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
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.
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.
The fall of the Romanovs in 1917 was caused by many factors for instance, the soldiers, workers, LiberaAYASHA IMRAN ls and the Duma, socialist groups, government ministers and army generals and the Tsar himself. The Tsar himself did carry out an important role in the fall of Romanov in 1917, due to his attitude to his people and how evil and stubborn he was. Furthermore tsars tactics used were a wrong choice; however there are other factors that caused the fall of the Romanov in 1917, which I am going to explain. Nicholas II himself and other factors performed a vital role in the fall of the Romanovs in 1917, but the armed forces and Tsar himself were more significant. 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.
Nicholas’s decisions in things such as the war and internal affairs were at the best poor. One of the main factors in the downfall of Nicholas 2nd was his lack of reform. Throughout the course of his reign he had many opportunities to implement improvements in areas such as the government, social welfare for the peasants and the working class. His attempts to improve things but still hold onto as much power as possible, led to him deceiving his people through the nobles holding onto power and his self-elected and so called democratic dumas. This was made possible by him controlling the majority of the dumas funding meaning he could deny a new law by limiting their financial strength.
Prior to 1905, disturbances in Russia could have been seen as quite rare. Russia was though suffering from a long period of repression and unrest. From the Tsar in Russia, the regimes had slowly developed into more of an autocratic establishment that implemented its will onto the people with lesser regard for human life and liberty. A major cause of the revolution was the continuing discontent of both the peasants and the landowners due to worsening working conditions. From 1880 onwards, the Russian government encouraged industrial growth, as there was shortages and distress in the countryside.
The people are aware of the ‘barrier that exists’ between the Tsar and the masses which is indicative of the increasing unrest in Russia. The barrier has been caused by his pre-occupation with his family and the consequent neglect of his public duties. The nature of the source as a petition shows that the people are trying to personally communicate with the Tsar, something that has been lacking until 1905.
However, opposition to the Tsar became even more divided when Lenin and Martov split the Social Democrats party as Martov accused Lenin of becoming a dictator. This division lead to the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks groups who both held marxist views to different degrees. All these groups threatened the stability of the Tsarist State but other factors such as the church, the belief of the divine right, the army and the Okhrana contributed to keeping the Tsar State in power. The isolation of each political group made them vulnerable; not only were they distracted by each other (especially rivalry between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) but they were also easy to be ‘picked off’ separately by the Tsar. None of the groups were willing to change; had they been more lenient and considered changing their tactics they may have succeeded.