Tsar Nicholas II's Contribution To The Revolutionary Revolution Of Russia

1841 Words 8 Pages
“What contribution did your leader make to the revolutionary situation?”

Tsar Nicholas II was the last Autocratic monarch of Russia under the Romanov rule. His reign, 1864 to 1917, was plagued with misfortune and disaster. It is undeniable that some of the events were entirely out his hands, however majority of Tsar Nicholas II actions led to the Revolutionary Situation in 1917. The decision of fighting in the Russo - Japanese War, the 1905 Revolution, Bloody Sunday, the October Manifesto and Fundamental laws and Russia’s involvement in World War One contributed the situation.

The Russia that Nicholas II inherited, in 1894 from his father Alexander III, was quickly changing, moving towards the industrialization era, with an ever growing
…show more content…
There was mounts of unrest in Russia’s industrial capital St. Petersburg because of working conditions and poor representation in the government. With wages falling and the cost of living rising, added with terrible working conditions, a poor harvest and the unexpected outcome of the Russo - Japanese war all contributed to the growing worker restlessness. In early January, 1905, 120,000 workers had already participated in strikes. Father Georgei Gapon on a Sunday, led workers and their families in a peaceful protest to the Winter Place to present a petition outlining the grievances of the people of St Petersburg. There was panic in the police ranks and the peaceful protestors were fired upon and charged at as they approached their destination. Journalists at the time estimated 4600 had been killed or wounded. Nicholas II wasn 't present at the time and didn 't directly order the troops to fire however he was blamed by the people for the outcome and was held responsible for Bloody Sunday. Nicholas II’s lack of strong leadership after the Bloody Sunday massacre made a significant contribution to the revolutionary situation because the people of Russia begun to see his incompetence as a leader. He was once called “Little Father” by the people of Russia, who adored him, however this was replaced with “Nicholas the Bloody” and the people of Russia’s attitude changed after the event. …show more content…
Nicholas was in a position where he needed to act swiftly and make concessions to calm the industrial workers of Russia after the events of the 1905 Revolution and Bloody Sunday. Sergi Witte, who negotiated the terms to the end of Russo - Japanese war, persuaded Nicholas II to draft the October Manifesto. The October Manifesto was written to give workers more rights and representations in the autocratic government. Witte persuaded the Tsar to accept these terms and the document was issued on 17 October 1905. Nicholas II changed many of the terms, though they were still see as an improvement to the little rights industrial workers had in Russia at the time. The manifesto produced a mixed reaction with the people of Russia, some groups saw it as an important step in the right direction, paving the way for further reform and others doubted it would ever come into practice. However, the October Manifesto never was intended to limit the Tsar’s power, the manifesto was an expedient rather than producing real reforms. The Fundamental Laws, 1906, undermined the October Manifesto by enforcing new laws which effected the previously set ones. Tsar Nicholas II overrules the previously set law, by refusing to delegate his power and reenforcing that he has unlimited power and control over Russia. Nicolas states that he “created the Duma, not to be directed by it…”. The

Related Documents