To what extent was Nicholas II responsible for the outbreak of the revolution in February?

Authors Avatar by empireofrepine (student)

To what extent was Nicholas II responsible for the outbreak of revolution in Feb/March 1917?

        The October Manifesto was a very key event to the outbreak of Revolution. It was issued as a response to the 1905 revolution which was triggered by events such as Bloody Sunday and massacre at the Lena Goldfields.  Both events had several innocent casualties through the hands of the Russian Tsarist Army who were assigned in those sites. Despite being peaceful and legal protests, both Bloody Sunday and the Lena Goldmines strikes resulted as mass massacres. The Tsar had to take responsibility for these massacres as his army had carried them out and despite this he had agreed to go against the October Manifesto even though he agreed to make some changes. He still held his position as the ruler of the kingdom and he still had immense power. Therefore, the motive of the revolution was not fulfilled which led to a second revolution that would continue until the Tsar was dethroned and abdicated.

        On the other hand, it can be argued that the massacres were not directly the faults of the Tsar even though his army carried them out. He was not present in the events of the site of the events and he had not issued direct orders to open fire on the protestors.  His status as a Tsar was definitely damaged by these events and retaliation increased because of them. Nicholas II did make some reforms and changes in response to the October Manifesto such as land reforms  which enabled Serfs to own and grow their own lands, liberal freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, trade unions and political parties, establishment of primary schools, national insurance and healthcare, banned redemption payments and most importantly established the dumas. Therefore, it can be put forth that Nicholas II had agreed to make changes and provide some needs and requests of the Manifesto. In a way, he had made efforts to satisfy those who revolted against him.

Join now!

        Even though Nicholas II had agreed to allow a parliament and establishments of dumas, he had carried them out and several reforms under his fundamental laws which enabled him resilient control and free will. He had even dissolved them if they were not functioning to his contentment and influence. He carried out franchised voting and decisions were made under his influence. The nation remained under the stronghold of his autocracy and it seemed as if nothing had changed at all in terms of power and revolution. It was if the Tsar had not only disregarded the revolution but made a ...

This is a preview of the whole essay