The popularity of the Tsar was ever-decreasing and opposition was worryingly increasing for him. Although the Tsar introduced the October manifesto, which stated that all classes had the freedoms of speech, conscience, assembly and association as we... ... middle of paper ... ...e to unite Russia, the army suffered in the battlefield and could not fight properly, eventually causing the Tsar to abdicate to create the fall of Tsarism. Tolstoy’s view is correct although there were signs that Russia was evolving into a more modern country. There were signs of economic growth as well as better living conditions and more rights to the people. However, the Tsar’s greediness and selfishness brought an abrupt end to what was left of Russia’s political stability.
The Extent to Which Nicholas the Second was the Cause of the 1905 Revolution Nicholas II faced many problems at the beginning of his reign which were magnified because of his incomplete training in becoming tsar. The main problems facing him were that the zemstvas wanted more power and a growth in opposition. He rejected the first “problem” and as such, a number of political parties, both moderate and violent came into being. The 1905 revolution had two catalysts which were Bloody Sunday and the fact that Nicholas II only offered the liberals a consultative assembly when they wanted a legislative assembly as well. Both of the catalysts were Nicholas II’s fault as he didn’t take the opportunity to appease a sector of opposition and because Bloody Sunday was the result of his mismanagement.
Henry Thoreau once stated that, “When a government is unjust, people should refuse to abide by the law and distance themselves from the administration in general”, which denotes that when a government is not being fair in rules that people could revolt (Straub 3). Begins the events which lead up to the Russian civil disobedience act in where Vladimir Putin was elected third-term once again, by cheating his way through and buying himself votes. People did not like this because it seemed to be an unfair move. The Russians had many conflicts with Putin when he governed Russia. Russians had reasons upon protesting against Putin because of the way he governed way very unfair.
It began with the peasants feeling cheated and when compared to England they lead appalling lives. Right from the start, the Provisional Government was not really in control. It had to share power with the Petrograd Soviet and was set up by the Tsar basically to fail so that he could show his people that the autocratic system with which Russia had used for hundreds of years was a better option. The Tsar wanted to preserve his powers for his son so that he may carry on the as-of-yet 300 years of Romanov rule. The Duma is disliked by the people, but in actuality there was little the Provisional Government could do.
The Soviets resented the Americans’ very long refusal to treat the Soviet Union as a legitimate partner of the international community as well as their postponed entry into World War II, which left the result of millions of Russian deaths. Once the war was over, these grievances became into a sense of mutual distrust and animosity. By the end of the war, with revenge in mind of the Russians, Soviet expansionism in the Eastern Europe grew concerning to the Americans. They were afraid their guess about Russia’s fight for supremacy against the world was true, which it was. While Russia thought United States came off a little hostile, United States was just trying to save it and its neighboring countries safe from their influence.
Discussions on the morality of serfdom had been around, and ignored, since the times of Peter the Great. Aware yet indisposed to change, Tsar Nicholas stated: “There is no question that serfdom in its present state in our country is an evil palpable and obvious to everyone. However to attack it now would be, of course, an even more disastrous evil.” It was until the Crimean War that the social costs of serfdom outweighed the economic benefits. The delay of reform stemmed from the underlying fear that tampering with the social order would damage the concrete autocratic rule. In the tsar’s eyes, freeing 85% of the nation’s population, nearly 52 millions souls, was less important than maintai... ... middle of paper ... ...
Ironically the end of the tsarist regime in Russia ended not with the removal of the tsar in 1917, but rather with the implementation of one in 1894. The tsarist regime in Russia fell due to the combined incompetency of Nicholas II as tsar, and the resentment of the people towards a system unwilling to change for them. Although the First World War was the event which set off all of the building tensions in Russia and that the tsarist regime had been in jeopardy for a while. The First World War only served as the finality to the events which ruined the legitimacy of the tsar and finally allowed the peop... ... middle of paper ... ...ently. However this was not the case.
Napoleon wanted to fight the Russians in one big battle but the Russians, seeing that they were vastly outnumbered, withdrew and went back to Russia to build a better army. As they went back to Russia the instituted a ?scorched earth policy?, meaning, that they burned everythi... ... middle of paper ... ... has been shown in 1792, there were many different individuals and groups which hoped to be strengthened by war. Napoleon had crushed opposition at home by his victories abroad. French foreign policy had become a reflection of the uncertainties of French government, France and the French people had acquired the reputation of being restless and dangerous as they involved the rest of Europe in their quest for a regime that would prove to be permanent and satisfactory. France had always been living dangerously.
It was ultimately however the loss of military discipline and loyalty in Petrograd, coupled with liberals' decisions and autocratic choice, which caused the regime to fall, not as a result of previous unrest, but a fear of what rebellion may be still to come. This fear was what dictated the nature of the revolution. It was this combination of long and short - term factors that caused the Russian autocracy to fall. It is pertinent to tackle this issue in a chronological form, beginning in 1915 / '16. One must however bear in mind that unrest in Petrograd, almost irrespective of the rest of Russia, was enough to cause the collapse of autocracy.
Repression in Russian Leadership Repression was used under both Nicholas 2 and the Bolsheviks to control the Russian population. The liberal methods employed preceding both governments (Alexander 2 and the Provisional Government respectively) failed completely and discouraged any other form of liberal or democratic controls. The strict extremist ideologies of both the Tsarist and Bolshevik regimes also necessitated violent repression to ensure total compliance. This was needed due to the major political upheavals taking place - the decline of Tsarism despite Nicholas' determination to continue his autocratic rule and the rise of Bolshevism to replace it meant that both parties needed to take a very harsh line. This was exacerbated by the fact that neither party came to power with the 'legitimate vote' of the public and so faced strong opposition that they wished to eliminate.