It it over-simplistic to state that opposition was successful or unsuccessful in Russia from 1855 and 1964. The effectiveness of opposition in Russia had to be evaluated according to the regime in power. For example, the opposition to Tsarism under Alexander II was unsuccessful as his assassination led to reactionary Tsarist rule for thirty six more years. However, the opposition under Nicholas II’s rule was highly successful, helping to lead to a communist government. All Russian governments in this period faced strong opposition to their regime with the period as a whole punctuated by riots, disturbances and revolutions.
In 1917, Russian Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate from the throne after the March Revolution. I think that the main reason he abdicated was not because of the opposition of the people, but Russia’s failures in World War One, however there are many reasons considered for why he did it. The top four are: the opposition of the town workers, Russia’s poor performance in WW1, the weakness of Tsar Nicholas II, and the events in St Petersburg in February 1917. The opposition of the peasant and town workers were a very important factor in bringing down the Tsar. When Nicholas was first crowned Tsar in 1894, the whole country rejoiced and had a new hope for a brighter future, that things would be better than they were before.
How far was Nicholas II responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917? While Nicholas II was a major factor in the fall of the Romanovs there were other reasons such as the removal of the Dumas and him losing the support of the armed forces. Nicholas II became commander in chief of the army during world war one and in doing so left his wife Alexandra to rule the country. The fact that he had let someone so inexperienced take control angered many people due to the Tsar not leaving someone more experienced to rule and also due to her being unpopular as a result of her German nationality. Alexandra appointed Rasputin, who had saved her sons life, as her personal adviser.
The War also had massive social and economic impacts on Russia that resulted in a strike that ended with a revolution. The Tsar going to the front was the start of the clear path that lead to the revolution in February 1917; he had left his wife the Tsarina in charge of Russia and relied on her to tell him how things were going at home. While police reports in 1916 were saying that the country was in complete social unrest, on the brink of a revolution, while the Tsarina was sending letters to the Tsar saying that the unrest was merely some of the population acting like a bunch of teenagers and they would get over it. The Tsarist Autocratic system had managed to survive a revolution in 1905 but now that the Tsar did not really know what was happening it was doubtful that there wouldn’t be a revolution soon. The Brussolov offensive caused a major blow to Russia because the Tsarina advised the Tsar not to send any troops to the north as Rasputin had foreseen their failure in the north.
i) Lenin’s role in the Bolshevik consolidation of power. The Coalition government, that had been in place since the February Revolution of 1917, had to face more and more problems. The Kornilov Affair and the July Days did not go to their best interest, and their popularity was simply going down the sewer by October. It was exactly that month that Lenin thought the time to be right for a Bolshevik takeover. So in October 1917 the Bolsheviks replaced the Coalition Government.
Looking throughout the Tsars reign it is apparent that his many failings encouraged the people to up rise and change the current form of government. His inability to handle the social and economic conditions or his input towards them, brought the blame of many problems some even of external problems. It was predominantly the Tsars poor character and action that lead to his removal as he did not acquire many of the characteristics and knowledge to rule a country and his decisions were poorly made in respect to the public. Revolutionary ideas provided the people with an answer to the their problems; the Tsar. If the Tsar had the capacity to rule, understand and the desire to lead his dynasty would not of ended at all or in such devastating
Nicholas survived the 1905 revolution, but after this his power in the autocracy was weakened significantly. Revolutionaries gained significantly more power, the duma that Nicholas introduced was not supported by 1917 – Nicholas made concessions in 1905 but he could not do this again in 1917, all but his closest advisors were against him – including the army. With WW1 raging on unlike the 1905 revolution, no concessions to make, no support of the army and revolutionaries driving the 1917 revolution, the Tsar abdicated on the 3rd of March in 1917. Firstly, we must look at how Nicholas lost support of the army in 1917. In 1905, Nicholas used the army and the Cossacks to crush protests and revolts.
As it was them who started the protest which turned into a revolution and also they were the ones behind the mutiny of the troops. However, the military was having many problems such as the war was going horribly wrong with many casualties, poor commanding from officers and limited military resources and equipment. The peasants were doing the fighting and the dying. So this could be a small contributing factor to the fall of the Romanov's on several different reasons. Firstly the tsar did not help the peasants personally, but instead leave the burden to the prime ministers when they cannot rule like a democracy today.
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.
The Czar was not present, so the neutralist protestants were shot down by the panicking soldiers. It was enough to evoke a wave of strikes, social dissatisfaction and political rearrangement. In any other epoch, they would have been frightened, and just relinquish it; however, they already had ideals in their minds, enough to commence the Russian Revolution. The October Manifesto was a document published by Czar Nicholas II, that was a precursor to the Fundamental Laws of 1906. Imperiled by the protests and violent marches, he announced that civil independence would be acknowledged to population and the creation of the Duma Parliament.