Preview

Question: Why Did the Tsarist Regime Fall in 1917 Despite of the Reforms Introduced from 1906?

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2039 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Question: Why Did the Tsarist Regime Fall in 1917 Despite of the Reforms Introduced from 1906?
‘The desire seems to have been to reform and improve existing institutions rather then to destroy them root and branch.’ Though this quote is in reference to the French Revolution of 1789, yet upon hindsight many historians envisage the striking parallels between the revolutionary movements of France in 1789 and that of the Russian Revolution in 1905, and hence historiography for the two revolutions can largely be cross contextual. Thus, although the concessions introduced from 1906 might be enough to suppress the relatively mild spirit of reform, it is not sufficient to stem the revolutionary challenge that arose during 1917. The main argument of this discursive is the question of reform versus revolution: two inherently different situations cannot be solved with only one solution. Another reason why the Tsarist regime fell was because the reforms that were introduced did not dissipate the discontent of the general masses: by not solving the grievances of the people effectively, this only means that resentment will grow with time and lead to higher expectations, which culminated in the climatic movement of 1917. Thirdly, the autocratic regime fell as the Tsar’s bastion of support had dissolved: this not only includes the landed gentry, but also the military forces that represented the element of coercion that a monocracy needs. With his support base gone, the Tsar himself has become but an iconic past. Lastly, the incidence of World War One creates a coincidence of discontent: not only has it precipitated the problems of the past, it has also become a problem of itself. Alan Wood questions, ‘Did the military situation generate the domestic crisis which brought about the disintegration of the Tsarist regime; or were the pressures and contradictions within the social and political system already of such a refractory nature as to make revolution in any case inevitable?’ The answer is that there is probably an essence of both, but very evidently the War exposes

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The Russian Revolution was one of the most important revolutions in history. Just like the French people, Russians got tired of being treated unfairly by the Higher classes, and so decided to revolt against them. However unlike the French, they could not be satisfied, or entertained for long by a single revolution, reason why they did many revolts. Each time retreating at its middle, until they finally were annoyed and determined enough to overthrow the Government and change their lives as they knew it. Even so, that wasn’t the only cause of the Russian Revolution, along the many revolts came various relevant causes and events, but only few of them stood out, with such importance to today’s history of the causes for the Russian…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    The Russian Revolution of February 1917 was not directly attributed to the Tsar’s failure to solve economic problems. There were a wide range of causes to the downfall which can’t be directly associated to the failure to solve economic problems.…

    • 944 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The abdication of the Tsar in 1917 is still talked about today; the reasons are still disputed to this day. There are three main views; the optimist view which states that Russia was on the right path but the First World War slipped Russia into revolution. This view is supported by A.Gerschenkron who says, “That in the absence of war, Russia could have continued in the road of progressive westernisation”. The second is the Marxist view which suggests that Russia was on the verge of revolution until war broke out. In addition, this view also comes with the idea that war was ultimately good for Russia as it unified the country under the Tsar, but also it suggests that as the war prolonged, Russia was heading down the revolutionary path yet again. The last view is called the Synthesis view which suggests Russia’s revolution was going happen no matter but the war was just a catalyst in this process. The view that I agree with is the synthesis view, the idea that revolution was coming but war sped up the process. The main reason I agree with this is because as oppression increases the people become radical and we already saw this in ‘1905 revolution’, there are also many examples of this happening in modern day history.…

    • 1556 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    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 Decline of Imperial Russia, 1964, p.108) What caused or defined the decline and eventual fall of the Romanov dynasty cannot concluded by one influencing factor but an amalgamation of Tsar’s leadership, certain events that impacted on Russia and Revolutionary groups that aided this process. From these it is evident though that Tsar Nicholas’ role, to a major extent, was the key factor in the end of the 300-year reigning Romanov rule and subsequent execution. In exploring Russia in the early 20th Century, the revolutionary groups, mainly including the Bolsheviks, can be seen as having a minor role in that actual reason for the decline of the Romanov dynasty but rather a larger role in the events after the fall, in regards to the execution itself and shaping Russia’s future afterwards.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is one of the ironies of Russian history that, at a time when the nation most needed a tsar of strength and imagination, it was a man of weakness and limited outlook who came to the throne. Nicholas II was the eldest son of Tsar Alexander III. When he succeeded his father in 1894, he had very little experience of government. There are two main aspects to Nicholas’ II’s reign; firstly the problems he faced as a tsar at a particularly critical stage in Russian history, secondly the growth of opposition in Russia to the tsarist system. Would the new Tsar Nicholas II be a reformer or a reactionary? There is no doubt as to what the answer is. Reform had a bad name by the time Nicholas became Tsar. Also his upbringing and education made him cautious of change so it is no surprise that he continued the repressive policies he had inherited from his father. This further angered the intelligentsia and the critics of the tsarist regime; they began to prepare to challenge tsardom. I will be exploring the problems Nicholas II faced and how effectively he dealt with them in the period of Russian history from 1894 – 1905.…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1900 Russia was a great empire ruled by the Tsar Nicholas II. He was an autocrat, this meant there was no parliament to limit his power alongside his own secret police; the okhrana, they would censor all books and newspapers. During the period until 1916, Russia had no form of income tax. As a result the Tsar raised money to maintain his regime by taxing the produce of the peasant farmers. The burden of taxation was so great that periodic riots broke out. The okhrana couldn’t cope with the opposition of the tsar and when riots broke out, the Cossacks broke up the mobs. 85% of the population were peasants. They lived with no rights, no freedom and no land of their own until 1861, when Tsar Alexander II, abolished serfdom and allowed them to own the land on which they grew crops on. However, they had to pay redemption payments over the next forty-nine years and only when they paid all instalments would the land become their personal property. Life was hard for peasants; diseases and malnutrition were very common and so the tsarist government grew unpopular. Nicholas II’s failure to give into the demands of the people was the main reason he lost his autocracy. The peasants felt betrayed by the Tsar and wanted political change. The 1905 revolution, Bloody Sunday, was an event with grave consequences for the Tsarist regime, as the disregard for ordinary people shown by the reaction of the authorities undermined support for the state. The Tsar’s troops opened fire on demonstrators who protested to improve working conditions and fairer wages. The opposition grew to Tsarist rule but the revolution ended when the tsar promised a Duma. The Tsar’s betrayal of parliamentary democracy led to widespread…

