• 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)

    Although Source A is inaccurate the there are threads of truth. It tells us how the workers had gone on strike and that others had encouraged more workers to demonstrate. This information is also shown in Source C with the figures of the workers on strike dramatically increasing during the period of the revolution.

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

    In his statement he said Russia's only hope lay in "immeasurable distances, impassable roads and the mercy of St. Nicholas, patron of Holy Russia". War-weariness began to grow. "World War I subjected every belligerent country to immense strains, which could be overcome only by close collaboration between government and citizenry in the name of patriotism.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    was made by opposition to the Tsar and was designed to show a distorted view on how much control Rasputin had over the Tsar and the Tsarina. Source H was written to be a historically accurate account of the relationship between the Tsars and Rasputin.

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    This made Russia very difficult to govern since the different groups wanted different things from their leader. The peasants simply wanted more land and money, the urban workers wanted better working conditions and hours of work to make their lives more bearable and Nobility simply wanted more of everything.

  1. To what extent in the period 1906-1914 did the Russian monarchy succeed in removing ...

    There was also an increase in peasant ownership due to migration in order to set up new farms in Siberia. Between 1900 and 1913 five million peasants voluntarily went east. According to statistics, as a result of Stolypin's reforms by 1914 approximately 1/4 of all peasants land was privately owned outside the communes.

  2. What Were The Biggest Challenges Facing Nicholas II On His Accession To The Throne, ...

    Also Russia focussed too heavily on industrialisation ignoring other factors of need, like light industry and the social and political issues surrounding Russia. Russia and Nicholas II faced industry problems, but in the early 1890's the great spurt happened, improving the industry in general, the economy and world trade.

  1. 1917 Russian Revolution Perspective

    They became very afraid of us workers and did not return to our factory. Instead they opted out for the easy road and shut down my workplace, locking all of the workers out. With no work in my days, I joined the other locked out workers by striking and showing support for those who could make a difference for us.

  2. To what extent was the storming of the Bastille the most significant event of ...

    solely based on a disgruntlement with the monarchy and the social system surrounding their lives - indeed it is fair to generalise that the typical peasant would not have bothered with affairs of political nature - but instead it was the situations more specifically affecting their lives which worried them.

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