Preview

The Fall of Czar Nicholas' Government in Russia

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1473 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Fall of Czar Nicholas' Government in Russia
At their height, no government imagines its downfall, although it is a sad truth when looking back at history. Governments could corrupt as easily as a naïve child, and so downfall of even the mightiest governments eventually occurs. Corruption is common in collapsed governments, whether it be for monetary reasons, or purely bad leaders, it occurred on a regular basis with most governments that had collapsed. But some factors of a collapsing government has nothing to do with corruptions, but rather a death of a ruler, a defeat in a war (or multiple wars), or even an uprising of the people could collapse a strong government. When a government does collapse, not only does the political system change, but also economic and social changes occur as well. Two cases in which the economic, political, and social systems after the fall of a government were the collapse of Czar Nicholas II’s government, which led to the creation of the U.S.S.R, and the fall of Reza Pahlavi’s government, which led to the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Both had certain historical circumstances that led to their collapse, and many different changes that occurred as a result of the collapse. When Czar Nicholas II came into power in 1894, he continued the autocratic rule that Russia had in place for more than three decades. To help Russia catch up with the rest of the world, Czar Nicholas II attempted to industrialize Russia. He helped create more factories and increased the production of steel. Although these changes helped Russia in terms of industrialization, new problems occurred, such as horrible working conditions, low wages, and child labor. Trade unions were banned by the government, which angered the working class even more, and helped with the growth of the revolutionary movement. With many problems coming up for those in the middle class, a revolutionary group was created, a mist the many other revolutionary groups created at this time, that followed the teachings of Karl

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    5. How far was Nicholas II responsible for the fall of the Romanovs in 1917?…

    • 313 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Under Czar Nicholas’s rule in World War 1, there were 1,700,000 to 2,254,396 total military deaths and 410,000 civilian deaths. As the head of the Imperial Russian Army, each and every one of these deaths was blamed on Czar Nicholas, the Czar of Russia. The wrath of his people later led to the the Russian Revolution and the end of the Romanov dynasty. Czar Nicholas II was an autocratic and inefficient ruler, which caused political opposition, neglect, and internal rebellions.…

    • 613 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    However, Lenin’s contributions to the party would not of been possible if no for the actions Tsar Nicholas II. In 1905, the public support for the Tsarist regime was extremely low, in all classes and geographic locations, leading to a rapid expansion of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) and general…

    • 680 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Over the Eastern Front, the German general Hindenburg and his chief of staff Ludendorff devised strategies that gave them many victories over Russian armies. The war became increasing unpopular among the Russian people. Ludendorff, sensing a chance to take Tsar Nicholas II’s country out of the world war, arranged for an exiled Marxist revolutionary named Lenin to cross Europe in a special train and get back into Tsar’s country Russia. As expected, Lenin helped fan the rising revolutionary sentiments. The Tsar was prosecuted. For the first time in Russian history a democracy formed, but its leaders overlooked the people’s resistance to continuing the war. When the newly elected government could not bring peace, it was overthrown in November…

    • 134 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Which of the previous Tsars were most to blame for the problems inherited by Nicholas II when he ascended to the throne in 1894?…

    • 958 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Draft ESSAY

    • 1114 Words
    • 3 Pages

    An aspect of the Soviet Union that changed between 1801 and 1939 was the shift of the government from a czar ruled totalitarian government to a more distributed communist government. In March of 1801, Paul I was killed and his son Alexander I of Russia was appointed the ruler. Czar Alexander I was not too harsh of a leader. He led a government that was not too strict upon its people unlike his father. But this changed when the next czar came into power, Nicholas I in 1825. Anybody who was leading or supporting the Decembrist Revolt was executed. Nicholas I undid everything that Alexander I did. He censored media, ran secret police, and exiled 150,000 people. Alexander II was the next one in power who was extremely different from Nicholas I. He freed the serfs but did not let them leave. But he did allot power to the people by creating local councils called Zemstvos to give them control of their land and women the right to vote. Alexander III went back into a strict totalitarian government, censoring media and deploying secret police. Alexander III also wanted all Russian minorities to speak Russian and convert to Russian Orthodox. Russian Jews were specifically targeted; they had to live in ghettos and eventually many Jews fled to the United States. The last of the czars in this time period, Nicholas II, came into power in 1894. A decade after his appointment, over three thousand workers grouped outside the czar’s palace asking for reforms. The czar was not home, but he still did not approve the order to fire at the protestors. In order to bring back his name, he enabled a national assembly called Duma that would allow the people of Russia to elect. As one of his reforms, he gave more land to…

