• 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)

    Many battles were lost and more soldiers were being wounded soldiers began to give up drop their guns and run for home, when this begins to happen within an army all discipline is lost. The war had a devastating effect on Russia and its economy.

  2. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    Source F shows a telegram from Mikhail Rodzianko telling of the serious situation in Petrograd on 26th February and how Nicholas responded. Rodzianko is accurate in most places, but I do think he exaggerates slightly. In his telegram he says that army units fire on each other, from my historical

  1. How did living conditions change in towns as a result of the Industrial Revolution ...

    The factories had used to be typically situated near a large water source when machines were purely only powered by water . Though this was before the invention of steam power which had only required a relatively small amount of water .

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    same problems, and so the Tsar did not know which problem to solve first. Also if he did solve a problem for the peasants, then the nobility would not be pleased with this and so would dislike the Tsar and so this made it very difficult for Nicholas to resolve any problems.

  1. Was the October Revolution inevitable

    'In England in 1873, for example, four fifths of the acreage was the property of fewer than 700 persons; in 1895, only 14 percent of land cultivated was tilled by it owners' conversely in '1916 peasant cultivators in European Russia owned nine tenths of arable land.

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

    Animosity was rising against the Tsar and his government from all sides, and, contrary to the previous revolution of 1905, this one would not be quelled by half-promises or pretenses from the government. The Tsar had ordered his troops to take control of the situation and put down the revolt by force, however, soldiers refused and even joined the protestors.

  1. Why and with what consequences did Alexander II adopt more reactionary policies in the ...

    Occurrences - such as the one in the St Petersburg University, where the students broke into a locked room to hold a protest meeting, marching throughout the city and boycotting lectures - were common until confronted by reactionary responses from the State to reduce the numbers of scholarships and ban student meetings.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    Source L acknowledges that Stalin was not without flaws. The author of source L claims that Stalin had 'a dark and evil side' to his nature. Like source M, this source was published in Britain after the death of Stalin.

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