Assess the Role of the Tsar in the Fall of the Tsarist Regime

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

With over a century of military and civil discontent the Romanov Dynasty was bound to fall sooner or later. The fall of the Romanov Dynasty was a result of long-term causes including Tsar Alexander’s inability to satisfy his people and Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule to throne all together. The collapse was also an outcome of immediate causes; the effects of World War One on Russia and the 1917 revolution. All long-term and immediate cause played a crucial role in stirring the nation until Russia was clearly overdue to be overthrown.

Russia's overthrows and shortage caused revolutionary upheaval and massive inflation, which led to deprived infrastructure. During World War I, Russian society naturally caused great dissatisfaction among the serfs. As the revolution wore on, numerous reform and Tsar Nicholas II, a ruler, tried to change Russia's social structure and government. Among the masses, there was discontentment with Russia's social system and living conditions. Laborers worked and lived in horrendous conditions, which played a crucial role in aggravating the condition of workers and peasants. As a result, peasants starved and Russia’s armies were overpowered on the battlefield because much of its terrain was occupied by enemies. Hence, Imperial Russia was a

The Grand Duchess Olga wrote in her journal: “…and he was wholly ignorant about governmental matters. Nicky had been trained as a soldier”. (Fiehn, T. 1996). Nicholas’ sister suggests that he was not ready due to his lack of training. Margot Tracey, daughter of a Russian industrialist declared in 1917, after Nicholas’ abdication “Everybody was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak. When he abdicated there was great rejoicing everywhere. My parents opened champagne bottles and celebrated with friends.”.(White 1994 p.14) Margot shows her understanding of what was going on at the time and that Nicholas was very weak leader, although still a tyrant. Margot’s statement supports the hypothesis as it plainly says that the people did not like Nicholas as a leader due to how weak he was. Margot’s statement is further corroborated by Sergei Witte, a Russian Minister during Nicholas II rule “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). These sources work together to support the fact that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall due to his weak character and that he was not properly prepared for the role. This caused

The fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1914 proved that the Tsar could not handle the problems of Russia. Ironically, he would have been ideal as a constitutional monarch, but was adamant against the idea. As the First World War started Russia’s problems arises, from short-term and long-term causes. The war brought back inflation which led to “demonstrations over food shortages combined with workers’ grievances,” (Hosking, 2012, p. 91) thus this destroyed Nicholas’s image as Father of Russia. Military became ineffective as the transport system was not adequate, thus leading to food supplies decreasing in key cities such as Petrograd. Historians believe the impacts of the First World War led to Russian society becoming unstable and was ultimately the main reason of the downfall of the Tsar. However other factors, such as the Tsarina placing large amounts of trust into Rasputin who was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) and the role of the revolutionaries due to Lenin promising peace, land and bread, eventually leading to the growth of the Bolsheviks Party. Although, it can most rightfully be deemed that the impact of the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

In 1905 and 1917 Russia was tormented by chaotic revolutions. The workers and the intelligentsia had arrived at the point of hating the autocracy because they could no longer endure the suffering, hunger and repression that the tsarist policies brought with them. Years later Lenin referred to the revolution of 1905 as a “dress rehearsal for the October Revolution” of 1917. In 1905 tsardom nearly fell. Nicholas II succeeded in remaining in power, stabilizing the situation, only thanks to various concessions. However, his continuing to rule harshly and unwisely brought him to be forced to abdicate in the February of 1917, signing the end of the Russian monarchy.

The argument that the First World War led to the downfall of the Tsardom in Russia is supported by how unprepared the military were from the outset and throughout the war. Poor conditions and lack of weaponry led to low morale. Production of weapons was seriously flawed as seen in the Russian front at Gorlice, where “many soldiers had no rifles and had to wait for a comrade to be killed before taking his weapon”3. “By the end of December 1914, 6,554,000 men had been mobilized with only 4,652,000 rifles available to them”4. Furthermore the appalling conditions that were reported in the Russian trenches caused outbreaks of diseases such as typhoid and cholera creating tensions amongst Russia's “indestructible army”5. The dreadful conditions caused soldiers to turn against their

Whilst St Petersburg was growing and thriving around him, it seemed as though the Tsar turned his back on the requirements that come with large crowds of people such as, resources, food supplies, housing, etcetera. Due to his closed mindedness the overpopulation of factories, shortages of income and lack of basic necessities became a huge issue. The people stuck in this great poverty began to lose faith in the Tsar and once again sought for a new source of power. Another factor that adds to this cause is the fact that when the Russian society came up with the idea of a government, to help guide the Tsar towards helping his people and modernizing his laws and mindset, he refused to let the people have a say. Nicholas ultimately took away all power from what little government they did set up, called a ‘duma,’ when he set the ‘Fundamental Laws.’ These laws meant that he would overrule all of the duma’s decisions or suggestions. For example, the first law stated, “To the emperor of all the Russias belongs supreme autocratic power.” Then in 1907, the Tsar changed to voting laws to make sure that revolutionaries could not be elected. This meant that all the elected candidates were politicians that were great followers of Nicholas, meaning he got what he wanted. Consequently leaving no way of communication between Nicholas and the lower class of Russia, causing the tragic conditions to continue. As the poor became progressively poorer, malnourished and uncared for the Tsars inaction and lack of sympathy caused a radical

In all major countries they’ll always go through some type of “revolution,” in order to sort everything out. There will always be a rise and fall in a country’s history and in 1917 it was Russia’s turn to revolt. When the current czar during the revolution said, “I am not yet ready to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling.” (Doc 1) He wasn’t lying, everyone

How far were divisions amongst opponents responsible for the survival of Tsarist rule, 1881 - 1905?

One important reason why it could be seen that the First World War was the reason for the fall of Tsarism is the fact that in 1915 Nicholas left the Winter Palace and took direct command of the army. This meant he was blamed solely for Russia's

In a burgeoning climate of autocracy, the Romanov dynasty was firmly established in the societal framework of early 20th-century Russia. Having been in varying degrees of absolute political control over an approximate time period of four hundred years, their eventual undoing marked a power shift polarising the imperial regime laid out by countless Tsars beforehand. Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia, is recognised to have a degree of personal responsibility for the downfall of the Romanovs, yet the extent to which his decision-making skills can be held accountable is questioned by some historians. Despite this, multiple political, social, and military facets of Nicholas II’s reign were handled with instability, and his perceived lack of legitimacy due to this poor decision-making ultimately was a major causative factor to the downfall of his family’s vast dynasty.

World War 1 was a total disaster for Russia. Their army was poorly led and poorly equipped, this resulted in humiliating defeats at the hands of Germany. Undersupplied workers and peasants were sent in to battle without boots, coats or weapons. In 1915, Nicholas II took personal command of the army. However the Tsar’s leadership abilities were poor. The Russian army deteriorated, there was huge shortages of ammunition, equipment and medical supplies. The railways grounded to a halt, there was no transportation of food or fuel. Soldiers, workers and peasants began to suffer. These events cost Russia dearly, they lost millions of soldiers, morale was low and the people wanted someone to blame. In the severe winter of 1916-1917, the people had already began to doubt the leadership

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus