The Role of the Bolsheviks for the Decline and Fall of the Romanov Dynasty.

The instant consequences to the emancipation of the serfs left Russia crippled, ironic, when alleged that it intended to advance Russia’s status. Many historians argue that despite abolishing serfdom, the means in which it was carried out didn’t coincide with reality. Subsequently, there were many riots which caused a rise of political groups such as Narodnik movement whose existence proves that Russian society was changing. Disorder spread with calls for change within Russia like In May 1862 where a number of pamphlets were issued including the radical Young Russia. Such propaganda aimed to gain support and create challenging individuals which would pressure the Tsar to make further changes. One could argue that as a result this led to the 1905 revolution and the end of Tsardom.

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,

Assess the long-term and immediate factors that led to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty.

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

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 1917 revolution started. The suggestion that Tsar Nicholas II and his actions were to blame for this revolution is debatable and there are many factors such as the repressive Tsarist system, the growth of opposition from the time of Alexander II and the defeat in the war with Japan to consider. These events can be separated into short and long term effects on the revolution. Bloody Sunday and defeat to Japan would be short term effects whereas the

“The power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give

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.

About 300 people were killed, and hundreds more were wounded. As the news of "Bloody Sunday" spread, the Russian people were horrified. They responded by striking, mutinying, and fighting in peasant uprisings. The Russian Revolution of 1905 had begun” (Passage 1). He took no action when all of this was happening, but he did “after several months of chaos” (Passage 1). Czar Nicholas came up with a policy that did in fact end the Russian Revolution. He came up with the “October Manifesto,” which said that they were granted “individual right and created a Duma, or Parliament” (Passage 1). This was convincing to the Russian people and it ended the 1905 Russian Revolution. Czar Nicholas was still the absolute leader of Russia. Many people were not excited to hear this news, because he was not a great leader. He listened to the advice of his German wife that no one trusted. He also had another close companion “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.

The Russian Revolution was a series of two revolutions that consisted of the February Revolution and the October Revolution. The February Revolution of March 8th, 1917 was a revolution targeted and successfully removed Czar Nicholas II from power. The February Revolution first began to take place when strikes and public protests between 1916 and early 1917 started occurring. These strikes were created to protest against and to blame Czar Nicholas II for Russia’s poor performance in WWI and severe food shortages that the country facing. Soon, violence between protesters and authorities began to escalate, and on February 24th, 1917 in the city of Petrograd, hundreds of thousands of male and female workers flooded the streets. They all had the same purpose which was to protest against the “Great War” and the monarchy. The protests began to escalate and the vastly outnumbered police were unable to control the crowds. When news of the unrest reached the czar, he ordered the military to put an end to the riots by the next day, and on February 26th, 1917, several troops of a local guard regiment fired upon the crowds, but however many soldiers felt pity and empathy for the protesters than the czar, and on the next day, more than 80,000 soldiers join the protest even directly fighting the police.

n March 2nd 1917, the rule of a 300-year-old dynasty was laid to rest as Tsar Nicholas II signed his warrant for abdication, officially sanctioning the end of the Romanov Dynasty. The immediate cause permitting this action was the success of the February Revolution however; this event evolved because of several internal and external factors, both long and short term in nature. Predominant among all we recognise the perpetuation of an outdated system of rule, the repercussions of rapid industrialisation, emerging doctrines of liberalism, political inflexibility and the vices imposed by the First World War. These factors progressively embellished societal discontent among the Russian people and inexorably stimulated the insurrection of the February Revolution.

Tsar Nicholas II is thought to be personally responsible for the collapse of the Russian Monarchy. His nature wasn’t well suited for the role he held therefore he was an incompetent leader. Russia was undergoing many changes and was in early stages of industrialization. This was followed by an embarrassing string of defeats of which the Tsar was badly prepared. His unsuccessful involvement in the First World War added to the disappointment in the government’s incompetence and corruption. There were many opportunities for Russia to modernize but this would require political change, which the Tsar was unwilling to do. Nicholas had many opportunities throughout his reign to reform, but destroyed his last chance of survival.

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 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 Failure of the Provisional Government and the Rise of the Bolsheviks i. Subject of investigation. How did the failure of the Provisional Government allow for the rise of the Bolsheviks? ii. Methods to be used. 1.