The Tsar himself was responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917, mostly due to how he was not suited to the role as the Tsar. This was due toAYASHA IMRAN and start a revolution. Nicholas II dissolved the Duma and introduced bread rationing which caused families at home to suffer and strikes and demonstration increased due to tsars rationing threats, working conditions and inflation. The Tsar did not do anything successful to stop these strikes or to stop the inflation. His tactics were wrong which caused himself the responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917.
These reforms made a significant change to the government as a weakened sense of autocracy replaced the traditional span of control the Tsar ruled over, due to freedom of serfs which ultimately creates opposition. Further consequences of war faced by the government can be illustrated in the assassination of Alexander 2nd and the severe social unrest following the Russo-Japanese war. These protests are suggested to be the beginning point of the 1905 revolution. This caused extreme damage to the government as it questioned the strength of leadership and citizens became more and more critical, eventually leading to further reforms and the initiation of changing the way Russian government was formatted. However, it can be argued that
1. Too what extent was Tsar Nicholas to blame for the decline and downfall of the Romanov Dynasty? Tsar Nicholas II was to a large extent to blame for the decline and downfall of the Romanov Dynasty. Nicholas was blind to the political, economic and social issues of the land he was ruling over. It could be seen through Nicholas’s actions that he wasn’t born to be an autocratic ruler of Russia, being reluctant to take on the position.
There were many factors in the survival of Tsarist rule from 1881 – 1905. The divisions among it's opponents played a part, as it meant that Tsarist opposition had no common goals, and couldn't work together to achieve it. The October Manifesto is another factor, it split up Nicholas' opposition even further by dividing the Liberals into two groups. Pobedonostsev & his repressive policies played a large part in the Survival of Tsarist autocracy, as he was able to keep the people down, not giving them enough ground to start a successful revolution. Lastly, Russia's backward society is one of the main reasons Nicholas II survived after 1905.
There were many factors that contributed to the downfall of the Romanovs – and Tsar Nicholas II was not responsible for all of them. Some of the issues that caused the collapse of the Romanovs’ reign had begun even before he had come into power. However, the many mistakes he made during his reign undoubtedly sealed their fate. Problems with Russia’s monarchy had begun long before Nicholas II came to the throne. For example, a large contributor towards the Romanovs’ steady deterioration was the dissatisfaction of the people of Russia, particularly the peasants.
Also the state of the country during World War One left a lot to be desired and created a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Russian people. Tsar Nicholas II was responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty, but to a notable extent, as there were other factors more significant to account for the collapse of the Romanovs. It’s reasonable if one states that Nicholas II was responsible for stardom’s collapse. Many criticized the Tsar as a Monarch whose capacity for hard work and commitment wasn’t matched by outstanding intelligence, and had no clear vision for Russia’s future. Nicholas was not suited to his role as Tsar, and would rather spend his time with his family.
The war caused a great deal of problems for the government, originally they had announced that their involvement would be entirely defensive but were pressured into an offensive battle by the Allies. This greatly angered the already the de-moralised soldiers, due to conscription the army was made up of mainly peasants who weren’t trained to fight and wanted to return home and gain more land for themselves. The June Offensive, which was put in place with the hope that a victory would strengthen moral, did the exact opposite. Far from strengthening Russian army morale, this offensive proved that Russian army morale no longer existed. No Russian general could now count on the soldiers under his command actually doing what they had been ordered to do.
How far were divisions among its opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule in the years 1881-1905? Divisions among the Tsars opponents were important to the survival of Tsarist rule. However other elements also affected it, such as the belief in the Russian Orthodox Church and the belief that the Tsar was divinely appointed, poor communication across Russia this included the large the number of different languages and nationalities and the Cossacks which stayed loyal to the Tsar. The growing political opposition to the Tsar affected the stability of the Tsarist regime. Many Russian intellectuals were rising up against the Tsar; they believed that the regime was oppressive and that European countries had more freedom and felt that many Russians lacked basic freedoms seen in other European nations.
It is both strength and a weakness; as although it has great power, it lacks in instant mass communication. To gain control of the ‘edge of the empire’ the Tsar used Russification on those who were non-Russians. The Tsar tied to eliminate minorities in places, like Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia etc. He did this by making them read and write in Russian and join the Orthodox Church. This made him very unpopular.
How far is it accurate to say that Nicholas 2nd was personally responsible for his own downfall in February 1917? It can be argued that as a leader, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was responsible for his own downfall due to his involvement in worldwide affairs like ww1 and his own personal mistakes throughout his reign over Russia. Things such as his family orientated approach to ruling effecting his stature as the “little father” or his failure to combat the German problem. However it can also be suggested that Nicholas did in fact have a mostly successful rule and prior problems such as land, the peasants and a poor economy presented problems which would be there long after his reign. Nicholas’s decisions in things such as the war and internal affairs were at the best poor.