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

Reform followed by Reaction is a dangerous strategy for any government to follow and the best example of this are the governments of Alexander II and Nichols II. Both Alexander and Nicholas were inconsistent

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Reform followed by Reaction is a dangerous strategy for any government to follow and the best example of this are the governments of Alexander II and Nichols II. Both Alexander and Nicholas were inconsistent in their policies However; Alexander had the qualities of an autocrat while Nicholas didn't. Nicholas was small compared to his Romanov Family members and his was too kind and quiet. He "had no insides" and in the face of danger, he would fun out of fear unlike his grandfather Alexander who would simply tighten his grip on Russia. Also, unlike Alexander, Nicholas was never around his people. Even though both Alexander and Nicholas didn't mingle with the peasants, Alexander stayed in Russia and knew what was going on with his people. Alexander II was a passionate reformer. Other than freeing the serfs, he wanted to revise the judicial system, extend education, reform the military, increase foreign trade, and spark the growth of industry. ...read more.

Middle

This constant back and forth would lead to the first revolution of 1917. Both Alexander II and Nicholas II had incompetent generals and people who carried out their orders. When Alexander II reformed the Courts, judges would take bribes to change the ruling on cases. During the Russian-Japanese war, Nicholas tried to prevent the Japanese from overrunning Port Arthur by sending the Baltic fleet. However, the fleet was incompetent and their incompetence caused serious humiliation to the Russian navy and the government. This led to the beginning of the 1905 riots. Even during WWI, most of Nicholas' generals were Incompetent and believed that the bayonet was superior to the machine gun. During both their reigns, Alexander and Nicholas had to deal with incompetence. Alexander was a direct reformer. Every reform policy came from him and he made sure they went through. Nicholas had no real reform but his Prime Minister Peter Stolypin had some reform. ...read more.

Conclusion

Alexander was constantly terrorized by radical factions because his reforms were destroying their cause and the only way to get their point across was by killing Alexander. Nicholas had to face the entire country. The humiliating Russian-japanese war in 1904, the flip-flop involving the October manifesto in 1906, and finally the utter destruction of Russian forces during WWI made everybody hate Nicholas. There was no way to contain this hatred except give into the people, which still didn't work since he was assassinated in 1917 by the Bolsheviks. Nicholas was unfit to be a Tsar. He had no backbone and couldn't control his own people. Alexander was Tsar material, but his inconsistent policy caused his downfall. The reign of both Alexander II and Nicholas II clearly show that being a reformer then a reactionary in the same reign is very dangerous. However, it was more dangerous for Nicholas since he was a weak leader than for Alexander. Alexander had control, Nicholas didn't. Still no matter how reformist or reactionary either Nicholas or Alexander were, Russia was going to hell anyway. ...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)

    Russia was not doing well and in under a year they had lost over 1 million men in battle. The injured were in appalling conditions as there were not the resources to help them, "soon after the first battles, shocking reports came through of how the wounded were being treated at the front.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Why did Alexander II Emancipate the Serfs in 1861?

    5 star(s)

    This is where Alexander's Conservative side becomes important and must be considered. His famous, striking statement "it is better to abolish serfdom from above rather than await the time when it will begin to abolish itself from below" shows that Alexander knew serfdom posed a threat to his regime.

  1. Marked by a teacher

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

    4 star(s)

    This ignorance continues in Source F (ii), which is Nicholas' reaction to a previous telegram from Rodzianko warning him of the volatile situation in Petrograd. Rodzianko is recording in the telegram saying 'Situation deteriorating, Imperative to take immediate steps for tomorrow will be too late.'

  2. Tsar Nicholas II

    This was a long term cause of why the Tsar was bad and so it would have also affected any previous tsars as well. One other reason that made Russia so difficult to govern was the hierarchy of the country.

  1. 'Only Alexander II's policies made significant progress in avoiding revolution in Russia.' How valid ...

    instead of being a way of controlling the peasants as it had been prior to the Crimean War, would have been far more likely to incite disorder. It seems with the momentum for change after the failure in the Crimean War, for the new tsar to simply do nothing would

  2. How valid is the view that the reign of Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    This lead to a boom in population and a growth in industrialization as peasants could finally leave the fields and work in the factories. Better yet, the Russian gentry did not feel the damage to their wealth they thought they would.

  1. How valid is the view that the reign of, Alexander II achieved nothing of ...

    Running contrary to the normal authoritarian principles of tsarism, democratically-elected assemblies were formed in the countryside to give ordinary people a limited influence in the administration of their respective area. These assemblies were called zemstva, and were responsible for the conduct of local affairs with relation to education, transport, health, public welfare and the local economy.

  2. How Successful Was Roosevelt’s New Deal?

    It may be to counteract the atrocities that the Red Army performed, especially to the German population during and after the Second World War. Although this source is partly reliable as Stalin was indeed exiled to Siberia, we know that Stalin was not so compassionate to his people because he

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