Nicholas II Bloody Sunday Massacre Analysis

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,

However, Bloody Sunday which saw soldiers shooting as many as a thousand protesters in a panic, was a short term effect. It was just after a strike involving 111,000 workers and was responded by large numbers of troops to guard public works. Although Nicholas was at the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo, he was still heavily blamed for the deaths, perhaps unfairly as he of course did not directly order the soldiers to fire upon the protesters. It was most likely due to the soldiers’ inexperience when handling protests so they handled it as if it were a riot. Nicholas in fairness expressed his sorrow and grievances for those that died and was persuaded to appease the workers but failed to realise the seriousness of the situation as it led to the revolution.

By 1916, dissatisfaction within Russian monarch had reached boiling point. Rasputin was murdered by the Tsar’s own cousins and the majority of the parliament and upper classes ‘were no longer willing to meet expectations of loyalty, respect and patriotism.'

The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by

Different Historical Interpretations of Bloody Sunday On January 30th 1972, civil rights activists were involved in a protest march against internment through Londonderry. British paratroopers, who were deployed on the streets, shot and killed 13 of the marchers and wounded others. Many people have different views on what happened and why.

Threatened by the event Bloody Sunday, Tsar Nicholas II faced the choice of military dictatorship or granting a new constitution. In the end, he determined to write a new constitution called the October Manifesto. Issued and signed by the Tsar, he promised to guarantee civil liberties as his last venture to continue his family’s history of unlimited autocracy. When the document was signed, it rested the anger most Russian civilians had for their Tsar. Although, the public was not pleased when it came to their attention that the Duma could not initiate legislation and Tsar would continuously dissolve the Dumas when they opposed him. One can see the contrast between the Tsar’s doing and his peoples needs, even after protests. In conclusion, the indifference brought upon the monarchy’s abdication and advanced in the outcome of the Bolshevik

Tsar Nicholas II was one of the central figures to the Russian February Revolution of 1917 and secured the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II continued the regressive reforms of his father Tsar Alexander III, ultimately disenchanting the constituents from the neglect of longstanding grievances; he epitomised the fundamental problem of absolute rule, as years of suffering would eventually lead to revolution. His mismanagement and direct involvement in World War I undermined the already unstable government, causing his subjects to join radical movements to overthrow the tsarist regime.

Here, Rasputin steered towards the belief that the path to salvation lay through repentance, where one couldn’t repent, unless they had sinned, in order to get closer to God. This ideology invoked Rasputin’s sexual escapades and immoral conducts- a “voracious sexual appetite”, in which he “had a talent for getting under the ladies’ petticoats [while whispering to them] “you think I am polluting you, but I am not. I am purifying you” . Through Rasputin’s “superhuman thirst for alcohol” , and added sexually driven “intense grey eyes” , it was rumoured that “the tsarina had wild orgies with him”, and that he had captured her in his grasp. Although Rasputin appeared a pious and saintly holy man in front of the Royal couple, others saw him as a sex-craved peasant - “a dark force that was corrupting Mother Russia”, “who in the eyes of Lynch, a revisionist historian, who focuses of the role of people, was a ‘fatal disease’ inflicting damage to the Tsarist regime” - the last imperial dynasty to rule Russia since 1613 to 1917. Rasputin later through a revelation, claimed, that the Russian Army would fail in the First World War, unless the Tsar took control- a mistake which caused the downfall of the Russian

The people were so angry with him and his autocratic policies that they marched to his Winter Palace in St. Petersburg. There they carried a petition asking for better rates. Nicholas didn't care, instead he ordered his generals to fire at them. This became known as the Bloody Sunday and the revolution of 1905. Little by little he kept falling.

The regimes of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government, and the Bolsheviks all did not care for the lower class of Russia and tend to their basic needs, like food and protection from weather, instead these governments suppressed the people and forced them into following their ideas. When Nicholas II was ruling, the peasants and lower class were in famine and poverty. Soldiers were forced into fighting a war they did not want to fight, which they ended up losing bringing further frustration to the Russian public. This frustration built up and caused street demonstrations, but instead of helping the people Nicholas II used violence to suppress the Russian citizens. This occurrence was called Bloody Sunday because

With the defeat against Japan during 1904 - 1905, poor harvest, higher rates of poverty amongst the peasants and strikes within the oil industry, the people of Russia grew discontent with the Tsar, which led to a strike in St Petersburg on January 16th, 1905. The historical blood shed, otherwise known as ‘Bloody Sunday’, which was an incident that occurred on January 22nd 1905, St. Petersburg. An event where unarmed, peaceful demonstrators marched to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II, hoping he would respond but in stead were gunned down by imperial guards outside the Narva Gate. As the primary source, ‘The Aftermath’, 4th February 1905 represented the many Russian civilians shot down at Narva Gate, although the deaths and casualties are not accurate. This significant event was a turning point for Nicholas II and his time as a monarchy. To the people of Russia he was before known as ‘Little Father’ and soon became, after the mass blood shed, ‘Nicholas the Bloody’. At this point in time Nicholas retained his influential, autocratic

The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948 when 120 fighters from the Irgun and Lehi attacked Deir Yassin, a Palestinian Arab village near Jerusalem. The village guards were surprised by the Jews entering their village at night and opened fire on the Irgun force. The village fell after fierce house-to-house fighting. 254 people had been killed 117 during the fight and the rest while they were they were recovering. The Irgun force approached Deir Yassin and arrived at the edge of the village at 4:30am. The fighting began at 4:45 and a gun-battle broke out. The fighting was over by 11am. The attack on the village was important because in the view of Irgun and Lehi it posed a threat to Jewish neighborhoods and the main road to the coastal

In 1903, Grigori Rasputin arrived by train in St. Petersburg, Russia. He dressed very poorly and had an awful stench to him. However, this did not stop him from becoming friends with the monks and bishops of the churches around St. Petersburg. News quickly spread that Rasputin was a “powerful holy man.” However, he wasn’t truly what he seemed. In reality, Rasputin was a lustful, manipulative man who would stop at nothing to get what he wanted and to get rid of all those in his way. This self proclaimed “holy man” was the one person who would impact the tsar and Russia so greatly that he alone would change Russia’s fate as a whole.

The title to this essay is called A Bloody Beginning because the beggining to the russian revolutionary war was more than unfair wages, and working hours. Even though those topics helped lead to the revolution, what really sparked the war was a peaceful march in St. Petersburg, Russia, december 1905. Around 150,000 working class marched that day for better wages and working hours. Unfortunately, the Czar’s soldiers shot at the unharmful protesters, killing from a range of 96-4,000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org). This event had a huge impact on the way people viewed Nicholas 11, ( who was the Czar of Russia at the time) before the Bloody Day Massacre Russians saw the Czar as not just a leader but also a God. After the Massacre

Nicholas II was the Last Tsar of Russia, remembered for the tragic and thoughtless way in which he and his family were murdered. He is responsible for the events that occurred during his reign, such as Bloody Sunday and the 1905 Revolution, yet there is little recognition of the love and devotion he had for his family. It is not discussed about the medical condition of his only son, the talents of his daughters, and the support of his wife. Is it possible that despite the economic downturn that Nicholas put Russia in that he still had a wide range of supporters? In addition to all the lives that were lost during his reign, it is also most tragic the manner in which this family met their end and what little regard there was to them as human