The October Manifesto, though not actually creating significant change in Russian political policies, officially signified the end of Russia’s autocratic government. The manifesto also raised expectations of political representation which were crushed through the Fundamental State Laws of 1906 and electoral changes in ’07. Through this, Nicholas lost the confidence of his supporters and the people of Russia and from 1906 to 1917, he was gradually abandoned by the bureaucracy, the ruling classes and the church. Despite this, however, Nicholas remained stubbornly unwilling to recognise the isolation of his government. This was demonstrated when he assumed that him taking personal control of the army during the First World War would unite the nation.
All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions. Political change was expected in Russia during this period, particularly during the Tsarist regime where the growth of the revolutionary intelligentsia, ironically an effect of the Great Reforms, led many to question the need for a Tsar or a royal family at all. The first main success of political opposition is widely considered to be the assassination of Alexander II at the hands of the People’s Will in 1881. Although they assassinated their Tsar, it is very likely this did not actually lead to their desired outcome, it being greater political freedom/democracy. Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia.
His wife Alexandra was a huge influence on Autocratic power like his father. It was thought that Nicholas’s political lack of sophistication and extreme stubbornness led to the down fall of the Russian Empire. So in 1918, Nicholas II and his family were imprisoned at Ekaterinburg in the Ural mountains by Bolsheviks and on 16th July the family was led to a basement were they were executed. Some of the minor factors that led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty were the poor leadership of the Tsar. He was a bad decision maker, people thought of him as weak.
This was probably due to their authoritarian ideology. It can be considered a fact that for the majority of the 1855-1964 period, the Russian citizens had little if any political freedom. Despite the legalization of political parties in 1905, this was a very short lived concession as Lenin revoked this in 1920. A similar approach was taken by Alexander III in reversing the reforms of Alexander II, including a reduction in power for the Zemstva. A recurring theme throughout the period is the regime’s desire to maintain autocracy, which Lenin’s disregard for democracy in any area and opposition shows.
Another factor to the growth of opposition against the Tsar was due to the Rasputin becoming advisor to Alexandria as Nicholas the second went to war. During September 1915 and December there was frequent changes such as; 4 prime ministers ,5 interior ministers and 3 ministers of agriculture. This made it hard for people of Russia to keep up and it made no improvements to Russia’s society. In addition this made the Tsar hated among the people and the opposition grew against him. However, if Alexandra accepted reforms from the Duma instead of Rasputin a reduction of opposition would of
The demoralisation of the proud Russian peoples created dissent, and discredited the Tsar. In August 1915, the Tsar left Petrograd to command the Russian army. In August 1915, the Tsar left Petrograd to command the Russian army. He therefore received the blame personally for all their defeats and lost control of his troops as he left Rasputin and the Tsarina to rule Russia. His army also consisted of millions of poor, starving peasants with bad equipment, poor supplies of rifles and ammunition.
The decline of the Romanovs and the Russian revolution occurred due to varying influences externally and internally. The social and economic state of Russia and the changes transpiring had a large impact of the fall of the Dynasty. The actions of the Tsar and the influence from figures such as Rasputin helped to create discontent in Russian society. The character of Nicholas also helped to increase the social uprising and it was seen clearly that he lacked the capacity to effectively lead a country. The introduction of revolutionary ideas assisted sealing the fate of the Tsar.
Both soldiers and civilians blame the defeats in the war and the growing crises on the home front on Tsar. Even the Tsars only army stated it wouldn’t support him if a revolution occurred. Explain the importance/significance of World War 1 to the downfall of the Tsar WWI was a very significant event on the rule of Tsar Nicholas 11. Although it initially bolstered his position, it then became a large factor that contributed to Nicholas’ downfall. The Country was ecstatic when the Tsar made the announcement that Russia was going to fight against Germany in WWI.
For however strong the system is at controlling the largely uneducated majority, Tsarism is only as powerful as the Tsar is at the time. So Tsarism in the 1900’s was not very powerful because we can see that from his actions Nicholas II was inept as a leader of such a large country. Blatant failures by the Tsar were apparent to the people of Russia; two examples, which cast questions over his ability, were the Famine of 1891 and the Russo-Japanese war. The famine was an extremely bad time to be a Russian citizen, a great majority of the country was starving and the Tsar and his government had no plan or solution to help the needy. A peasant needs nothing but a home and food, but when food is taken out of his life then he will ask questions
How far were the policies of Stolypin Successful? Stolypin’s policies were unsuccessful, by 1909; the reform programme advocated by Stolypin had run into the sands. Most of his legislative proposals never emerged from the Duma and vigorous opposition to the whole concept of reform was being voiced from the Right. Nicholas II was increasingly persuaded that it was reform - not revolution - that was threatening the continuance of his regime. Stolypin himself began to adopt nationalist policies, aimed at asserting the rights of Russians inside the multinational empire.