how far was theTsar Nicholas the second responsible for his own downfall?
The ever declining popularity of world war one, the failure for the Tsar to make reforms after the 1905 revolution, along with ever growing forces of revolutionary parties all contributed to the fall of the Tsar Nicholas the II. But was he to blame? In this essay one will discuss the factors instigating the fall of the Tsar, and how far he was responsible for his own demise.
The living conditions for the peasant population across Russia were atrocious. This presented itself as a major problem for the Tsar, as over 80% of the population was comprised of peasants, and this lead to them demanding reform. Over 25% of the wealth of Russia was owned by just 1% of the population, this alarming statistic created a colossal division between rich and poor, further stressing the peasant’s point of reformation. By 1904 life expectancy in Russia was 40, despite serfdom being abolished, peasants had to pay redemption reparations to cover landowner’s workforce losses, these repayments lasted for 49 years, longer than a peasant’s lifetime, sometimes even two. These problems all lead to the widespread strikes and protest that spread across Russia between 1905 and 1917.
The widespread unrests across Russia lead to the horrific event of ‘bloody Sunday’ where over 1000 peaceful protestors were killed, ruining Nicholas’ image as ‘the little father’. This event was the spark of the 1905 revolution, and through this, events such as the ‘Potemkin Mutiny’ occurred. As a result of this widespread uproar, the October manifesto was produced. This could have potentially resolved the problems, especially considering the duma, however the Tsar made bad decisions and still had complete autocratic power, a power that the duma could not control. In reality the October manifesto did not solve anything, it merely postponed the inevitability of the Tsars downfall and increased his ever proliferating opposition.
In 1914 Russia joined the war under the rule of Nicholas, initial response to the war
The living conditions for the peasant population across Russia were atrocious. This presented itself as a major problem for the Tsar, as over 80% of the population was comprised of peasants, and this lead to them demanding reform. Over 25% of the wealth of Russia was owned by just 1% of the population, this alarming statistic created a colossal division between rich and poor, further stressing the peasant’s point of reformation. By 1904 life expectancy in Russia was 40, despite serfdom being abolished, peasants had to pay redemption reparations to cover landowner’s workforce losses, these repayments lasted for 49 years, longer than a peasant’s lifetime, sometimes even two. These problems all lead to the widespread strikes and protest that spread across Russia between 1905 and 1917.
The widespread unrests across Russia lead to the horrific event of ‘bloody Sunday’ where over 1000 peaceful protestors were killed, ruining Nicholas’ image as ‘the little father’. This event was the spark of the 1905 revolution, and through this, events such as the ‘Potemkin Mutiny’ occurred. As a result of this widespread uproar, the October manifesto was produced. This could have potentially resolved the problems, especially considering the duma, however the Tsar made bad decisions and still had complete autocratic power, a power that the duma could not control. In reality the October manifesto did not solve anything, it merely postponed the inevitability of the Tsars downfall and increased his ever proliferating opposition.
In 1914 Russia joined the war under the rule of Nicholas, initial response to the war