Assess the extent to which Tsar Nicholas 2nd can be held personally responsible for the collapse of the Russian monarchy.

tsar Nicholas II?The Emperor Nicholas II is one of the nearly cockeyed figures in history. He loved his country. He had its welf be and splendor at heart. Yet it was he who was to precipitate the catastrophe, which has brought it to discourse f each in and misery?Nicholas had not inherited his aim?s domineering disposition nor the strong character and urge decision which are so essential to an imposing ruler.? (Bucklow & Russell, 1976, p. 108) tsar Nicholas II came into reign in 1894 when his father Alexander III incidentally died at the cash advance of 49. From a semi policy-making and complaisant standpoint, at the age of 26, Nicholas II was unprepared for leadership and he lacked the qualities and skills to fulfill an autocratic stance of power (as suggested in the repeat above). Nicholas II was amenable for the modernization of Russia, the discontentededed within the populace, fight, and a range of hold asides; most of which he was not in quantify capa ble of administering. He was extremely bestial and extended what enchant he had to secluding his royal family from the world. Nicholas II cannot be held entirely responsible for the deterioration of Russia as in that respect were a numeral of factors which lead to its rotary motion such as industrialism, base parties, peasantry and failed reforms. Ultimately, the tsar was unable to maintain the autocracy of Russia at the rate of the global socio- frugal change. Nicholas II was initially reluctant to inte eternal rest on the role of tzar, tho cute to keep on the impost of autocratic rule and believed it was God?s wish for him to do so; he was an extremely religious worldly concern as salutary as his family. His acute nepotism resulted in the survival of ministers who told him what he wanted to hear rather than the advice that would help Russia. When he was found tzar, the social occasion he focussed on right away was the development of the war machine; this wa s necessary owing to the overpower in the ! Crimean War. As a result of the modernization of the legions, policy-making rejuvenation was necessary, of which Nicholas II was debate to. He lacked the capability to remainder divulge the things he call for to take guardianship of, and rather, flung himself into expanding the forces in order for him to be glorified. He was the type of man who was easily actd as spacious as he was in power. His wife, Alexander, is a great prototype of this as she further him to preceding with the military and insisted that she would take care of political matters at rest home, which she extensively underestimated. Even from the beginning, the reign had complications. t bring inher was encouraged industrial growth which resulted in a 55 per centum rise in the universe. The peasants comprised approximately 82 share of the population and were a discontent crowd difficult to control. By the year 1900, most, if not all of the growing divisions of Russias population were disaffected. Ni cholas II had begun receiving strong advice to enhance the g overnment system alone he refused this, preferring to follow his father and continue the repression. There was a oecumenic strike of approximately 13,000 who protested; close to strikes followed. The secret constabulary were stressful to sway this discontent by the use of violence which was ?the solitary(prenominal) way?, as suggested by social lion Tolstoy in a letter to Nicholas: ?secret police unendingly growing in numbers?prisons and penal colonies are over-crowded?persecutions necessitate never been so frequent and so cruel as they are today, and they facilitate grow to a greater extent frequent and more cruel?that is wherefore it is impossible to maintain this form of political sympathies except by violence.? (Hite, 1989, pp. 33-34) War skint out with lacquer in February 1904, accentuating how lightheaded the military of Russia really was. The Baltic devolve was deployed to reinforce Manchuria, only by the time the fleet do it to the Pacific, th! e war was over and Russia?s Pacific coastal forces crumbled. This was the initiatory ever defeat of a European country to an Asian nation, and as a result, there was an increase in the populations vociferate for reform. Modernisation was a colossal doctor upation in Russia during Nicholas?s reign and arose as a result of Nicholas II?s ambition to get along the ground forces. The modernisation of the regular regular army meant that the economy in turn had to be modernised; the only when thing Nicholas wouldn?t address was the modernisation of the political system. This was a consequential mistake as revolution ensued regardless, just in a more persistent means. The frugalal change encouraged political contemplation, which created the demand for political change. The economic change hit the peasants hard as there were famines- this resulted in a population explosion. Peasants became angry, wanted their play repayments to end and they in like mode wanted reform. Industrialis ation was rapid in the time of this modernisation. The conditions for the army were hard as the governing body focused on the law of closure of the developments for army use. The war in Japan intensified the discontent amongst all classes; there were strikes and protests all over Russia and pull bug out the peasants became manifold as they were more aware and intellectual. M either incidents occurred in 1905 which attach the beginning of the revolution. wholly members of society wanted something changed?the middle class wanted a constitution, revolutionaries wanted revolution and internal minorities wanted independence. These terce groups all saw the regime as wakeful and unwarranted. On 22nd January, 1905, ?Bloody Sunday? enforced the topic bitch for reform. The march of 150,000 led by Father George Gapon protested for: ?a tell of liberties, for example, freedom of speech; measures to alleviate poverty, including the introduction of an income measure; interrupt work ing conditions, such as an eight-hour day? (Dennett, ! Dixon, 2000, p.34). Because tsar wasn?t at the Winter Palace during the levelt of the march, the secret police and regular troops panicked and shot mountain overhead peck; the official death toll was 92. This tragic misinterpretation by the officers spread all over Russia and caused huge problems for Nicholas II. Strikes and protests go on at a worse level and in May, the starting Soviet group formed; mutiny broke out by June and by October the series of razets reached a climax. There was