Explain how far Nicholas II was to blame for March 1917 revolution.
Explain how far Nicholas II was to blame for March 1917 revolution. Nicholas was mostly responsible for his own downfall in 1917. He created so many problems for himself and the country; it was no surprise that in the end his people turned against him. One of the most unintelligent things the Tsar did was taking charge of the Russian army in September 1915. Therefore, all the defeats Russia suffered in the First World War were the Tsar's fault. Being leader of the army meant that he had to leave home and leave all his power to his wife, Alexandra. This was a big mistake, because she was unpopular and incompetent. Being inexperienced, Alexandra turned to Rasputin for help, which meant that Rasputin was ruling Russia through her. Russia was very unsuccessful during the war, partly because Rasputin was involved in the sacking of some of Russia's most experienced ministers. Also in conversations with the tsar she lied telling him all was well in Russia, she did not want him worrying on the front line. Another reason why Russia was unsuccessful in the war was because there weren't enough weapons, so soldiers fought with whatever they could find. For example, they would use a brick or a plank of wood if they were lucky. They were told to pick up there comrades rifle if he died. However, Russia's prime minister at this time was Stolypin and he could have made things better for
Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917?
Moscow Economic School Extended Essay Why did Tsar Nicholas II Abdicate in 1917? History HL Michael Rodzianko cfx756 000904-005 2006 Abstract The abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917 was a profoundly mysterious event in Russian history. This unexpected event caused the Romanov Dynasty, which had ruled for 300 years to collapse in several months. This essay will aim at distinguishing the roles of various figures involved and the reasons for the event itself. This essay will focus mainly on the period leading up to and on 1917, in which the Tsar abdicated in early March. The memoirs of Michael Vladimirovich Rodzianko, the president of the fourth Duma will be used and to in order to get a contrasting view the work of G. Z. Yoffe, a Soviet historian who accessed archives opened in the 1980's will also be used. Along with these the works of renowned western historians will be used to back up much of the historical content. By using sources on the same time period by authors with contradicting points of view the most objective view, which is usually found in between the extremes can be traced out. The essay is structured into three chapters; the first focuses on the role of the Duma with emphasis on its president, Rodzianko; its members, Guchkov and Shulgin, and the parties of which it was comprised. The second chapter considers the Army and World War I, stressing
Tsar Nicholas II, the last Romanov emperor of Russia in March 1917, was forced off of the throne.
History coursework (sources) Introduction Tsar Nicholas II, the last Romanov emperor of Russia in March 1917, was forced off of the throne. In November 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution took place; this was followed by a bitter and bloody civil war. As prisoners of the Bolsheviks, they were moved from place to place until finally arriving in Ekaterinburg in May 1918. There they were kept under close guard in Ipatiev house, two months later they disappeared. Later in 1918, the whites captured Ekaterinburg they appointed Judge Sergeyev to investigate the deaths. Meanwhile the British government sent Sir Charles Eliot to find out what had happened. In January 1919, Sergeyev was sacked and replaced by judge Sokolov, however before his investigations were complete, the Bolsheviks recaptured Ekaterinburg. The Bolsheviks were not keen on the news of the murders becoming public because this might turn foreign governments and many Russians against them at a time when they were fighting a civil war. Sources Source A Sergeyev took from his desk a large blue folder and said, "Here I have all the evidence in connection with the Nicholas Romanov case". I examined the lower storey of the building where the royal family lived and the crime was supposed to have been committed. I do not believe that all the people, the Tsar, his family, and those with them, were shot there. It is my belief
Why did Tzar Nicholas II abdicate in 1917 and not in 1905?
Why did Tzar Nicholas II abdicate in 1917 and not in 1905? The Tzar abdicated following the revolution of 1917 but he did not abdicate after the 1905 revolution. There were a number of key factors which made this happen, in this essay I will be looking into the similarities and the differences. During both revolutions the people went on strike over poor working conditions and poor pay, but there were differences and these were the factors that determined the survival and the fall of the Tzar. Russia had many difficulties for a ruler. The size of Russia is incredible, 17,075,400 square kilometers of land, however there was only one railway across the country so much of the country was unreachable and passing a message on was very difficult. In addition Tsar Nicholas was a weak and unpopular ruler, having been passed down his status as absolute monarch and not having to work for it. His popularity was worsened by the fact that his family lived in great wealth and yet there was terrible poverty across most of the population. February 1904, a war broke out between Russia and Japan which became known as the Russo-Japanese war. This war was over a town called Manchuria situated in Northern China. Manchuria was home to the only dock on the eastern coast which did not freeze during the winter months. This made it tactically important to Russia's navy. Russia badly lost this war
The Factors which Lead to the Abdication of Tsar Nicholas in March 1917
The Factors which Lead to the Abdication of Tsar Nicholas in March 1917 In March 1917 Tsar Nicholas abdicated his, and his sons position as tsar of Russia. It had become impossible for him to continue because of the vast discontent across all the social classes. This situation did not just arise overnight it was brewing for a long time. It is also impossible to attribute his abdication to one specific factor because it was down to many. War broke out in 1914 and in the beginning it actually united Russia, although this was only to last a short period of time. This was because the majority of people thought the war would last only a matter of months. Pre World War One Russia was very divided and lacked national cohesion, the population hoped that the war would quickly and effectively unify the country. As the months went on and there was still no sign that the war was over people became very hostile towards the Tsar. This was not helped by the crippling financial situation the nation was in. In 1914 Russia had achieved remarkable financial stability but this was shattered by the war. Between 1914 and 1917 over one and a half billion roubles were spent on the war. The national budget increased from four million roubles in 1913 to thirty million in 1916. Where was this money coming from? An increase in taxes and huge borrowings from other countries were only partially
Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917?
Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to abdicate in 1917? By Lisa Atkinson The Tsar (Nicholas II) survived the 1905 revolution. However, the revolution in 1917 did remove him from power. When asking why Nicholas II survived 1905 there are numerous factors to examine. Both revolutions had extremely similar conditions. Levels of dissatisfaction, strikes and the country moving towards a wartime economy are all examples. It is also important to see small differences which gave the two events such contrasting outcomes and determined the survival and the fall of the Tsar. In February 1904 war broke out between Russia and Japan over a town called Manchuria situated in Northern China. After suffering a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, Russia expected severe peace terms. However, due to the negotiations presided over by President Roosevelt the terms were quite lenient. This allowed Nicholas to save face, pride and secure his position. In 1905, despite the appalling conditions that the workers in the agricultural and industrial sectors were suffering, there was still support and good will towards the Tsar. It is suggested that the people did not blame the Tsar, but his advisers for the state of the country. On the 22nd January 1905 peaceful demonstrations began, co-ordinated by the Union of Liberation, these demonstrations were an
Why did Nicholas II survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917?
Why did Nicholas II survive the revolution of 1905 but not that of 1917? When Father Gapon and his followers marched peacefully on the Winter Palace on 22nd January in what came to be known as Bloody Sunday due to the extreme reaction leading to the massacre of the protestors, it sparked the revolution of 1905, consisting of workers' strikes and protests in addition to terrorising the wealthy and important upper classes. As well as being a response to Bloody Sunday, the 1905 revolution was a result of pent up dissatisfaction with the autocracy in Russia and with the vast social inequality. However, in spite of the unrest within the country, the tsar managed to retain power after this revolution. In 1917, when the people revolted again, he was not so lucky, and the autocracy fell. There are many reasons why the Tsar was able to survive the 1905 revolution, not least of which was the benefit of good ministers to advise him well. Stolypin tried to have a moderating influence on the Tsar and to help him make concessions to the people which would promise to improve their lives enough that the revolution would die down. However, by 1917 both Stolypin and Witte were dead, and the Tsarina Alexandra was in charge of the running of the country due to the Tsar's absence to the front to fight with the army. During the time in which he was away, Alexandra replaced many of
Russian Revolution in March 1917.
Russian Revolution in March 1917 (1) There where many reasons that led to the fall of tsarism in march 1917. One of them was tsars' incompetence and the fact that he was incapable of finding effective ministers, or of supporting those he appointed. He listened not to the Duma's advises but to his wife, friends and favorites. One friend was particularly disliked, the unsavory Rasputin. His name was Gregory Efimovitch but most people called him Rasputin, "the immortal one", a Siberian peasant who claimed to be a Starets, a holy man of God. He was a wonderer whose uncouth appearance and outrageous behavior upset St. Petersburg society. Claiming mysterious powers of prophesy and healing, he convinced the Empress that he alone could control the painful and dangerous hemophilia of her young son Alexis, heir to the throne, through hypnotism. Alexandra, the tsarina, desperately grateful since she knew that she inherited her decease to her son, believed that Gregory was sent from God. From then on Rasputin was one of the most trusted members of the court. The Tsar and the Tsarina from now on they should follow this holy man's advice. Despite the rumors, Nicholas and Alexandra were told about Rasputin's wild behavior, (that Rasputin drank heavily and had affairs with many local women) they refused to listen, and continued to put all their trust in him. Rasputin began to give
Assess the successes and failures of Nicholas II between 1849 and 1917:
Assess the successes and failures of Nicholas II between 1849 and 1917: During the reign of Nicholas the second numerous events affected Russia making the ruling of an already demanding and vast country even more difficult, and given the Tsar's incapacity to rule, the Russian empire was not it it's greatest condition. The main events taking place between 1894 and 1917 were the Russo- Japanese war, the 1905 revolution, the creation of the October manifesto, the reforms created by Stolypin, the industrial issues, the involvement in the first world war and the role Rasputin acquired until his abdication in 1917. All of these events put light on Nicholas' capability of taking decisions giving hindsight on his successes and failures. Russia's desire to possess an 'ice-free' port capable of being active all year round pushed the Tsar to move towards the Japanese coast, precisely, towards the Liaotung Peninsula which was conquered by the Japanese in 1895, shortly after such date Russia, together with Germany and France took the decision of forcing Japan to return such favorable peninsula to China. In 1898, Russia took control of the peninsula gaining resources, territory and Port Arthur. Russia's intention was technically limited to lease the territory. However, the Japanese government saw the Russian occupation as an undesired threat as it was influencing Korea and the extension
Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? What can you learn from Source A about the situation in February 1917?
James Taylor 11MA Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? a) What can you learn from Source A about the situation in February 1917? Source A is an extract from Tsaritsa Alexandra's diary from the 25th February 1917. After reading through the source I believe it to be inaccurate and not very reliable. This for a number of reasons, the first sentence reads: 'Young people run and shout that there is no bread, simply to create excitement'. This is very incorrect, the workers weren't demonstrating just to create excitement; the workers wanted the price of bread lowered. Also the source says: 'But all this will pass and become calm if only the Duma will behave itself' The truth is the Duma was behaving itself, and although they wanted to take over the Empire, the Duma in fact had nothing to do with the demonstrations led by the peasants. The Duma was the Russian parliament, which Tsar Nicholas II created in an effort to make himself popular, but he later ignored the Duma and led the country using the army. Source A is inaccurate, although I believe there is a simple explanation. Tsaritsa Alexandra has written in her diary what she believes to be true. As the Tsar's palace is far outside Petrograd, I think the information from the centre of the city must have been altered slightly by the time it reached Tsaritsa Alexandra. As source A is quite inaccurate you
