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

Assess the extent to which the political incompetence of Nicholas II led to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty and the Russian Empire in 1917.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Assess the extent to which the political incompetence of Nicholas II led to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty and the Russian Empire in 1917. Politically, Tsar Nicholas II was poorly prepared for the position and when he was placed in power he was an indecisive autocrat being easily influenced by others and always making poor decisions. For example, his relationship with Alexandra and Rasputin was a submissive one. There is no doubt that to a degree his rule was characterized with political naivety, obstinacy, incompetence and insensitivity. However, it is not solely these faults in his character that led to the demise of the Russian Empire. The inherent unpopular autocracy, class structure, flagging economy, terrorist uprisings against Alexander II and World War I were also significant factors in the collapse of the Romanov's dynasty and the Empire. Nonetheless, it was Nicholas' political incompetency and negligence of these issues that magnified and worsened the problems. The Tsar was believed to be appointed by God, and he was known affectionately as "the little father" by his subjects. His decisions were accepted and considered final. Then what was it about Nicholas II rule that undid so much trust and confidence his people put in him? ...read more.

Middle

The defeat of Russian forces led to the revolutionary events of 1905. In 1904 Plehve, internal affairs minister, tabled a crude democracy (Van der Kiste 1998 p 170). Soon Nicholas was loosing faith in his advisers (not because of the loss at war) but because they were advising him to loosen his autocracy (Ferro 1991 p 69). The real starting point of revolutionary activities was the January 9 1905 protest which became known as 'Bloody Sunday'. The protest was a large crowd bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched towards the winter palace in St Petersberg . This crowd went with the hopes of presenting the tsar with a petition which attacked the exploitation of the people by capitalist factory owners and demanded a series of measures designed to improve the workers position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they had suffered. The tone of the petition seemed to be one of loyalty to the tsar, appealing to him to sort out their difficulties. One can argue that this protest showed the unshaken confidence in the Tsar as a source of charge and initiative. Although this confidence did not last long as the response to this protest was for the troops to open fire on the crowds. ...read more.

Conclusion

There were other factors that contributed to the revolution. There were massive socio-economic changes taking place, some of which led to the recomposition of the upper-class and an urban bourgeoisie (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3318.php). It created a new class of factory workers, the urban working class, mostly peasants moved to the city, and who now worked in shocking conditions. With the outbreak of WW1 the Russian economy had to produce everything itself. After Turkey entered the war on the German side cutting off the last realistic trade route, this led to food shortages which contributed to the growing discontent among workers who were already deeply anti-government (Weiler). Nicholas did make the decision to go to war which can be seen as a catalyst for accentuating discontent. CONCLUSION: One must remember that the Russia Nicholas inherited had weaknesses in its social structure. The bulk of the population was peasantry and they were having the hardest time. The time was right for revolution Bibliography Brooman, J. (1986) Russia in War and Revolution, Longman Ferro, M. (1991) Nicholas II The Last of the Tsars Viking Press, London The text provides an in depth, involved analysis of Nicholas' personal, social and political life. It is a scholarly discussion written with pain staking detail. Everything from official Government documents to personal diary entries are considered to draw appropriate and balanced conclusions. ...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? What can you learn from ...

    4 star(s)

    The source tells use how the nurse had seen the Tsars soldiers fire upon the demonstrators. She also comments that now the soldiers had fired upon people 'nothing now could stop the revolution'. I think both sources C and D agree with the evidence portrayed in sources A and B.

  2. How convincing is the argument that WW1 was the main factor in the collapse ...

    Whilst the Tsar was absent from Petrograd Rasputin's influence extended to giving the Tsarina advice on ministerial appointments. The Tsarina had always been ostracised by the masses but her close and contentious relationship with Rasputin heightened their condemnation of her and led to a loss of faith in the Tsarist regime as a whole.

  1. What were the causes of the Russian Revolution in March 1917?

    They wanted some change too. Now that they had the armed forces on their side, the strikers marched to the Duma to demand that it take control of the government. The Tsar tried to get back to Petrograd, but it was too late.

  2. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    Sources G and H also show different views on the influence of Rasputin because the writers of the two sources would have had access to different amounts of information. Source G was produced by opposition to the Tsar and therefore they would not have been allowed to enter the Tsar's

  1. Describe how events in Russia1914-17 led to the downfall of the Tsar Nicholas II

    He spent his time writing letters each day to his wife, writing his diary and playing dominoes. This was not helping Russia and this built up even more pressure for his own downfall Meantime Alexandra ruled the country in the Tsar's name.

  2. The Russian Revolution 1917

    and Bread" - this was extremely significant as it summed up exactly what the Russian people wanted most, and made them certain that he was one of them and had their views in mind. He wrote his "April theses" in no time at all, and the first point was "no

  1. Examine the importance of Russian weaknesses in WW1 in explaining the start of Revolution ...

    It also caused food shortages because their weren't as many peasants producing food and their were too many people living in the town it was hard to supply food for them all. Having so many people living in an overcrowded city was a bad move because people were able to talk to each other and plan and organise a revolution.

  2. To what extent was Nicholas II himself responsible for the collapse of the Tsarist ...

    As the army were disintegrating the Tsar decided to take command of the military. In August 1915, the Tsar made a mistake. He took personal command of the armed forces, but had very little experience, so as commander he was held personally to blame for any and every defeat.

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