    • 698 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    There were a lot of different factors in 1917 which were not there in 1905 some of these factors strongly suggest why Tsarism was abolished in 1917 but not the years before. Some of the events that occurred where World War One which had a catastrophic impact on Russia at the time, the lack of Faith in the Tsar as he had lost one war before and was losing another, the lack of faith in reforms such as the October Manifesto as that was revoked after only a few years and the lack of military conduct as the Cossacks the Tsars most loyal and ruthless troops left him as they wanted change like everybody else.…

    • 894 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas II came into the throne with a mutual attitude as his grandfather, Alexander II. He listened to ministers who recognised the necessity of economic modernisation, but failed to see the potential degree of political change if implemented. Albeit, Tsar Nicholas II’s idea of Russia’s future was one of modernisation and economic development, however with the combination of the political system that still retained the traditional features of autocracy, it looked potentially slim. The Tsar failed to recognise and adapt to the social and economic changes that had taken place. Expressions such as the emancipation under the great reforms of 1860 that made peasants freer and more prosperous gave birth to various political groups, which could no longer tolerate the Tsar’s unquestionable autocratic obedience as acceptable. These social and economic changes were largely accountable for the great revolutionary outburst in 1905. The defiance wasn’t only coming from the side of peasants and the urban workforce in general, but also from the literate middleclass who could no longer stand the autocratic state, consequenting in the establishment of secret political groups and opposition to the Tsar Nicholas II such as social democrats, comprising of Bolsheviks, Mensheviks as well as Kadets and many other social revolutionaries. The…

    • 843 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    On the 27th of February 1917, Nicholas II received a telegraph. Rodzianko, the President of the Duma, was trying to urge him into action, stating “any procrastination is fatal”, the situation was moving into “a state of anarchy” and “the government is paralysed”. The grave circumstances included a break-down in the transportation system and the supply of necessities, fuel and food. Sporadic firing plagued the streets. The next day, the Czar abdicated. Thus the February revolution characterizes Russian history, as it provoked the Czarist demise. Several historians rely on the ‘optimist’ view alleging the October Manifesto had set Russia on the course of political modernisation and Russian agriculture and industry were also modernising meaning WWI was the spark that ignited the 1917 revolution. The ‘pessimist’ notion entails the theory that there were abundant contributory elements, and Czarism was doomed despite the October Manifesto and Stolypin’s agricultural reforms.…

    • 1986 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Vladimir Lenin was an outstanding figure of significance during the Russian Revolution. Under his strong leadership and with the help of his loyal followers, Lenin enabled the Bolsheviks to come into power, overturning the Provisional Government in the second revolution of the year. This has long been regarded as an important factor that contributed to this seizing of power. However, it is not the sole reason, nor is it the most important one, with two others being the incompetence of the Provisional Government and the poor military leadership of Kerensky. This essay will proceed to show how the leadership of Lenin acted as a trigger factor, with the poor military leadership of Kerensky being an aggravating factor, and the incompetence of the Provisional Government as the underlying factor and therefore the most significant factor contributing to the October revolution in 1917. This essay will discuss each factor in detail, before coming to a conclusion that the incompetence of the Provisional Government was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power in October 1917 after the revolution had taken place.…

    • 1576 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    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 Tsarist system of rule and the increasing opposition the Tsar would be long term.…

    • 1051 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    1917 was a year of infinite importance for Russia, as their country would never be ruled in the same way again. Countless strikes, demonstrations and rebellions were constantly being put down through the use of force, and the unsettlement throughout the citizens was stirring, becoming more and more of a threat to the autocratic rule. Although, a great deal of the blame for the revolution was put on the Tsar, there were many different factors that contributed to the fall of the Tsar in 1917. The military failures, the role of the Tsarina and Rasputin, along with the growing difficulties and discontentment in the large cities, and the Tsar’s failure to make any political reforms, all contributed to his imminent demise.…

    • 513 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    He was largely successful in ushering in the end of serfdom and freeing millions of Russians, thus reinforcing his title as liberator but arguably he was unsuccessful in truly satisfying and recognizing the actual needs of the peasants themselves. The limited nature of the reform proved that the Tsar’s government was incapable of meeting the needs of ordinary Russians and ironically, incited only more revolutionary and terrorist activity. However, whether viewing the…

    • 1724 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays