• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

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

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐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. ...read more.


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 mockery out of it through his position as the Tsar. Tsarism was an out-dated concept during the early 20th century. While the rest of the modern world including the superpowers, had gotten rid of any form of autocratic, monarchic and imperial governments that reigned as a sole power and ruler of a nation, Russia was still under a very traditional, central and timeworn Tsarist system. International politics and relations were reliant on modern politicians and governments and Russia needed such a system to keep up with the rest of the world. Change was necessary as Tsarism was not capable of coping with modern politics and it can be argued that the system was bound of be changed no matter what Nicholas II did/was. Russia had also been suffering from various long term problems such as industrialisation, agriculture, famine, class division and social disorder. ...read more.


Nicholas also got rid of Witte, the minister who had made grave positive changes to the system that helped strengthen Russia. This undermined his credibility as a considerate leader. The leaders of the revolution such as the Bolsheviks were very organised and determined to attain and achieve the revolution. The uprising had levitated for several years and there was very little the Tsarist government could do to silence these revolutionaries. Their cause was further strengthened by events such as Bloody Sunday and Russia?s failures in the Great War. There was also a rise in syndicalism and the government could not get involved heavily following Bloody Sunday and Lena Goldfields. The Tsarist regime had never really gotten rid of such individuals and parties even though they had used innumerable methods to punish and stop them (executions, exile, and forced labour). The rise in assassinations of political leaders (Stolypin) further held opposition on a stronger position to Tsardom. To conclude, Nicholas II had his role on contributing to the 1917 revolution but revolution was also impending. It is true that the determination and desire for revolution remained strong until it was accomplished but Nicholas? actions only ignited a fire that was already set alight. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II saved by making concessions in the 1905 ...

    The Tsar decided that he had got over crisis point and had given away too much. He had pacified the masses with concessions and so decided to try and claw back the power he gave away with the Fundamental Laws.

  2. To what extent were the actions of Tsar Nicholas II during the First World ...

    In fact many of the problems Nicholas faced would not have arisen without it. Despite the enormous size of the Russian Army (14 million), and its nickname "the Russian Steamroller", it suffered several serious defeats, such as at Tannenburg

  1. How far were the ideas of the philosophes responsible for the outbreak of the ...

    The third estate was at the very bottom and consisted of everybody else and there were great extremes of wealth. They did not have rights and privileges and had to carry the burden of the two privileged classes.

  2. To What Extent Were the Reforms of Alexander II Intended to Preserve and Strengthen ...

    If Alexander had wanted to strengthen to grip on power that much he would not have made such revolutionary reforms that paved the way for new groups of intelligentsia that would criticise the Tsar's rule. Censorship was also reformed by Alexander, between 1855 and 1863 the strict censorship of Nicholas I's reign were relaxed.

  1. Why did the reforms introduced by Nicholas II after the 1905 Revolutions not prevent ...

    At the same time, the liberals, just as corrupt and dishonest as those they were maligning, were desperately anxious to weaken the monarchy in order to get more power through a representative government before the end of the war ruined their chances.

  2. To what extent was Hitler responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War ...

    Yet this is indeed what happened. Stalin was playing for time. He believed that he had been snubbed by the British at the Munich Conference, he was aware that storm clouds were brewing and the only option was a treaty with Germany.

  1. How significant was Piotr Stolypin in attempting to strengthen Tsarism between 1906 and 1911?

    In the short term however, the daunting fact of the massive increase of the Russian population was cushioned slightly by agriculture because partially more efficient because of the peasants using new land, crops and methods which increase crop yields by 50%[24].

  2. To what extent were the Bourgeoisie responsible for the outbreak of Revolution in 1789?

    However, although the ideas of the philosophes challenged the abuses of the Ancien Regime, they were a movement of the educated elites for the educated elites. Without the financial crisis that the Crown experienced from the 1770s and the political mistakes made by Louis XVI in an attempt to resolve

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work