How well did Tsar Nicholas II rule Russia in the years 1906-1917? (50 marks)
Nicholas ruled Russia abysmally in the years 1906 –1917. He did not understand that his country needed to reform politically if it was to industrialize. He granted reforms after the 1905 revolution to decrease social unrest and bring his country back in control, however, he failed to commit to reform. The economic growth from 1906-1914 created a healthy economy, which created more jobs and opportunities, however, this money was not used to improve conditions for workers or peasant but was instead used to strengthen the military which was only benefiting the industrialists. As a result, he became hugely unpopular by 1914. During the war, he made the mistake of favoring …show more content…
Within 1915, Russia lost Poland, Lithuania and parts of Ukraine, he, therefore, forced peasant conscripts to fight in the war, as a consequence, there was less food produced for the country overall. The country by 1916, did not have enough food to feed the army and the homefront as there was a lack of trains to supply foods to the cities, as an outcome, the food shortages experienced by civilians resulted in a revolutionary activity by 1917. Also, the shortage of weapons to survive during the war lead to many casualties, as a result, some peasants conscripts began to desert leading to an increase in military deaths during the war. The cost of the war meant that food prices quadrupled, despite this Nicholas refused to offer rationing, leaving his people vulnerable and in even worse conditions, hence providing an indication of his downfall because he went to war with little interest of his country 's living standards. Russia 's was weak and therefore he should have taken social measures before leaving the homefront such as accepting the national government in 1915 who could have helped the tsar run the homefront. The national government was politically organized and could ensure economic progress was stable even after the
Nicholas ruled Russia abysmally in the years 1906 –1917. He did not understand that his country needed to reform politically if it was to industrialize. He granted reforms after the 1905 revolution to decrease social unrest and bring his country back in control, however, he failed to commit to reform. The economic growth from 1906-1914 created a healthy economy, which created more jobs and opportunities, however, this money was not used to improve conditions for workers or peasant but was instead used to strengthen the military which was only benefiting the industrialists. As a result, he became hugely unpopular by 1914. During the war, he made the mistake of favoring …show more content…
Within 1915, Russia lost Poland, Lithuania and parts of Ukraine, he, therefore, forced peasant conscripts to fight in the war, as a consequence, there was less food produced for the country overall. The country by 1916, did not have enough food to feed the army and the homefront as there was a lack of trains to supply foods to the cities, as an outcome, the food shortages experienced by civilians resulted in a revolutionary activity by 1917. Also, the shortage of weapons to survive during the war lead to many casualties, as a result, some peasants conscripts began to desert leading to an increase in military deaths during the war. The cost of the war meant that food prices quadrupled, despite this Nicholas refused to offer rationing, leaving his people vulnerable and in even worse conditions, hence providing an indication of his downfall because he went to war with little interest of his country 's living standards. Russia 's was weak and therefore he should have taken social measures before leaving the homefront such as accepting the national government in 1915 who could have helped the tsar run the homefront. The national government was politically organized and could ensure economic progress was stable even after the