Why Did Tsar Nicholas II Survive The 1905 Revolution

The October Manifesto 1905 gained the Tsar back some of his support by promising reform; however the Tsar failed to abide by his promises and did not satisfactorily address the problems of Russia. To ensure his long-term survival the Tsar needed to address the problems that had caused the 1905 revolution. The action of Nicholas II to introduce reform saved his position in the throne s, though not for long as he took the wrong approach and chose to please some groups in Russian society and ignored the demands of others. Some changes were made that did temporarily satisfy his people such as the creation of a duma and the cancellation of the redemption payments. The creation of a duma meant the Tsar now had to delegate authority to parliament and could no longer consider himself an autocrat, however although it may of appeared that the Tsar now did not have ‘absolute’ power he didn’t really give the duma much power at all and he restricted their influence on the Russian government.

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

There were four elected Duma which were all dispersed by the Tsar who would find an excuse to not trust them. Once the October Manifesto and the Fundamental Laws were passed, the Tsar Nicholas II ordered the army to shoot at protestors but the army refused and took the side of the revolutionaries. These Fundamental Laws re-established the autocracy as the Tsar became more reactionary. After the 1905 Revolution, the Tsar was able to regain control the uprisings in his country. He sent the police to arrest the leader of the St. Petersburg Soviet, a Worker’s Council, Trotsky and exiled him to Siberia. The army crushed a strike in Moscow which caused 1000 deaths. The Black Hundred who were the official strikebreakers, stopped riots in different parts of Russia and murders approximately 500 Jews. Eventually, the workers lost the will to fight and started working again in order to feed their families. The split of the opposition parties turned out to be an advantage for the Tsar who was able to use this against them.

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 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.

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

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

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

After the 1905 revolution Russia was in need of reforms both economically and politically, to allow it maintain its role of a great power and to prevent another revolution occurring the answer to this was the October Manifesto. However, due to the stubbornness of the Tsar who was determined not to relinquish his autocratic powers, what may have appeared as reforms were largely superficial making little change in particular to the Russian political system.

The Russian and Chinese revolutions outcomes were similar as well. As stated on (“Chinese Revolution”) “Chinese Revolution, (1911–12), nationalist democratic revolt that overthrew the Qing (or Manchu) dynasty in 1912 and created a republic…” Chinese wanted to rebuild a democracy, because people were not having enough freedoms. Just like The Russian Revolution which wanted to change their social aspects in complications “The causes of this unrest of the common people towards the Tsar and aristocratic landowners … key factors to consider were ongoing resentment at the cruel treatment of peasants by patricians, poor working conditions experienced by city workers in the fledgling industrial economy and a growing sense of political and social awareness of the lower orders in general (democratic ideas were reaching Russia from the West and being touted by political activists)” (“1917 Russian Revolution”) Similarly to the Chinese revolution they held strikes to protest against their rights because of the unfairness under the rule of the czars.

The 1905 revolution can be considered as the pinnacle event that accelerated the downward spiral of Tsar Nicholas’s rule and Russia’s adherence to their “little father”. From this point onwards Nicholas was referred to by the people as not their “little father” but “Nicholas the Bloody”. "The present ruler has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people, and whatever the future may have in store for the dynasty, the present tsar will never again be safe in the midst of his people." (The American consul in Odessa). This revolution was an uprising of people from all levels of society and was not an uprising organised by any group in particular. The Bolsheviks played a minimal role in the 1905 revolution as most of their leaders were living in exile and their impact and influence on the workers in that year was weak as well as having no Duma faction. This demonstrates that the Bolsheviks had a minor role in the pinnacle events that led to the downfall of the Romanov dynasty but rather gained support after Nicholas’ abdication.

I’m doing my report on Ivan the Terrible. Ivan Vasiljevich the Terrible was born in 1530 and died in 1584. He was the son of the Grand Duke Vasili III. His mother Helena Glinsky was the daughter of a Luthuanian refugee who had found asylum in Russia. She was young, vivacious, intelligent, and beautiful. Vasili had married her after he tried to have an heir for 20 years with his first wife Salome.

The Russian Revolution is a widely studied and seemingly well understood time in modern, European history, boasting a vast wealth of texts and information from those of the likes of Robert Service, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Allan Bullock, Robert Conquest and Jonathan Reed, to name a few, but none is so widely sourced and so heavily relied upon than that of the account of Leon Trotsky, his book “History of the Russian Revolution” a somewhat firsthand account of the events leading up to the formation of the Soviet Union. There is no doubt that Trotsky’s book, among others, has played a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the events of The Revolution; but have his personal predilections altered how he portrayed such paramount

  
        

      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