracy was the only was to save Russia from anarchy. As historian Orland Figes noted, “instead of embracing reform, [Nicholas] adhered rigidly to his own archaic vision of autocracy.” He had ascended to the throne in 1894 after his father Alexander III died suddenly. He had not been prepared for life as a ruler as his father had not briefed him in matters of the state, believing Nicholas to be unintelligent and weak. And Alexander was probably right. Nicholas turned out to be inflexible in his views and politically naive.
Therefore the Russian revolution of 1905 failed because the revolutionaries were to easy to defend against as their attack were not in synchronization meaning the army only had to stop one group at a time meaning the revolutionaries suffered heavier casualties than they would have done. In addition the lack of leadership meant that the different revolutionaries had different aims meaning that they were not always on the same side and would often have fights as the social revolutionaries wanted land to be owned by the peasants and to share power with the Tsar where as the social democrats wanted to remove the Tsar completely. This meant the revolutionaries were a threat to themselves as well as the government. Therefore the 1905 revolution failed because of the different wants of the people meaning that they did not unite to one cause. Also the revolutionaries were split by the October manifesto which introduced a new more democratic government (a Duma), this pleased the social revolutionaries as they wanted to share power with the Tsar; however the social democrats wanted to
The personality of Nicholas II contributed to his downfall in 1917. Nicholas II did not have the personal attributes necessary to bring Russia effectively out of its problems: he was shy and quiet, and easily led. He was not charismatic and this did nothing more to endear him to the people of Russia once they had started to once again lose faith in him after the 1905 revolution. The Memoirs of Count Witte in 1912 and the diary of the Tsars sister shows these attributes to be correct, both agreeing the Tsar is ‘not unintelligent’ and ‘he means well’ however he was ‘trained as a soldier’ and seemed ‘incapable of steering the ship of state into a quiet harbour’ overall condemning Nicholas II unfit to rule; however not completely blaming him for this lack of characteristic, and rather the way he was brought up as a soldier instead of a leader. This upbringing was a
They were losing to a nation very few had heard of and it was humiliating. However, many of the defeats to the Russian military occurred after the Revolution had started, not causing its outbreak, but merely adding to the opposition to autocratic rule by the Tsar and prolonging the Revolution. The Russo-Japanese War brought economic problems for Russia, and this therefore meant there was a significant lack of money to solve any other problems present Russia, hence partly being responsible for the outbreak of the 1905 Revolution. The war costed an extreme amount of money. As it resulted in failure no money could be gained from the invaded territories.
He is supposed to have the most control, able to keep his people in line however due to his state he was not able to accomplish any of these necessary attributions of a king, therefore this would help contribute to the civil war outbreak, as a weak character in the position of a king isn’t good. In addition, Henry had a trait of having favorites among his nobility. This is shown by he gave out patronage to his favorites, Somerset and Suffolk, they were also made dukes in 1448. This would cause problems inside his nobility. Dukes were usually direct relatives of the king, however Suffolk and Somerset were not, where as Richard of York was.
Luck played a big part into how Stalin defeated the left side of the party. Because of Trotsky’s illness he often missed political conventions meaning the he couldn’t get his view across to the general public. This meant that Stalin was a lot more popular than Trotsky. Also the fact that Lenin’s testament wasn’t published played a part in Stalin’s success. In his testament he heavily criticized Stalin; if it was published then it would have damaged Stalin’s popularity.
After a range of drastic changes came the downfall of Gorbachev as well as perestroika. This was due to Gorbachev's uncertainty due to resistance from hard-liners and encouragement from extremists which increased his uncertainty therefore leading to him not really following any consistent policies. He had very little political support as highlighted when there was an attempt to remove him from power. Gorbachev was almost powerless as Boris Yeltsin became president, we can therefore see that perestroika was indeed a failure. This shows that Gorbachev's policies were a significant cause of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe as due to perestroika and glasnost Russia became more independent of the communist party and their iron grip on the government and the people.
The crushing of Russian’s military added movement to the 1905 Revolution, as it made the people of Russia aware of the weakness of their military, making many people become un-patriotic. They were losing to a nation very few had heard of and it was humiliating. However, many of the defeats to the Russian military occurred after the Revolution had started, not causing its outbreak, but merely adding to the opposition to autocratic rule by the Tsar and prolonging the Revolution. The Russo-Japanese War also brought about economic problems for Russia, and this therefore meant there was a significant lack of money to solve any other problems present Russia, hence partly being responsible for
How is this responsible? People believed that the PG was not a ‘true’ or ‘valid’ government. As they were not elected members, anyone could be made head of states or head of parliament making the PG ‘corrupt’ in the eyes of the Russian public. Carrying on with a lack of authority – the PG were seen as not revolutionary enough. During its leadership, the PG had two leaders: Prince Lvov – whose status as a member of the nobility immediately undermined the reforming credential as did its members as they were broadly liberal Octoberists and Kadet, which again, diluted its reforming enthusiasm.
The first of these revolutions was in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1820. Here, Ferdinand I ruled, and the Caronari hated him for his autocratic style of government. At first, the revolution looked like it would succeed. However, this revolution failed because the Naples revolution was a middle- class affair. The mainland leaders had no intention of including the lower classes (such as the peasants) in their new system of government.