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.
Opposition did influence governmental change under every ruler apart from Alexander III who kept the opposition “underground”. Opposition was responsible for two changes in governments; the assassination of Alexander II and the Bolshevik revolution. However, both cases did not result in any governmental development to a more liberal and modern style of government. The assassination of Alexander II only led to his replacement by the far more reactionary Alexander III who actually caused the development of Russian government to regress as he removed several reforms that Alexander II was responsible for. Lenin had a similar effect as ultimately Russia remained an autocratic state, and also resulted in a regression in the development of Russian government initially as the Communist state had even less representation than under Nicholas II by virtue of the removal of the state duma.
However, evidence suggests that after Lenin’s death he lost his power considerably, eventually being banned from the Communist party. In 1917 Trotsky became a member of the Petrograd Revolutionary Committee, playing an important role in organising the October Revolution. Trotsky urged the overthrow of the Provisional Government and on the 24th October 1917 Lenin agreed. Source A emphasises this; ‘if neither Lenin nor I had been present in Petersburg there would have been no October Revolution’ which suggests that it was their work and significance which encouraged the Bolshevik’s to take advantage and overthrow the provisional government. This shows that Trotsky played a key role in the Bolshevik seizure of power.
The Total Dictatorship of Joseph Stalin The Revolution of 1917 led to the totalitarian dictatorship of Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin perverted the revolution of Lenin and Stalin did not follow Lenin’s example. When Stalin took over he picked up where Lenin left off but took it much further. He convinced the people that he was the only one they could trust after the death of Lenin. Stalin did this on his own; he lied to the people and accused the government of being enemies of the people.
The effectiveness of these groups can be judged in terms of the outcomes of their actions. The first type of opposition to consider is opposition from groups within Russia. In the earlier years of Alexander II’s reign opposition to the Russian government existed within the peasantry. In between 1800-1861 there had been 1467 uprisings and in 1861 alone there were 400 instances of revolt amongst the peasantry. This basic form of opposition was never truly effective as their actions were simply put down by the government partly due to their failure to unite and lack of ideology and political demands.
During this time, Russian cities were dying because all the workers and peasants were focused on rebelling against the government and seizing the land of their landlords, instead of working in the factories and living the life of a peasant or urban worker. The Russian Revolution of 1905 only decreased the strength of the empire further but a positive outcome for the people of Russia was instituted. Sergei Witte suggested an elected legislative assembly and after the Revolution of 1905, The Duma, a parliamentary institution, was established. Although the Revolution was officially over, violence and tension continued,
Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
This question focuses on the events which took place in Russia leading up to 1905 to cause a Revolution. The events which took place were either long term factors which built up over a period of time or medium term factors which were less long term or short term factors which triggered the revolution. Arguably the most important factor which led to the 1905 revolution was down to Russia’s incompetent government. The main reasons for the incompetence of the government was that it always had the same views as the Tsar as the appointed governors were appointed by the Tsar and dismissed by him as he pleased. This made the government not original so the country could not benefit from 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 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.