Nicholas II was the last Tsar to rule the Russian empire before the citizens demanded change within the government, resulting in the Romanov family being brutally murdered and the start of a revolution for Russia. Though Nicholas II was the most powerful man in the country, he did not use his power wisely to support his citizens. The unreasonable decisions of Nicholas II of Russia is what lead to the Russian Revolution. To begin with he made Russia suffer externally politically with his unwise choices during the Russo-Japanese War and World War One. Next, he brought hardship upon his people economically, allowing them to go malnourished without any support from the government; many people starved to death. Furthermore, these unwise decisions …show more content…
Nicholas II was not the best Tsar that Russia had ever seen, his opinions about labour rights did not appeal to the public. Workers were poorly treated in the work place, were weak unions and little pay for workers, "On March 11, a crowd invaded the city's Litovski Prison and burned it down. Rioters also raided the Ministry of the Interior, stole weapons from military arsenals, and hung a red flag over the tsars Winter Palace." Instead of stopping the revolution when the protest broke out, Nicholas II decided to go into hiding along with his family to keep themselves safe from others trying to assassinate them. Half of the rebels were workers trying to receive better workers rights and the other were peasants protesting about the shortage of food, "Workers in Russia had begun to organize; police agents, eager to prevent the Labour Movement from being dominated by revolutionary influences, formed legal labour unions and encouraged the workers to concentrate their energies on making economic gains and to disregard broader social and political problems." Though Nicholas II of Russia did try to stop the revolution, he decided to stop half way through his orders and went into hiding, giving him and the Romanov dynasty a bad
Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime. Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country.
Nicholas II ruled Russia from 1894-1917 and was to be its final tsar. He ascended the throne under the impression that he would rule his whole life as it's undisputed leader. Accompanied by his wife, Alexandra, they lived a comfortable life of luxury while the country suffered around them. Nicholas was determined to rule as harshly as his father; however, he was a very weak and incompetent character who did not posses the qualities capable of guiding Russia through its time of turmoil.
situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.
They were too localized in nature. These revolts chiefly aimed at obtaining local independence and not the overthrow of Tsardom. The Tsar retained the support of the bureaucracy, the major part of the army and the nobility. Thus the Tsar was able to suppress the strikes and the revolts after the division had appeared among the opposition forces. In short, the opposition forces, divided, unprepared to seize power, unable to represent the wishes of the peasants and the workers, failed to overthrow the decadent and demoralized dynasty which retained the support of the nobles, the bureaucrats and the army.
It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia
First of all, Nicholas Romanov was the royal Tsar of Russia. He was part f a long line of royals from all across Europe. Nicholas was Cousins with the king of England King George V (5th). Nicholas was a very Powerful Tsar before WWI. But during WWI he began to lose power over his people. That would be the start of his downfall.
I. A good majority of the Russian people were weary and uncontent with the way the war was going and with the Czar's rule. This uncontent, along with economic hardships, caused riots and demonstrations to break out. The Czar called for the army to put down the revolution, as they did in 1905. But the army joined the revolt and the Czar was kicked out of power soon afterwards.
John Reed documented the storming of the Winter Palace, the main headquarters of the Provisional Government, and the capture of its officials. Rather than a malicious and violent siege on the Winter Complex, the Bolshevik’s entry into the complex was met rather unopposed. Because the military had also split from the government, the only opposition was the yunkers ,or imperial guard, and even they fled their posts leaving their weapons in the place they had stood before. After the Bolshevik’s entry into the palace, looting by the militia and soldiers ensued, but even that was quickly put to and end after someone shouted “Don’t take anything. This is property of the People!”(John Reed, pg. 480) I believe this would give Mr. Reed a positive view of the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, because not only did they take the palace without bloodshed but the militia stopped their looting to give the clothing and other materials that could be made useful to the people of Russia. This showed Mr. Reed that this revolution was not just for another group of people to take power but for the people of Russia to control their country and that it could be accomplished non-violently. The Bolsheviks willingness to be peaceful was again shown once they had captured the main government
The topic of this article discusses the facts about Czar Nicholas II about his downfalls and accomplishments.Nicholas had faith in His view of his role as an autocrat, he obtained his authority from God to whom he was responsible to and it was his duty to preserve his absolute power together. In pursuing his duty, Nicholas had to experience a continuing struggle against himself, which stopped him from assuming too much of a self-confident resolution. He luckily agreed to create a national representative assembly called the Duma, with “consultative powers” and by the manifesto of October 30th he promised a constitutional government under which no law was to take effect without the Duma’s consent. Nicholas even tried very hard to stop the war
Nicholas II agreed to abdicate the throne in hopes of preventing a Russian civil war (Anastasia Biography). When his father died, he automatically had all of Russia resting in his hands and he had no desire to be the ruler, so he didn’t know what was best for the country. Assassinating him and his whole family was the end of life for an innocent family who hadn’t committed any crimes while ruling. The influence of Rasputin may have led the unprepared Nicholas to make the wrong decisions. For the children to be punished for their father’s lack of experience and good judgement was unfair and
Tsar Nicholas’ autocratic rule over Russia placed him in a position of personal responsibility over the country’s political, social, and economic affairs. In light of this, it should be argued that the discontent leading to the revolution of February 1917 came as a direct result of the Tsar’s weaknesses.
The Causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917 There were many causes to explain the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in March 1917. Some of these can be defined as long term. causes as their origin goes way back to pre-revolutionary times. Others are short-term reasons or even immediate effects, which act as. the last spark, to bring the tense situation out of control.
Under the sovereignty and tyrannical rule of Peter the Great, the Russian Empire demonstrated sweeping reforms of westernization, which established Russia as a principal European power. The reign of Nicholas II saw Imperial Russia transposed as one of the foremost great powers of the world, into an economic, societal and military collapse. Although Tsar Nicholas’ rule was ridden with discontent, the culmination of decades of pervasive adversity from the peasantry and the rising urban proletariat led to the 1905 Russian Revolution. The widespread famine that consumed Russia in 1891, the economic repercussions of the Great Spurt, the incompetence and the Tsar’s general disregard for the needs of his people encompassed the long-term causes. While the Russo-Japanese War and Bloody Sunday serve as the catalysts that marked the beginning of the revolution.
Tsar Nicholas II was a leader that possessed no competency to be the ruler of Russia. Unwilling, unprepared and easily influenced, his rule was the catalyst of the decline and fall of the tsarist system. His weak leadership, which was a combination of his upbringing, the ideas of Russia at the time and his ignorance effectively ended not only the Romanov dynasty, but also his life.
Discontentment with their leader and the living conditions that the poor faced led to many protests throughout the year. The catalyst for the revolution was an initially peaceful protest on January 22nd. Despite the protesters non-violent intentions, they were met with force at the winter palace that resulted in dubbing it "Bloody Sunday". The January protest was led by a Russian Orthodox priest with a following of 150,000 people. They were asking Nicholas II for help, to improve their lifestyle with no political agenda such as overthrowing the monarchy. Regardless, the troops outside the palace opened fire on the protesters, however, the exact number of deaths is uncertain. When word of what happened spread through Russia, strikes and protests - some involving 400,000 people - spread quickly. The demands became more political, citizens demanding freedom of speech and an elected government. What had been a peaceful protest for better living conditions exploded into national outrage. Nicholas II's response to the protests was to issue the October Manifesto which promised a constitution. There was mixed reactions to the document but it convinced many protesters to return to work, weakening their numbers and bringing the revolution to an end the same year it begun. The 1905 revolution solidified that the majority of Russians were unhappy with their leadership which is how the Bolshevik party