    • 1114 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Nicholas’ autocratic method of ruling blinded him from the growing needs of Russia, and enforced a level of oppression which only heightened the discontent which led to the March Revolution in 1917. The diplomatic and military failures at war highlighted and showcased these flaws in Nicholas’s autocracy. If Nicholas had been more willing and able to adapt and reform, he could have ensured a gradual transition from an autocratic nation to a constitutional democratic nation, where the Romanov dynasty still existed to this…

    • 1391 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    March 14 1917, Nicholas II fell from power, there was lots of reasons but my three main reasons are; The State of the Army and how they weren't ready for war, The Role of the Duma and how they wanted the Tsar out of power, and Rasputin how he had control over Nicholas's wife…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 1883, the first Russian Marxist group formed in St. Petersburg in opposition to Alexander’s rule. Many attempts to overthrow Alexander were made by the proletariat who gradually grew in number throughout Alexander’s reign in response to the economic reforms that he continued to make. These workers eventually made up the group of people who revolted in the 1905 Revolution and this proves that Alexander III was not successful in suppressing opposition long term, as his attempts meant that a revolution would occur in the reign of the next Tsar.…

    • 594 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It can be argued that Tsar Nicholas II's autocratic rulership was a main cause of the Russian Revoultion . The working and lower classes did not have any say in how the country…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The war had an adverse effect on the Russian economy. The rising cost of food caused food shortages. Industrial workers went on strike to increase wages and by the end of the war and a new government emerged following Nicholas II abdication. The already delicate domestic political situation in Russia would be imperiled by Nicholas II’s personal affiliation with the military wealth of his country. Any other military commander could be blamed for a disaster and then dismissed, but by taking personal command the Emperor would now take personal as well as political responsibility for all military failures. The crumbling of the Russian position in the field after he assumed command made such an outcome inevitable regardless of innumerable…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • 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

    What Factors influenced Tsar Nicholas II Abdication? On March 15th Tsar Nicholas Romanov II Abdicated from the throne for both himself and for his son Aleksey and his brother didn’t want the throne so he had to abdicate for all three of them, but why did he abdicate and what factors influenced abdication. The Romanovs had been ruling for over 300 years with every leader ruling a little bit differently, but Tsar Nicholas wasn’t the best leader and was weak at leading which led to revolutions as the people believed that they could make a difference.…

    • 895 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Russian Revolution Causes

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages

    By 1917, Russia was chaotic, the government had been thoroughly corrupted, strikes were rampant and all happening at once. The World War I had begun and Russia was having many casualties due to being ill - equipped against industrialized Germany, and amidst the countries it was the one to receive most damage. Due to the german attacks the Russian economy had been falling apart, and such a situation was only useful to the radicals, as they used it as an opportunity to join with the moderates among other forces, in order to overthrow the Czar and achieve their revolutionary goals. As time passed Russia’s situation only deteriorated, demonstrators and protestants took over the streets, the king’s armies killed many of them, but they still continued to attack full force. Then when an army took the protestants side, the tables flipped, Nicholas II, the Czar at the time was forced to abdicate his throne and so freed Russia of over four centuries of Czarist…

    • 687 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    When one attempts to answer the question of whether or not “Tsar Nicholas was fit to rule Russia” one must consider three main points, his character, his attitudes, the problems facing Russia at the time and how he dealt with them. Essentially, Tsar didn’t have the emotional stability and desire to rule, that a ruler should possess and his neglecting of his country, would prove to eventually see an end to the Romanov dynasty in 1918.…

    • 623 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays