• 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...

Introduction

"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.

Middle

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.

Conclusion

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)

    but as soon as his army regained control he ignored the Duma. Although, Nicholas was able to survive as Tsar on a shoestring, the final blow came when the February revolution stirred. I have several sources telling the story of events, which led up to Nicholas abdicating the throne of Russia.

  1. Which Tsar was more autocratic-Alexander III or Nicholas II?

    The impact on the economy and the approach adopted suggests that Nicholas was more autocratic. Alexander, with the help of his able ministers Vyshnegradsky, and later Witte began to transform the Russian economy by opting for a liberal attitude towards the economy.

  2. To what extent was the Revolution of February/march, in Russia 1917, due to the ...

    "It was, therefore, the war which led to unrest because of the food shortages and economic distress it brought," according to Phillips On the other hand, the 'Pessimist' Schools oppose this theory of evolution, and believe that revolution was inexorable.

  1. Why was Nicholas II able to survive the 1905 revolution but was forced to ...

    It is often said that Bolshevik influence had become much stronger than it had been twelve years earlier. And the war, in which Russia was embroiled in 1917, is often identified as a factor in the Revolution, and thus the Tsar's downfall.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    Kirov was awarded a full state funeral but Stalin's response was to issue a decree sanctioning the death penalty against acts of terror. Stalin organised Kirov's murder and then covered his tracks. Nikolayev was shot and Kirov's bodyguard was clubbed to death.

  1. 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.

  2. Tsar's Russia & revolution, Hitler's rise to power revison notes.

    --> Lost 34 seats (Nov.) --> Hitler offered Chancellor (Jan 1933) --> Election: 288 seats --> Richstag fire --> Declared communists illegal --> Passes Enabling Law --> Declares all parties illegal --> Night of Long Knives --> Death of Hindenburg --> Absolute Power.

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