Tsar Nicholas II: The Causes Of The 1905 Revolution

1198 Words 5 Pages
Register to read the introduction… Tsar Nicholas II's reaction to the peaceful protest the workers staged, his inability to meet the demands of his people, and the rising prices and lowering conditions that came with World War I all led to the inevitable- a revolution. "Peasants burned the estates of their landlords, destroying everything they could get their hands on." (As It Was Lived: 4-18) This was an accurate portrayal of the behavior of the peasants after the events of the 1905 revolution, also called ‘Bloody Sunday'. The causes of this were severe food shortages, deteriorating living standards, and the fact that the Tsar did not allow any political involvement of the peasants. Famines and land shortages caused suffering of thousands. Also, Russia was losing the Russo- Japanese war, where the Russian army endured a …show more content…
I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling." (As It Was Lived: 4-18) Tsar Nicholas II uttered these very words on becoming Tsar in 1894, and he was right. The Tsar was a terrible leader. He was infuriatingly indecisive, and didn't know how to run the Russian government at all. Unable to manage the continuing strikes that had risen up all over Russia, he pretended that everything was all right and that the peasants were just making a fuss because they were ‘bored'. When the Duma (the Russian people's elected parliament, which had little power) tried to warn him of the seriousness of the situation, he ignored and dissolved them instead. This brewed even more hatred toward the Tsar amongst his people. The Tsar was also influenced very easily by people around him, especially his wife, Tsarina Alexandra. She in turn was being manipulated by a ‘holy man' called Rasputin, on whom she depended completely. Rasputin's influence grew through the Tsarina (whom the people hated), and even though he had little education, he gained recognition and authority in the Russian court. However, his influence was not one that was positive. Because of his bouts of drinking, womanizing, and ability to pressure the Tsar to do anything he wanted, he became one of the most hated men of the 20th Century. However, one of the very worst things Tsar Nicholas II did was to show the people how truly bad of a leader he was. Because of the growing …show more content…
This eventually led to the Tsar's downfall." (As It Was Lived: 4-18) All in all, the overthrow of the monarchy was inevitable and unavoidable, the way things were going. The peasants' reaction to ‘Blood Sunday', the Tsar's inability to look beyond his own interests, and the extreme conditions of WWI fueled the need for a change. Totally frustrated, the common masses of Russia were forced into rebellion and anarchy. Absolute disregard for their situation and needs led to the collapse of a country… and allowed communism to raise its head. If the Tsar had been a strong leader, or if the Russian people had just had a say in how their country was being run, the whole revolution would have been avoided. This would have altered the history of many countries that were affected by communism, and in turn the world, which was the result of the Russian

Related Documents