Richard Pipes Separation Between The Political And Social Revolution

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

Rasputin played a part in the fall of the royal family but he was not the main reason. The Tsar had no one to support and protect his family due to not seeing to civilians needs. The overthrow of the Tsarist government was the ending of the oppression and tyranny.

Tsar Nicholas II was a poor leader. It seems that he does not want to be the Tsar (71). When the Tsar received the telegram of the destruction of the Russian fleet a Tsushima, he simply placed into his pocket. He shows no interest in being a leader. A normal would have quickly reacted to that situation but the Tsar did not. During his reign (Nicholas II), Russia was in disaster (72). Forcing someone to do something, that person does not want to do will lead to disaster. He such a "leader" that Kaiser Wilhelm II patronizes him of "only fit to live in a country house and grow turnips." (9). The man has no strength, his is everything but strength. There are many holes in the government of Russia and in his leadership. The holes could have been filled up if he had picked up the slack and pushed himself to be leader. The resulting consequences of his poor leadership could have also been

Compare and contrast the causes of the 1905 and 1917 revolutions in Russia 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.

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,

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.

Was Tsar Nicholas II mainly to blame for the 1905 Revolution? In 1905, the social and economic tensions building up within Russia boiled over into Revolution. It was described by Lenin as the “Great Dress Rehearsal” for the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and may give us clues as to why the

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.

However, Nicholas’s personality was not the sole reason why the Old Regime collapsed. Chubarov argues that “another Peter the Great could have saved the Romanovs and Imperial Russia. It is obvious though that the last tsar could not” . Nicholas’s lack of

C. EVALUATION OF SOURCES One resource used for this investigation was Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, which describes the reign of Nicholas II. This source was published in 1967 in the United States, thus the book is a secondary source. Massie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose work focuses on the Russian Romanovs. Massie’s alma mater includes Yale and Oxford University. The source is highly valuable in its extremely detailed and comprehensive research of nearly 600 pages, providing the thoughts of those in positions of power and interesting, insightful perspectives to the situation at the time. An analysis on connecting causes and effects are thorough and

Modern History Research Essay: The Russian Revolution (Task 1) Assess the role of the Bolsheviks for the decline and fall of the Romanov dynasty. 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

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

The Romanov dynasty began in 1613, however 1917 saw an abrupt end to the Romanov’s with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. Demonstrations and strikes gripped the Russian people and with anti-governmental soldiers taking control, the Tsar had no alternative but to abdicate. Historians such as Michael Lynch1 and John Daborn2 state that in Russia’s great need of strength and power came a Tsar of weakness and limited outlook. However historians such as Ray Pearson believe that in aggressive opposition groups and with the help of the working class aimed to bring down the Tsardom at all costs.

Betina Velasco Mr. Lira MWH, 6th period October 26, 2014 Causes of the Russian Revolution For three centuries before the revolution, life in Russia was not peaceful. It was cold, hard, and bitter instead. “The end of serfdom was a major event in Russia; yet it just wasn 't enough.”, in 1861. Serfdom, under feudalism, is the the status of peasants in which they are bound to a lord, or master, works on their land, and can be sold like property. Despite serfs being given ‘freedom’, Russia was mostly ruled by the czar and nobles. The average person was, and stayed, poor. Therefore, World War I was not the main cause of the Russian revolution. This outdated feudal class structure, inability to modernize, lack of peace, and czars’ inept leaderships lead to the Russian Revolution.

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