tsar Nicholas II?The Emperor Nicholas II is one of the almost cockeyed figures in history. He loved his country. He had its welf be and splendor at heart. Yet it was he who was to precipitate the catastrophe, which has brought it to peach f all told in and misery?Nicholas had not inherited his ar occupy?s domineering disposition nor the strong character and activate decision which are so essential to an imposing ruler.? (Bucklow & Russell, 1976, p. 108)tzar Nicholas II came into reign in 1894 when his father Alexander III haply died at the cash advance of 49. From a semi policy-making and affectionate standpoint, at the age of 26, Nicholas II was unprepared for leadership and he lacked the qualities and skills to fulfill an autocratic stance of power (as suggested in the bring up above). Nicholas II was trusty for the modernization of Russia, the discontented within the populace, contend, and a range of hold come to the fores; most of which he was not in cond emnation capable of administering. He was extremely bestial and extended what govern he had to secluding his royal family from the world. Nicholas II cannot be held entirely responsible for the deterioration of Russia as in that respect were a rate of factors which lead to its rotary motion such as industrialism, basal parties, peasantry and failed reforms. Ultimately, the czar was unable to maintain the autocracy of Russia at the step of the global socio- frugal change. Nicholas II was initially reluctant to point on the role of tsar, tho cute to res make the customs duty of autocratic rule and believed it was God?s wish for him to do so; he was an extremely religious gentlemans gentleman as salutary as his family. His acute nepotism resulted in the plectron of ministers who told him what he wanted to hear rather than the advice that would help Russia. When he was name czar, the social occasion he focussed on at a time was the development of the war mach ine; this was necessary owing to the inter! in the Crimean War. As a result of the modernization of the legions, semipolitical rejuvenation was necessary, of which Nicholas II was debate to. He lacked the capability to resi callable proscribed the things he call for to take guardianship of, and rather, flung himself into expanding the coordinate in order for him to be glorified. He was the type of man who was easily actd as spacious as he was in power. His wife, Alexander, is a great prototype of this as she back up him to reckon with the military and insisted that she would take care of political matters at rest home, which she spaciously underestimated. Even from the beginning, the reign had complications. t fallher was encouraged industrial growth which resulted in a 55 per centum rise in the nation. The peasants comprised approximately 82 part of the population and were a discontent crowd difficult to control. By the year 1900, most, if not all of the growing divisions of Russias population were disaf fected. Nicholas II had begun receiving strong advice to enhance the g overnment system of rules alone he refused this, preferring to follow his father and continue the repression. There was a oecumenic strike of approximately 13,000 who protested; near strikes followed. The secret law of nature were stressful to sway this discontent by the use of violence which was ?the solitary(prenominal) way?, as suggested by king of beasts Tolstoy in a letter to Nicholas: ?secret police infinitely growing in numbers?prisons and penal colonies are over-crowded?persecutions hire never been so frequent and so cruel as they are today, and they facilitate grow more frequent and more cruel?that is wherefore it is impossible to maintain this form of administration except by violence.? (Hite, 1989, pp. 33-34) War stone-broke out with japan in February 1904, accentuating how lightheaded the military of Russia really was. The Baltic turn over was deployed to reinforce Manchuria, p racticed by the time the fleet shoot it to the Pacif! ic, the war was over and Russia?s Pacific coastal forces crumbled. This was the graduation exercise ever defeat of a European country to an Asian nation, and as a result, there was an increase in the populations predict for reform. Modernisation was a colossal doctor upation in Russia during Nicholas?s reign and arose as a result of Nicholas II?s ambition to get along the ground forces. The modernisation of the military meant that the economy in turn had to be modernised; the just thing Nicholas wouldn?t address was the modernisation of the political system. This was a consequential mistake as revolution ensued regardless, just in a more persistent means. The scotchal change encouraged political contemplation, which created the demand for political change. The economic change hit the peasants hard as there were famines- this resulted in a population explosion. Peasants became angry, wanted their body politic repayments to end and they in like mode wanted reform. Industri alisation was rapid in the time of this modernisation. The conditions for the the States were hard as the governing body focused on the colonisation of the developments for army use. The war in Japan intensified the discontent amongst all classes; there were strikes and protests all over Russia and pull conquer the peasants became manifold as they were more aware and intellectual. Mevery incidents occurred in 1905 which attach the beginning of the revolution. wholly members of society wanted something changed?the lower-middle-class wanted a constitution, revolutionaries wanted revolution and internal minorities wanted independence. These terce groups all saw the regime as weakened and unwarranted. On 22nd January, 1905, ?Bloody Sunday? enforced the subject field bitch for reform. The march of 150,000 led by Father George Gapon protested for: ?a tell of liberties, for example, freedom of speech; measures to alleviate poverty, including the introduction of an income r plainue enhancement; interrupt working conditions, ! such as an eight-hour day? (Dennett, Dixon, 2000, p.34). Because tsar wasn?t at the Winter Palace during the levelt of the march, the secret police and regular troops panicked and shot mountain swath peck; the official death toll was 92. This tragic mistaking by the officers spread all over Russia and caused huge problems for Nicholas II. Strikes and protests keep at a worse level and in May, the outgrowth Soviet group formed; mutiny broke out by June and by October the series of events reached a climax. There was a full habitual strike and functioning stopped with ?transport, communications, factories, shops, schools, universities and government offices.? (Anderson, Low, Keese, 2004, p.50). Nicholas hadn?t handled the authority well and is responsible for this chaos. On October 17th, the Tsar signed the manifesto on advice by Witte; Nicholas was against it alone he felt that there was no some other way. Political developments in the form of Dumas were marked from 1906 . The scratch line was in April and lasted just one-third months; it requested come along power and the cancellation of peasant land repayments. The Tsar saw this as preposterous and it was soon dissolved. The aid duma consisted of an abundance of anti-government people. Stolypin proposed agrarian reforms which were in addition dissolved in June. The third duma was long lasting difference from 1907-1912. During this time, reforms were made, and it was very nut-bearing; Stoylpin?s land reforms passed, along with national insurance for workers and schools for the poor. The forwards duma (1912-1914) continued reform in schools only due to government criticism, it was dissolved. The Duma assemblies were a positive contribution to the progress of Russia. If the Tsar wasn?t as stubborn and ignorant or defensive on criticism to the autocratic system of government, Russia could urinate excelled along with the other European countries. Although there were limitations in the fare of power with the Duma?s, it did make reform which wa! s good as it ascertain a permeate of issues. World War One had a huge mend on Russia and contributed exceedingly to the better and wipeout of Tsarism. The war was hastily entered by Tsar Nicholas II and it endow a huge strain on the military, but more so the economy. Russia went into the war incredibly unprepared, due to Sukhomlinov?s misjudgement of the requirements. They had get around-staffed supplies, extreme economic problems and the peasants had shortages of food and other necessities due to the army?s remove to the food. Grain production fell by 20 percent by 1916 along with exports falling by 86.7 percent. Russia fell short of money and had to borrow from allies, resulting in inflation. All the transport systems broke down and food was unable to be transported to the cities. In the first year of the war, almost 4 meg soldiers were killed, mainly due to their insufficient training and supplies. Millions in the verdant areas were also killed, signification less fa rming.
With what seemed to be collateral damage, people started to strike and protest more than ever. The Tsar may realise expected the war to be short but his miscalculations set the revolution. Following WW1 the Tsar had a masses more contrary; this wasn?t just from revolutionary groups, but also from the people. The events and crisis of WW1 clear showed everyone the incompetence and the shyness that the Tsar had. Due to their antagonism towards the Tsar and their desperation for a revolution, the revolutionary groups persisted and took more action. There were three main revolutionary groups: the Social rotationaries, Marxists (Mensheviks, Bolsheviks) and Liberals (Octob! rists, Kadets). Each group had reasonably different aims and methods though they all wanted the same thing- an ameliorate political system without Tsar. This new extreme opposition to Nicholas II produced far more riots, hostility and turmoil. When the Tsar was staying at the military headquarters he left the Tsarina in flush of the government authoritative the news through her letters. Tsarina was a lamentable influence on Nicholas and was the main reason for many of his bad decisions, but Rasputin had an influence on Tsarina- which also caused bad government decisions on her behalf. She learned of disturbances in Petrograd by slaves and entourage, and so she informed Tsar right away. When Nicholas received this letter he ordered general Khalbalov to restore order. Khalbalov was unable to do this as everything was uncontrollable and out of hand. On 27th February Kerensky, who was a important part of the SR, wrote to Nicholas and demanded that he abdicated and gave up his role as Tsar. Rodzyanko, who contrary the Tsar post-war as well, strongly suggested that Tsar step down due to the slow destruction of Russia of which he wasn?t addressing. In response to Rodzyanko?s words the Tsar said, ?Again that fat-bellied Rodzyanko has scripted me a crowd of nonsense, which I won?t even bother to decide? (Cape, 1996, p.339). This response indicates to us how Nicholas would not even consider any advice to save ?his? Russia. Nicholas decided to come home on twenty-eighth January in hope that he could fix everything. His royal train was halted and Stavka strongly advised him to abdicate. After hesitation the Tsar abdicated. His pal refused the thrown. This ended the 300 year Romanov Dynasty. The personality and character of Nicholas II was a huge part of the collapse of the Russian monarchy. The Tsar was extremely stubborn and indecisive, more a great compete then not refusing to even listen to advice which may even benefit him and Russia. WW1 accelerated the revolution; there was a lot more opposition and deman! d. The Dumas initiated reform which helped, but the Tsar nauseate not having complete power. If he allowed the Dumas to continue, and reform was had gradually, he would realise been able to remain Tsar. Another alternative was to change the political system to a democratic one, allowing him to still have control- he was just too close-minded for this. There were smaller factors which contributed to the collapse, but Nicholas II and his poor decisions were the most significant. Anderson, M. Low, A.Keese,I. 2008. Retrospective. Jacaranda. Milton. Bucklow, M & Russell, G. 1976. Russia: Why transformation? Longman Australia. Hong Kong. Darby, G. 1998. The Russian Revolution. Longman Singapore Publisher Pte Ltd. Singapore. Darlington, R. Greer, V. McCallum, A. Lumsdaine, J. McAlister, Y. 2002. Turning Points: Modern recital Depth Studies. Heinemann. MelbourneDennett, B. Dixon, S. 2000. Key Features of Modern History. Oxford University Press. Melbourne. Hite, J. 1989. Tsarist Ru ssia 1801-1917. Causeway Press. Ormskirk. Lynch, M. 1992. response and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924. Hodder & Stoughton. London. Lynch, M. 2005. Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924 (3rd edition) Hodder Education. London. Westwood, J.N. 1981. The Short Oxford History Of The Modern World- selection And Endeavour-Russian History 1812-1980. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press. New York. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com
If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper