The Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II was a Turning Point for Russian Politics

In 1917 the Russian revolution had began, this was the biggest factor in the fall of the Romanov dynasty. The white Russians arrested the tsarist and abdicated him from his throne putting Nicholas and his family on house arrest and he was no longer known as the Tsar, replacing him with a Bolshevik government. The red Russians had captured Nicholas and his family causing a civil war between the white and red Russians. In July 1918 Lenin and his red Russian squad had won the civil war, and shot Nicholas and his family, leaving Russia a communist country until the 1990’s.

The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s

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

Was the impact of WW1 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.

What was the significance in WW1 in bringing about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917?

The privileged nobles, who possessed land and serfs, supported his autocratic rule. The main theme of the Russian history in the 19th century is that the non-nobles who detested the Czarist government asked for an improvement in their disconsolate and deprived life. When the Czarist government ignored this matter they revolted for the first time in 1905 and than for the second time in 1917 by which the Czarist government was finally overthrown. Hungry strikers on March 8, 1917 mobbed the streets of Petrograd, their demand was bread. In order to appease the misery of his people Czar Nicholas II resigned his throne to his brother, Michael. His brother knew that everyone hated Czardom so he rejected the throne on March 15. The Provisional Government than took over and Czardom after ruling Russia for three centuries came to an end.

Nicholas the Second was a large contributing cause to his own abdication. Nicholas the Second continued to make countless amounts of unreasonable decisions throughout his reign. His bad decisions drove many of his original supporters away. For example, even on the day of his coronation he managed to start off his reign on a bad foot. This was due to the fact that when many celebratory mugs were being gifted to the people of St Petersburg to celebrate the coronation of the Tsar there was not enough to go around and in an effort to acquire one of these limited mugs many citizens were brutally killed. In the interim, Nicholas showed no consideration or sympathy towards the dead or those affected and continued with the coronation. Consequently

Various aspects of Nicholas II’s political decisions reflected his clear unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and these decisions form a preliminary basis for both his own legacy of incompetency & the eventual undoing of the Romanovs. In comparison to rulers preceding, Nicholas was ill-prepared for the role: his father, Alexander III, failed to adequately develop his son’s understanding of civil & state responsibilities before his death in 1894, under the guise that he would live long enough to teach Nicholas of these affairs. Upon his consecration as Tsar, Nicholas spoke in his diary of his apprehensiveness

After the revolution there were several impacts, both positive and negative. Nicholas II abdicated which ended the Romanov dynasty after 300 years. He and his family were assassinated on 17 July 1918. Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader became the permanent ruler. He created free education throughout Russia (though children learned communist ideas, they were still being education about the world) and made an eight-hour working day, improving working conditions. Churches were burned down and religious leaders were killed. Russia backed out of the World War I on December 15 when Russia signed an armistice with Germany and Austria, pending a formal peace treaty. Lenin was desperate to end the war, as the Germans were threatening to

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

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

The Russian Revolution of 1917 set the country on a course that few other countries took in the 20th century. The shift from the direction of a democratic, parliamentary-style government to a one party communist rule was a drastic change that many did not and could not predict. Looking back on this key moment in Russian history, many historians ask the question ‘why did the political power in Russia shift to the Bolsheviks’? Since the revolution in 1905 Russia was becoming progressively more democratic, distributing power throughout the political sphere. This came to an abrupt halt when Vladimir Lenin was put into power by the Bolshevik takeover of the Provisional Government. Many authors have had different takes on this event. Two particularly interesting ones were Arthur Mendel and John D. Basil. Their pieces On Interpreting the Fate of Imperial Russia and Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution give various perspectives on the Russian Revolution and attempt to answer the question of the power shift. This key point in Russia’s history sets the tone for the next 100 years. Russia became a superpower, an enemy of the United States, started multiple wars directly and indirectly, and started using an economic system used by various countries around the world. Today we still see the effects of the 1917 Revolution. Looking at both Mendel’s and Basil’s attempt to answer why the power shifted to the Bolsheviks. Since both historian 's account of the events is different they cannot

  
        

      The February Revolution of 1917 was first of the two revolutions in Russia in 1917, the revolution which began the transformation of the country. As an immediate result of this revolution, Tsar Nicholas II decided to abdicate, which lead to the end of the Romanov dynasty. The Tsar was immediately replaced by the provisional government and at the same time the

The most powerful entities of Russia (one of the main Soviet Union creators) took control when they began to spread the motto "all power to the soviets." It is at this time that the monarchy of Tsar Nicholas II was threatened and finally destroyed in 1917. From this year, began the establishment of a social state and free of exploiters was consolidated until more than a dozen countries were they joined him.