The long-term policies of Russification imposed by the Tsar in the 1880s, caused a lot of political unrest within Russia and these contributed to the 1905 revolution. Russia was the only country within Europe with no elected national parliament. The only form of elected representation (what the Tsar referred to as ‘senseless dreams’) was the “Zemstva”. The Union of Liberation demanded in December 1904, that a parliament should be set up because they felt the Russian population needed an outlet to express their views. At the time, the formation of political parties was illegal but despite this, they still existed.
Opposition to the Tsarist regime increased due to a number of reasons many of which could have been helped and others that were more natural. The key aspects of the opposition of the Tsars was Wittes programme of industrialisation, which while vital to Russia, exchanged the loyalist peasants into the disgruntled working class. While there were problems that the Tsar could not control such as the great amounts of other nationalities wanting independence and resisting Russification, such as the Poles and Jews. In 1881 opposition started due to ordinary people having little to no rights, as it was a criminal offence to question the Tsar and with no parliament to try and change the course of their country they would have to rely on the rich autocratic Tsar to decide to make changes to help the common people. As the government had strict censorship on books and journals when information did get through it would usually be made even more powerful as the government had attempted to ban it.
Nicholas II was the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty, and his own arrogance and incompetence was a key factor in what led him to that title. His decision to maintain an autocratic government, fight in the Russo-Japanese war, and, ultimately, drag Russia into World War I, proved he was not fit to rule, and his actions led to the destruction of his dynasty. In these ways, Nicholas II, while faced with many problems, may have survived had he not ruled the way he did. Nicholas II was an implacable autocrat, and his fear of change alienated the Russian people from their leader. When Nicholas was young, he witnessed his grandfather, Alexander II, being assassinated by terrorists.
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.
How far was the impact of World War One the crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. This essay will argue that the impact of World War One was a very crucial factor in the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917. The events in the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 also show that Nicolas II was not a good leader and these events led to the fall of the Romanovs. World War One caused many problems for the Government, the army and the people at home. Having a war caused inflation, government spending rose from 4-30 million, taxation increased, and money became practically worthless and the price of food and fuel quadrupled.
These Factors started to turn everyone against the Tsar as they could see how terrible he really was and how much he wasn’t helping the country or its people which finally lead the end of the Tsar. In 1917 people started to lose faith in terms of reforms as the October Manifesto set up by Witte to help people and try to get the country back on track was removed after only a few years of it being in place not long enough for it to have an impact on Russian life. As in 1905 there had never been any real big reforms like on the October manifesto so people where excited as they thought something new and good would be
Chris Purchase Within the context of the period 1815-1917, how far was the First World War the main cause of the fall of the Romanovs in February 1917? February 1917, the First World War is going badly for Russia; supplies not getting through to the soldiers; huge numbers of Russian soldiers dying, wounded by the German army on the eastern front; Nicholas II lacking in military experience resulting in costly defeats for his army. Back home in Petrograd, the country is in chaos. Rasputin has been murdered and the revolutionaries are gaining in strength. So the question is... how did the rule of the Romanovs fail after 300 years in power?
More over, the tsar was out of touch with his people and the changes that were occurring through out the empire. The First World War acted as a catalyst and a cause for social change and revolution because Russia’s many underlying military, economic, social and political problems were brutally exposed and meant it was unable to cope with the enormous challenges posed by the War. The lack of proper military administration and war readiness led to massive military defeats, low morale and a subsequent loss of confidence in the Tsar. While the Russians had the largest military force in Europe during the war, they were predominantly peasants who were not prepared for war As the historian D. Thompson said “Russian soldiers were ill-clothed and ill-trained, and always under-equipped”(D.Thomson, 1957, p.564), with up to 25% of Russian soldiers sent unarmed to the front unarmed. The soldiers also had to fight in atrocious, unsanitary conditions.
This meant serfdom was already coming to its own natural end, and for Alexander II to support his nobles he had to emancipate the serfs so they could go start increasing their wealth and get out of debt. Serfdom was also holding Russia back, with the rest of Europe liberalising and making vast economic progress Russia’s economy was starting to look inferior and for them to advance as a nation they had to increase productivity of the serfs and the simple solution was to emancipate them. The serfs were inefficient and had a low productivity due to poor farming methods and constantly being oppressed by their nobles. This oppression and poor farming was caused by the extremely conservative rule which refused to modernise, had the Tsar modernised the farming techniques and stopped the
The lack of usable land in Russia and the subdivison of land between families both resulted in an incredibly low income, especially for larger families. This combined with the illiteracy of the people and refusal of the Tsar to provide basic education meant that there was no way to escape the misfortunes of life as a peasant. The poor harvests of 1900 and 1902 worsened matters even further and fuelled the peasants anger. The famines and starvation that followed provided sufficient evidence that the Tsar was not a born leader, “gifted and sent from God” as they had been taught to believe, but a weak and incompetent leader, incapable of making decisions or change. Another issue was that whilst the Tsar encouraged the industrial growth of Russia, and was keen for the country to become an industrial power, when peasants then left the land to work in the developing enterprises, they discovered that their living conditions did not improve.