• 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)

    The Duma lasted just over two months before Nicholas dissolved it for demanding the right to appoint ministers. The next Duma was elected in 1907 and lasted for five months before it too was dissolved. Nicholas then decided to change the voting system so that he would not get any

  2. How far did the 1905 revolution weaken then Tsarist regime?

    In addition, the Duma did not reduce the Tsar's power. The Duma had limited powers to begin with, it could only pass laws. The Tsar could dissolve the Duma should he not like their proposals and they could only give suggestions to the Tsar.

  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. Tsar Nicholas II

    from others because he made all of the final ideas and nobody could change his mind. This also was a long term cause of why the Tsar was bad and so it would have also affected any previous tsars as well.

  1. Why did the Tsarist regime fall in 1917?

    Source F is reliable because it is a police report, and I know from my historical knowledge that police reports in Tsarist Russia were made to be accurate representations of what was actually happening. This would suggest that what is written in a police report from this time would describe

  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 ...

    As the war dragged on, inflation rose, food shortages skyrocketed and nearly all industry came to a standstill. In response to the declining economy, food shortages and overall conditions, mass riots and demonstrations broke out in Petrograd in 1917, which was to become known as the February Revolution.

  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