a full general strike and functioning stopped with ?transport, communications, factories, shops, schools, universities and presidency offices.? (Anderson, Low, Keese, 2004, p.50). Nicholas hadn?t handled the authority well and is responsible for this chaos. On October 17th, the Tsar signed the manifesto on advice by Witte; Nicholas was against it except he felt that there was no other way. Political developments in the form of Dumas were marked from 1906. The early was in April and lasted just leash months; it requested come along power and the cancellation of peasant land repayments. The Tsar saw this as preposterous and it was soon dissolved. The s duma consisted of an abundance of anti-government people. Stolypin proposed agrarian reforms which were in addition dissolved in June. The third duma was long lasting difference from 1907-1912. During this time, reforms were made, and it was very reproductive; Stoylpin?s land reforms passed, along with national insurance for workers and schools for the poor. The onward duma (1912-1914) continued reform in schools notwithstanding cod to government criticism, it was dissolved. The Duma assemblies were a positive contribution to the progress of Russia. If the Tsar wasn?t as stubborn and ignorant or defensive on criticism to the autocratic system of government, Russia could urinate excelled along with the other European countries. Although there were limitations in the fare of power with the Duma?s, it di d set reform which was good as it ascertain a imb! ue of issues. World War One had a huge contact on Russia and contributed exceedingly to the better and wipeout of Tsarism. The war was hurriedly entered by Tsar Nicholas II and it endow a huge s remove on the military, but more so the economy. Russia went into the war incredibly unprepared, due to Sukhomlinov?s misjudgement of the requirements. They had neat-staffed supplies, extreme economic problems and the peasants had shortages of food and other necessities due to the army?s asseverate to the food. Grain production fell by 20 percent by 1916 along with exports falling by 86.7 percent. Russia fell short of money and had to borrow from allies, resulting in inflation. All the transport systems broke down and food was unable to be transported to the cities. In the first year of the war, almost 4 meg soldiers were killed, mainly due to their insufficient training and supplies. Millions in the verdant areas were also killed, means less farming.

With what seemed to be collateral damage, people started to strike and protest more than ever. The Tsar may realise expected the war to be short but his miscalculations set the revolution. Following WW1 the Tsar had a visual sense more contrary; this wasn?t just from basal groups, but also from the people. The events and crisis of WW1 clear showed everyone the incompetence and the coldness that the Tsar had. Due to their antagonism towards the Tsar and their desperation for a revolution, the revolutionary groups persisted and took more action. There were three main revolutionary groups: the Social rotationaries, Marxists (Mensheviks, Bolsh eviks) and Liberals (Octobrists, Kadets). Each group ! had reasonably different aims and methods though they all wanted the same thing- an ameliorate political system without Tsar. This new extreme opposition to Nicholas II produced far more riots, hostility and turmoil. When the Tsar was staying at the military headquarters he left the Tsarina in flush of the government genuine the news through her letters. Tsarina was a lamentable influence on Nicholas and was the main reason for many of his bad decisions, but Rasputin had an influence on Tsarina- which also caused bad government decisions on her behalf. She learned of disturbances in Petrograd by slaves and entourage, and so she informed Tsar right away. When Nicholas received this letter he ordered general Khalbalov to restore order. Khalbalov was unable to do this as everything was uncontrollable and out of hand. On 27th February Kerensky, who was a important part of the SR, wrote to Nicholas and demanded that he abdicated and gave up his role as Tsar. Rodzyanko, who contrar y the Tsar post-war as well, strongly suggested that Tsar step down due to the dull destruction of Russia of which he wasn?t addressing. In response to Rodzyanko?s words the Tsar said, ?Again that fat-bellied Rodzyanko has scripted me a dish of nonsense, which I won?t even bother to fare? (Cape, 1996, p.339). This response indicates to us how Nicholas would not even consider any advice to save ?his? Russia. Nicholas decided to come home on twenty-eighth January in hope that he could fix everything. His royal train was halted and Stavka strongly advised him to abdicate. After hesitation the Tsar abdicated. His comrade refused the thrown. This ended the 300 year Romanov Dynasty. The personality and character of Nicholas II was a huge part of the collapse of the Russian monarchy. The Tsar was extremely stubborn and indecisive, more a great rent then not refusing to even listen to advice which may even benefit him and Russia. WW1 accelerated the revolution; there was a lot more o pposition and demand. The Dumas initiated reform whic! h helped, but the Tsar shun not having complete power. If he allowed the Dumas to continue, and reform was had gradually, he would stomach been able to remain Tsar. Another alternative was to change the political system to a democratic one, allowing him to still have control- he was just too close-minded for this. There were smaller factors which contributed to the collapse, but Nicholas II and his poor decisions were the most significant. Anderson, M. Low, A.Keese,I. 2008. Retrospective. Jacaranda. Milton. Bucklow, M & Russell, G. 1976. Russia: Why transition? Longman Australia. Hong Kong. Darby, G. 1998. The Russian Revolution. Longman Singapore Publisher Pte Ltd. Singapore. Darlington, R. Greer, V. McCallum, A. Lumsdaine, J. McAlister, Y. 2002. Turning Points: Modern archives Depth Studies. Heinemann. MelbourneDennett, B. Dixon, S. 2000. Key Features of Modern History. Oxford University Press. Melbourne. Hite, J. 1989. Tsarist Russia 1801-1917. Causeway Press. Ormskirk. Lynch, M. 1992. answer and Revolutions: Russia 1881-1924. Hodder & Stoughton. London. Lynch, M. 2005. Reaction and Revolution: Russia 1894-1924 (3rd edition) Hodder Education. London. Westwood, J.N. 1981. The Short Oxford History Of The Modern World- selection And Endeavour-Russian History 1812-1980. 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press. New York. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay