In the following essay I will assess the validity of this view “The Romanov Government in 1905 was weak, but by no means”.
First, I will analyze the weaknesses that the Romanov Government had. In terms of economy it can be said that Russia suffered an slow economic development caused by the corruption of the government the poor leadership, the slow way to rule, also caused by the low number of urban workers (12% of the population work in the industry, and 82% were peasants), which show at Russia had not achieve the major industrial growth. In addition there were also political failure; Russification was one of the failures. They wanted to impose Russian ways on all the people within the nation, some people were in favor about such moment others no. Also the sheer size of Russia and its undeveloped transport system that limit the chances for industrial expansion. In social aspects there was a big gap between each class. Each class was the Rulling class (who were the Tsar, Court and Government) the upper class, Commercial class and finally the peasants. In military aspects, the higher ranks of the Army were the preserve of the aristocracy, commissions were bought and sold and there was little room for promotion on merit.
In the other hand we have all the positives things. What respects economy the railways help the people. People could travel to big cities like Moscow or St Petersburg, and also it benefit because people could work there in the railway station or inside the train. Also the Great Spurt that was the spread of industry and the increase in production. It was a great time Russia was living and this was caused by the output of coal in the Ukraine and of oil in the Caucasus. In terms of politics, Almost all the Tsar wanted to modernize the two most important capitals, that were Moscow and St Petersburg in order to make it beautiful and in order to make it more industrial for industrial development. In the social failures we can found that the Peasants (Remembered that they were the 82% of the population) support the Tsar until the recession. After this, the peasants started to make revolts and were against the Tsar. Finally, In military aspects the “Red Army” was loyal to the Tsar. They support the Tsar.
In conclusion I think that the Romanov Government had some weakness but at the same time they had many things positives.
Guido Ciccone – Senior 4 - 2012
You May Also Find These Documents Helpful
-
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 -
Firstly, the repressive policies of the Tsar was partly responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule as the Tsar made it very difficult for there to be any sort of opposition. This was because the Tsar implemented the Okraha (secret police) to exile anyone who opposed him. This created fear in opposition groups so they started operated from outside Russia. In addition to this, the Statute of State Security meant that the government opponents were tried so could not operate. This, with the help of Okhrana barred any opposition.…
- 824 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
How successful were Alexander II’s reforms in strengthening the Tsarist regime in the years 1855 to 1881? (24 marks)…
- 7465 Words
- 24 Pages
Powerful Essays -
The Russia economy in terms of industry fluctuated over the period from 1855-1964. It is key to note that under all the leaders, industrialisation and modernisation was always seen as an essential economic aim. Under Alexander II, with Reutern as his Minister of finance who adopted an approach that revolved around continued railway construction, attraction of foreign expertise and foreign investment capital. As a result modernisation and expansion occurred within the staples as well as newer industries which show the impact that alexander II made on industry. Reutern achieved a sevenfold increase in the amount of railway and the capacity of railway to carry break bulk at speed increased which gave a major boost to industrial output Russia seemed to be finally moving towards industrialisation and keeping up with the West. This approach was similar under Nicolas II who also managed to have a great impact on Russia’s industrial economy. This was through the work of Sergei Witte whom at the time of his appointment the Russian economy still resolved predominantly around agricultural production further showing that under Alexander II impacts was limited. Witte continued the idea of foreign expertise as well as taking out foreign loans, raising taxes and interest rates to boost available…
- 2039 Words
- 9 Pages
Good Essays -
Nicholas poor leadership and traditional beliefs meant that there was little change in Russia, outside Russia many countries were thriving on industrialization where as Russia was still lacking behind. The new Western ways built growing political tensions; left wing oppositions were forming against the Tsar and waiting to over throw him. This long – term factor is seen as Nicholas II own problem for his downfall, his lack in leadership skills angered the country and people knew Nicholas could improve his leadership, but would not do so.…
- 1510 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
Assess the role of the Bolsheviks for the decline and fall of the Romanov dynasty.…
- 2102 Words
- 9 Pages
Powerful Essays -
Assess the view that the Tsars preferred repression to reform in the period 1855 to 1906…
- 2567 Words
- 11 Pages
Powerful Essays -
When Alexander III became the tsar, Russia was in a crisis following the assassination of Alexander II. The problems that Tsar was facing were that many different groups wanted to change the political system, as not everyone agreed with the autocracy system of government in Russia. To solve this he had to get rid of all political parties and political opposition. Also he had to get rid of anyone who had or wanted political control. Alexander II’s liberals ministers, M,T. Loris-Melikov and N.P. Lgnatiev left the office, and were replaced with Alexandra III own mistiers, Pobedonostsev, chief procurator of the Holy Synod of the Russia Orthodox Church. Also he had to make sure that all power was given only to the Tsar, so he had to restrict the Zemstvas power, because the Zemstva meant that all power of the tsar was spread out to cities and towns. Furthermore, the organisation, the ‘Peoples Will’ needed to be destroyed as it was a threat to Tsar’s power, so immediately he destroyed the ‘Peoples Will’. He then introduced the Statute of State Security. This allowed the government to arrest and trial any political opponent without a jury. This gave the Tsar complete power. In addition, Russia was a huge multi-racial empire with 55% Russian and the rest Ukrainians, Polish, Jews and more. Because of these races Alexander III wanted to make sure that Russia remained Russian. He did this by a policy of ‘Russification’. This policy made Russian the official language. This meant all documents were in Russia. However this policy affected many people including the Jews. Finally, Russia’s main problem was financially. Russia was physically the largest in size and population, but was almost the most economically underdeveloped. Alexandra III had to increase its economic wealth in order to maintain its armed forces and to maintain its position as a Great Power. He did this by his finance…
- 2108 Words
- 6 Pages
Better Essays -
Nicholas II came to the throne during an arduous time in Russian history. It was a combination of factors, including his political ineptitude that led to the fall of the Romanov dynasty and eventually cost Nicholas II, the Tsarina Alexandra and their five children their lives. Russia was late in modernising, partly due to the Tsar?s lack of reforms, and was behind Britain, France and the United States. Russia was also slow to emerge from feudalism, and was undergoing difficulty as industrial and agricultural production declined. Additionally, Russia was not socially advanced, as the peasants and working class had an extremely low standard of living, while the Royal Family lived a life of luxury. Politically, Russia was behind as there were no legal political parties, and the people had absolutely no power. The final event that pushed revolution to where it could not return from was World War I, which inflicted serious pain on Russia.…
- 1455 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure.…
- 1597 Words
- 7 Pages
Good Essays -
Throughout his time as Tsar, Nicholas II was faced with constant threats due to terrorist groups such as the peoples will. Many of these groups were oppressed by ‘The reaction’ that began under the reign of Alexander III, however not all opposition was destroyed. This meant that Nicholas was in constant Jeopardy. This essay will discuss whether or not Tsar Nicholas II was truly in serious Jeopardy during the events of 1905.…
- 795 Words
- 4 Pages
Good Essays -
The government was an autocracy which meant that all power resided in the hands of the Tsar. Nicholas II, however, had a weak and stubborn personality. He was not willing to share his authority with the Duma (parliament) and his government relied on oppression to remain in power. The army and Okhrana (secret police) were used to stamp out protests. A further key feature was that the government was dependent on a narrow social base of aristocratic supporters, which left it vulnerable to opposition from the vast majority of Russians. During the war years the growing scale of strikes and demonstrations was becoming too difficult for the government to handle.The war caused huge casualties (9 out of 15 million soldiers) for very little gain and a series of defeats in battle led to a collapse in morale. Consequently, the Tsar was blamed for failure because he had taken command of the army in 1915. As a result the Tsar was absent from the capital and he left his wife in charge. The Tsarina was distrusted because of her German origins and she was under the corrupt influence of Rasputin, who had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers at will. This led to a major loss of confidence in the government.…
- 286 Words
- 1 Page
Satisfactory Essays -
‘Imperial Russia’ all started in the 17th century where a man named Tsar Ivan IV ‘the terrible’ battled and defeated the Mongols which were the previous rulers of Russia. He appointed himself the emperor of Russia and his heirs would carry on his principles and his way of ruling throughout the century’s to build a strong nation. The Tsars of the Romanov dynasty would carry on ruling till the last reign in 1890-1917 which was held by Tsar Nicholas II son of Tsar Alexander III, it was his and his father’s reign which changed Russia from having its own system (tsarism) to become a nation with a fair government just like the European nations of their time. At first glance the Tsar’s were thought to be grateful to Russia e.g. victory over the swedes which transformed Muscovy into a great power of Europe and Alexander II the liberator ended serfdom and restored the government of Russia after losing the Crimean war. However there were many situations, problems in governments and people that caused Russia to change from having Tsarism to having an official government such as parliament.…
- 2350 Words
- 10 Pages
Good Essays -
Russia was a vast country and industrially backward. They were at a serious disadvantage as they were 40 years behind the rest of the world industrially. This was because although they had a lot of resources such as coal and oil, they could not get to it. The ground was frozen and Russia did not have the machinery or the experts to get to their resources. Therefore they had to seek foreign aid and employed experts to handle the machinery from other countries. To pay for this Russia sold Alaska to America which became the 49th state.…
- 469 Words
- 2 Pages
Good Essays -
Many of the opposition fled to other European countries where they continued to plot against the Tsar. This shows how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress politically by exiling all of their possible contenders. This allowed the Tsar to have much more control over Russia much like before Alexander ll reign. The persecution of Jews caused many to join radical parties and organisations. This shows us how there was not even the slightest bit of democracy within Russia, and how Alexander lll had caused Russia to go back in progress. Another major problem in Russia was the growing population of peasants. This caused famines within Russia in 1892 and 1893. This famine was a cause of many peasants death which shows how Russia did not have the money or resources to keep up with their growing population. This showed a lack in progress as they could not even support their country’s people with…
- 794 Words
- 4 Pages
Satisfactory Essays