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

"Alexander III bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution" (Trotsky) Discuss

Extracts from this document...


"Alexander III bequeathed Nicholas II a revolution" (Trotsky) Discuss Nicholas II had to deal with a Revolution but there is discussion over what caused and who contributed to this long awaited change. The Revolution itself took place in 1917 and some historians believe that it was years of oppression and poor conditions for the lower classes that finally drove them to vent their frustration through violence. The Revolution can be traced back to Alexander II (1858-1881) and much evidence suggests that Alexander's reforms were a major contributing factor to the 1905 revolution," by inevitable increasing the numbers of educated and potentially Critical" (Kemp). Alexander II theory for the reformation of Russia was good but his actions at the end of his reign as Tsar showed how he feared that he had made too many changes. Alexander II gave the Russian people a glimpse of freedom, in reforms such as the emancipation, zemstvo, judicial reforms, military, censorship and potentially the most critical educational reforms. It was in Alexander's reign that the sign of an opposition started to appear, the terrorist group land of liberty were very much against the limitations to the reforms, wanting complete autonomy; as Mc manners suggests, " By dabbling in freedom the autocracy had demonstrated its own obsolescence without being able to adapt itself to the new age." ...read more.


The restrictions among the judicial system, with judges security of tenure and the elected "justices of peace" being abolished; only emphasized the inequality and more importantly resentment towards it. This anger amongst the middle class escalated as more Russian institutions were repressed. Censorship was tightened into a rigid system, with "harmful" publications being eliminated and all papers being censored the day before publication. Educational restrictions were also enforced, with universities losing the ability to rule their own affairs and there becoming a great emphasis on religion and preventing the working class from exceeding the social environment in which they belong. Overall these repressions appeared to work by bringing stability, but opposing groups were starting to rise against authority which was not a secure basis for Tsarists long term survival. However many historians suggest that this rising tide of opposition was not created solely through hostility by the repressions, but it was Alexander economic reforms coupled with the repression that fuelled the opposing social forces. Under Alexander III the economy developed dramatically with an average growth rate of 8 per cent per annum at the end of the century and railways grew which connected Russia to the Far East. ...read more.


His main offence was himself, the fact that he was not suited for the position of tsar. However, many occurrences, such as Bloody Sunday, the damaging influence of Rasputin, his absence during the war and his ignorance of the current peasant situation at the time, could have been avoided, hence preventing the inevitable decline of the Romanov Empire. However, although the fate of the Romanov Dynasty did slip through the hands of Nicholas II, the modernizing reforms set by Alexander II, which were later removed by Alexander III, set up difficulties for Nicholas II, which also contributed to the fall of the Romanov Empire. Further the social forces developing through Alexander II and Alexander III reigns, reached an all time high during Nicholas II reign with revolutionaries presenting Leninism as a the way forward to the new liberalised urban poor, which ultimately was the most detrimental factor in instigating the 1917 revolution. Moreover, although these revolutionary groups had been brewing during Alexander III reign, he managed to suppress them effectively; it was under Nicholas II that their ideas strengthened due to their frustration towards the Tsars regime. Ultimately, Alexander III did create major problems for but Nicholas II but it was Nicholas II that concluded the tsar dynasty. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 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 GCSE Russia, USSR 1905-1941 essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

    5 star(s)

    This impressed the Tsarina and Tsar very much and he started to become a permanent part of their family. He became very influential in court and with Military operations. This would not have mattered as much if Rastutin was not such an inefficient Ruler.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall? What can you learn from ...

    4 star(s)

    knowledge I think the soldiers would not fire on each yet as they are still working together and they have not yet mutinied. Although, it does mostly agree with historical knowledge I would partly agree with Nicholas saying that Rodzianko spread alarm to extract political concessions.

  1. How secure was Nicholas II as Tsar in 1914? Nicholas II was Tsar for ...

    Stolypin's inability to work with any Dumas except the third added to this. The reason he could work with the third was because the voting system for the Dumas was changed for the third so that only 1 in 6 could vote meaning that the Dumas had more supporters of Nicholas within it.

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    It had the Tsar at the top and then very noble and rich people towards the top but as a very small quantity, whereas at the bottom of the hierarchy triangle were the peasants who were 84% of the population.

  1. Was the October Revolution inevitable

    'Martov could never emancipate himself from his innate moral cannon. Lenin could veer, prevaricate, intrigue and sow confusion, seeking support from the devil itself if it offered' (Shapiro) At the second congress of the Social Democrats party (1903) these differences were highlighted with a dispute regarding who had the right of membership to their party.

  2. Reform followed by Reaction is a dangerous strategy for any government to follow and ...

    This change from progression to regression was so sudden that instead of making few enemies through simple progression, Alexander made everybody his enemy through regression, which untimely lead to his assassination in 1881. In October, Nicholas II allowed the creation of a Duma with the October manifesto.

  1. 'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid ...

    Even the same could be said politically if one discounts the minority terrorist groups. Alexander II's reign as tsar was without question a fairly contradictory one. Whilst adamantly refusing to give any hope to the idea that Russia would stop being an autocracy, he introduced very liberal reforms in the

  2. How valid is the view that the reign of Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    family and, depending on the area, each serf was guaranteed an allotment of land big enough to feed their family. The nobles, who stood to loose significantly from emancipation, were paid compensation by the State far in excess of the land's true value.

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