Preview

Asses the reasons why Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the 1905 Revolution

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1139 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Asses the reasons why Tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the 1905 Revolution
Assess the reasons why tsar Nicholas II was able to survive the 1905 revolution.

In October of 1905, a united resistance was formed in affiliation with the ambition to overthrow Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia. This united opposition, which still stands as one of the biggest anarchistic events in Romanov history, transpired shortly after the events of the ‘bloody Sunday’ massacre. Nicholas managed to retain his thrown throughout the revolution; many factors assisted in this sustainment, including the army, and elite, powerful people staying faithful, and honorable to the Tsar and his regulations.

Despite the munity, which occurred on the Battleship Potemkin in June of 1905, and the poor leadership during the Russo-Japanese war, the army remained loyal to their Tsar. This allowed Nicholas to have the protection, and numbers he needed in order to diminish any attacks in regards to the revolution, against the Tsar’s regime. Not only did the army provide a barricade from the rebels, but the army’s loyalty could have served as a great influence, in the hopes to persuade members of the resistance to remain loyal to the Tsar. In addition to the extensive numbers due to the army’s loyalty, it made a spectacle of the rebels; not only did it prove the resistance were the center of an anarchist uprising, but displayed they were fighting the country, which would ultimately lead to a civil war – which would only make the rights they were fighting for elaborate to achieve, if not abolish them completely.

One of the main attributes to play a major role in the survival of the Tsar was the unorganized, and badly strategized stature of the opposition. The social democrats proved such corrupt unity in their split into two groups: the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin – and the Mensheviks, led by Martov. Both democratic leaders had different opinions on how to lead the group as a whole. Lenin wanted the core of active members limited, whereas Martov wanted his party to expand and

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Nicholas II being the last tsar of the Romanov dynasty that lasted for over 300 years, is accountable for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917, however, there are various other reasons too that involved in the ultimate fall of tsarism in Russia in February 1917. While Nicholas’s indecisiveness played a major role in portraying his negligence, the other factors that involved the fall of tsarism were, the declining economic standards and the growth of political opposition along with Nicholas II’s penultimate absence when he was most needed in his country, due to the involvement in the first world war, which was another mistake made by the tsar.…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The question is focused on the challenges mounted to Tsarist rule in the given period, and the extent to which divisions among opposition groups contributed to their failure. Answers may consider the four main strands of opposition, their internal divisions and their intolerance of each other. A tradition of revolutionary activity was established by the Populists and their appeal to the peasants, though they were weakened by the assassination of Alexander II and the repression established by Alexander III. The Social Revolutionaries tried to gain support among both peasants and townspeople, but were divided between anarchists and revolutionaries. The Social Democrats split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at the 1903 Congress, while the Liberals did not establish distinctive parties until after the 1905 Revolution. A simple description of some of the revolutionary parties will be marked within Levels 1 and 2, and progression will depend on the range and depth of relevant material.…

    • 555 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1855, opposition to the Tsarist Government lacked an effective unifying ideology. This remained the case throughout the 1855-1964 period, even once the communists had taken power. A key contributing factor towards this was the lack of unity opposition possessed. Opposition throughout the period came from several sources, however it was dominated by division in opinion and ideology, only fully uniting in the February revolution of 1917 which brought down Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty. Even then opposition still differed in opinion, however it was unified by one common cause. Throughout the period, the peasantry were providing opposition to Russian Government. However opposition was repeatedly ineffective. The Polish revolt of 1863 during Alexander II's reign was crushed by the army in much the same way as the 1953 East German revolt and the 1956 Hungarian rebellion were crushed under Khrushchev's tenure. A continuing feature throughout the period is the key role which the army played in limiting opposition from the peasantry, with military force frequently being deployed throughout the period. Lenin used it in the Civil War against the Green armies of the peasantry and Stalin used a similar style of brute force in the assault on the peasantry during the collectivisation process, albeit on a much grander scale. The army was very important to the state and their loyalty to Nicholas II during the 1905 revolution was vital in ensuring he was not deposed then instead of twelve years later. The peasantry also lacked a shared ideology and there were several other factors which meant that a full scale peasant revolt was never likely to occur. The demographic and general backwardness of Russia, whose weakness was repeatedly shown by failures in war throughout the period, meant that the peasantry were never going to unify because poor communications and transport links simply…

    • 1167 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Throughout the period 1855 to 1954, opposition to Russian governments was a common occurrence due to dissatisfaction of many civilians’ lives and the lack of development seen throughout Russia. However, as much as there were some successful movements throughout 1905 such as the Bolsheviks gaining support and eventually gaining power, there were also several failed attempts due to intense use of violence, terror and censorship by the state. It is arguable that whether opposition was successful, merely came down to the strength of the opposition group or the weakness of the government in power.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The events of “Bloody Sunday” also played a dramatic role in the collapse of Tsardom. “Bloody Sunday” which was originally meant to be a peaceful protest by disgruntled steel workers in St. Petersburg took a twisted turn of events which forever tarnished the name of Tsar Nicholas II. Angered by the poor working conditions and the on-going war with Japan, thousands marched towards the Winter Palace to plead with the Tsar for reform. As the Tsar was not present at the time, panicky soldiers gunned down workers on the streets. The mass killings of dissident civilians possibly frightened the rest of the population into silent obedience, but would not have changed the fact that…

    • 366 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas I faced a multitude of problems when he ascended to the throne in 1825, first and foremost of all these was the Decembrist Revolution by Russian officers. Second was Russia’s crippling economic backwardness, and the slowly crumbling social systems of the old autocracy. Due to Nicholas the I Slavophil outlook on economics he had all but refused to modernise the Russian economy instead leaving it to sit stagnant whilst Western economies of Britain and France thundered ahead. This neglect of industry was keenly felt during the Crimean War where the allied forces of Britain and France thoroughly defeated and embarrassed the Tsars armies. The Russian army was terribly equipped, only capable of supplying 50%…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The first of these was headed by a moderate liberal, Georgi Lvov and the second was ran by Alexander Krensky. The Provisional Government knew that the Bolsheviks were going to strike. The reports of the Bolshevik's conspiracy in where always in Krensky's mind, but there was overwhelming dissent about the revolution. The government was so unstable that Krensky had little to no control over the congress or military, and because Krensky did not have "the majesty of government, the laws, the protection of friends and of the state," he had no power, no control over his fortune. Krensky's failure as a prince had to do with the unstable government and the political factions all brewing their revolutions and civil unrest. He did not prepare for fortune. He met his end by not being able to deal with…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Furthermore he decided to take matters into his own hands by becoming Commander in Chief . He thought that his tactics,maneouvering and royal presence would win Russia the war . Unfortunately this did not go as planned, and Russia was defeated. Although they had lost the war , Nicholas as a leader had stepped up and tried to make his country victorious . It was his lack of military experience that had devasted the Russian army , not a weakness in his character .Nevertheless, Russian citizens seen this as another failure in their leader, as they suffered more losses than any other country.This damaged Russias morale.The people had ,had…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas Romanov

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Bloody Sunday was an event that brought attitudes and opinions of hate towards Nicholas II and branded him with the new nickname “bloody Nicholas” which also creates a sense of how the working class felt about their Czar. Bloody Sunday was the massacre of innocent peasants holding a peaceful petition led by father Gapon, outside the winter palace and through the streets of Russia. Peasants marched unarmed and carrying religious symbols on flags hoping that their Czar would show compassion and help his people like a Czar should. This was not the case. The Imperial Guard fired 3 shots before shooting…

    • 597 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nationalism is defined as follows: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. The definition suites the aspect of the Russian people of the time, however they felt patriotic towards many separatists, not the Tsar. Nicholas II failed to unit his people under one patriotic belt. After riots of Bloody Sunday, many citizens became loyal to a man named Gapon. Gapon was a “socialist priest” (Warth 88). Gapon further led to the dis-functionality of Nicholas II in WWI by forcing him to focus on riots at home rather than his armies, along with putting workers out of the factories protesting for better conditions. On January 6, 1905, Gapon wrote a petition to Nicholas II that addressed the fact he was unaware of his people’s needs. “The Tsar does not know of our needs, and we will tell him,” (Warth 90) is what Gapon preached to his followers as they roared in confidence for change, further blowing the bubble of Nicholas II’s control closer to the bursting point. On January 19, 1905 after riots got increasingly bloodier and he further dug his whole among his people, Nicholas II proposed a manifesto for workers to “air their complaints” (Warth 99.) As a result, he retracted his idea for a more “monarchy friendly” approach as to receive a deputation of “reliable workers.” This however, led to verbal and physical abuse of the deputies and engulfed mistrust further among the working-class citizens towards the monarchy. With failing to unite his people under the wing of the monarchy, Nicholas II’s armies were feeling the hurt from home. Work related crisis along with food shortages affected not only the production of Russia’s citizens but the might of Nicholas II’s armies. At Tannenberg…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A Nationwide Revolution

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages

    In 1905 the massacre of innocent people during a peaceful protest outside the winter palace in St Petersburg sparked the start of a nationwide revolution. This mass murder of the innocent protestors became known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. During the revolution strikes occurred across the nation involving more than 400,000 people, peasants attacked and raided the homes of their landlords and the Tsar’s uncle, the Grand Duke Sergei, was assassinated. Although Bloody Sunday was the immediate reason for the revolution, there were several causes which had caused long term grievances towards the Tsarist regime among the population of Russia leading up to 1905. These include the developments in the countryside and the lives of the peasants, the treatment of the inner-city working class and ethnic minorities, the repression and growth of the political opposition and the impact of the Russo Japanese war. Although all these factors contributed to the initiation of a revolution in Russia, I believe that the attitudes towards and treatment of the working class and the peasants was the most prominent reason for the uprising in 1905.…

    • 1615 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Decembrist Revolution

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Rebels in this sphere always are opposed to political systems and try to change it with the help of force. One of the most powerful rebels in the Russian history is Decembrists’ secret society. Three thousand Decembrists were trying to stop serfdom while it was becoming more and more popular in Imperial Russia. Decembrists were rich people, officers, and aristocracy. Officers who took part in the War of the Sixth Coalition (1813-1814) learned more about political and social life in the Western countries. Subsequently, the Decembrist revolt was planned because after considering facts about life in Europe, officers became opposed to the political system of their own Empire. Members of the secret society disagreed with Alexander’s I policies about feudalism and people, who worked for lords and could not leave. Those rich people and officers owned lands, had enough money, and power. However, they can be truly called the rebels due to the fact that they became goodwill Ambassadors, who desired to save slaves. As a result, the Decembrist uprising took place in Saint Petersburg, Russian Empire on December 26, 1825. Unfortunately, afterwards, most of them were convicted, sent to Siberia, and later killed. Nevertheless, Decembrists left a huge imprint on the people by showing that fighting for your rights is allowed. Moreover, the moral qualities should remain above…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays