• 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...

Introduction

´╗┐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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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

    Reforms such as removing the charge of levying taxes from the nobles and instead employing government officials to levy taxes boosted the efficiency of the taxation system but deprived many nobles of a steady income. This angered the nobles and would be part of the reason they would revolt.

  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. Describe the Russia that Tsar Nicholas II inherited

    This resulted in Russia ostensibly inhabiting the weakest industry in relation to its enemies who they were incapable of matching the power of. From 1850 to 1875, railways in Russia grew from 1,049km to 19,029km. Despite this appearing to be an increase in progress, Russia was again nevertheless lacking in

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

    On one hand, the liberals 'were mainly interested in political reforms' and they felt like they had got what they wanted out of the October Manifesto, and so urged support for the Tsar. On the other hand, the socialists and their followers 'wanted to push on to a social revolution'.

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

    His second major mistake was his decision to reject the offer made by the Progressive Bloc (mainly made up of Kadet and Octobrist Duma deputies) to form a "national government" which would have national support and be a "Government of Public Confidence."

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

    He asserted that French society in the 18th century was divided and sub-divided into different groups, and social diversification among each group was so diverse that it was impossible to talk in terms of clear cut class based revolution. It is this factor that accounts for the uniqueness of the French society.

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

    France dismissed the idea that Germany should be awarded equality in armaments in 1933 and this was the cause of the German withdrawal from the league. Hitler also knew that if Germany was to fulfil her desire for lands in the east the France had to be defeated first.

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

    in the short term, his plan was set over 20 years, but his assassination in 1911 meant only 9 years of the reforms had been taken into effect, and after his death, they were downgraded and minimal further action was taken.

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