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

How far was Nicholas II responsible for the collapse of the tsarist regime?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

History seminar Girum Zerihun Mr. Hunt How far was Nicholas II responsible for the collapse of the tsarist regime? For the duration of Tsarist autocracy, Russia was considered by far the most rampant of all European nations. Under indispensable law, the despotic Tsar would be the solitary power ruling over all of the Russian empire. Equipped with such an immense power, the ability for an individual Tsar to practice articulate policies and rule efficiently was critical to Russia's survival. Under a coherent and an unwavering leader, one such as Alexander III, Russia had enough demeanor and agility to prosper as a nation. ...read more.

Middle

Such reactions were stimulated partly due to the abrupt halt of the rapid industrialization that was undergone by Russia during the reign of Alexander III. In addition however Nicholas's policies of tsarism and Russification shaped circumstances in which a large number of liberal and nationalistic groups were becoming gradually more aggravated (Tsarist Russia). Regardless of increasing police scrutiny, numerous well established opposition groups formed against the tsarist regime (history.com). In an endeavor to divert interest from domestic revolutions, Nicholas initiated conflict against Japan in 1905. Nicholas's primary aspiration in engaging in such a war was perhaps to merge and amalgamate the Russian public with the tsarist government. ...read more.

Conclusion

In the superficial "October Manifesto" Nicholas II reluctantly permitted the existence of a Duma (history.com). However this was by no means the beginning of the liberalization of the tsarist regime. Nicholas II aggressively restricted any anti-government activity, regardless of the presence of the selected duma. The Russian public had become increasingly motivated and revolts continued (Tsarist Russia ). The economic and social policies introduced by Alexander III were considerably large advances to a successful nation. Subsequent to his assassination and his heir's incompetence, Alexander's policies were not adequate to significantly change the deep rooted tradition of tsardom. The economic growth had offered unlimited opportunities, however a consistent policy of industrialization was required. This Nicholas was not willing to provide. ...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)

    World War 1 had a huge impact on Russia not only because Nicholas left Russia in the hands of Alexandra and Rasputin but also because of how badly the war went for Russia. In 1914 Russia Joined in World War 1.

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

    Although it seems likely that the Bolsheviks provoked some unrest amongst the workers by spreading propaganda and inciting a sense of class-consciousness, the likelihood of the revolution being premeditated by the Bolshevik party appears remote. Opposition also began to grow from the Tsar's previously traditional supporters such as members of the aristocracy and the Duma.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    Both the sources show food shortages and discontent. As they both show the same things, they are equally reliable. Source E is unreliable because it is a painting and is therefore susceptible to artistic exaggeration. If adding snow on the ground, and a sign saying "No bread today" will make

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    way would not have been put into place and so change didn't happen ad therefore the people of Russia were happy with an autocracy and so were not happy with the Tsar. Also being an autocrat made it hard to govern Russia for the Tsar as he had no help

  1. Explain Rasputin's contribution to the collapse of Tsarism.

    They did a lot of work for the country, but the middle and upper classes got everything. Without Rasputin's help, the Tsar's reign may have been even shorter, as he would have had absolutely no link to the peasant class, which was over 70% of the Russian population.

  2. 'THE TSARIST REGIME WAS SECURE BY 1905'

    He was the catalyst in the 'great spurt' which offered a possibility that Russia might throw off its economic backwardness, and catch up the world powers. Witte was one of the few Russian ministers to appreciate the sheer magnitude of Russia's problems as it tried to modernise.

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

    held the full and direct responsibility for any military failures, which became numerous. Back at the capital Petrograd, the Tsarina and Rasputin were left to run the country, which they did incompetently. The people distrusted the Tsarina, for being originally a German princess; the Tsarina was alleged of treachery, and

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

    These policies were implemented by "May laws" which were extremely limiting to the Jews restricting them in many areas of Russian society such as voting in the Zemstva, entry to education and residency. However Russification was not on its own responsible for the rising tide of opposition in Russia.

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