Tsar Nicholas's Response To The 1905 Revolution

Good Essays
Tsar Nicholas’ personality had a big impact on his leadership; his unfavourable attitude of being the Tsar of Russia meant that he didn’t really take the title as an honour but more of a burden. Nicholas II’s leadership was passive and not oppressive; he didn’t know how the rule the country nor was he interested in doing it. This is evident in a letter to his brother-in-law in 1894 where he states: “I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling” (Source 1). Although Nicholas II did not want to be Tsar he believed it was his God given right, therefore he couldn’t just hand over the title of the Tsar to someone else permanently. Because of Tsar Nicholas’s non-oppressive approach to his …show more content…
Bloody Sunday began as peaceful march by the Putilov Iron workers as well as workers from other factories who joined in and was lead by Father Gapon through the city of St Petersburg to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II pleading for a constitutional monarchy. The response was met with mounted Cossacks shooting and massacring many unarmed strikers while the Tsar cowered inside the Winter Palace. Source 3 shows the brutality of the shootings, with the soldiers aiming at people who weren’t even attacking. This began the breakdown of trust between the Tsar and his people, with many people believing the Tsar knew what was happening outside the Winter Palace while some were still in denial. Bloody Sunday set off a chain of events including mutinies, control of the Trans-Siberian Railway, establishments of Unions and general strikes widespread around Russia which halted the economy; Nicholas II had no choice but to respond to the demand of the people, creating the October Manifesto. The October Manifesto established the Duma which gave the Russian people the sense that Tsar Nicholas II had lost some of his power and they now had a voice that the Tsar would listen to, but this was not the case. Nicholas II came up with a loop-hole- The Fundamental Laws- which reasserted his autocratic power. This allowed him to veto decisions made by the Duma and control …show more content…
When it was announced that Russia would go to war in 1914, the initial result was extremely positive. Popular discontents with the political and economic circumstances of the country were forgotten with extreme nationalism, strikes stopped and the Duma even dissolved itself. A large army was rapidly assembled and people began to bow when Nicholas made a public appearance, but this would soon all change. Many countries including Germany believed that Russian would be a threatening opponent, but this was not the case. Russia lacked ammunition and the Minister of War favoured hand-to-hand combat with bayonets, which was practically useless against the enemies’ rifles and machine guns. Russia suffered many huge military defeats, an example being the Battle of Tannenberg (18 August) with 300 000 dead or wounded and over 100 000 Russian POWS. Defeats like this caused demoralisation within the Russian army, with it getting so bad that “There had been 195 000 desertions between 1914 and February 1917, but between March and May 1917, there were over 365 000. Brusilov’s major offensives in Galicia, in June, were undertaken in the hope of rallying the nation, but as the Russian advance was beaten back with heavy losses, anti-war sentiment grew stronger. Desertions reached a peak and the death penalty had to be reinstated as the only way of controlling the troops”

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    His incompetence was characterized by a proud tyranny that damaged his status and provoked both his opponents and supporters. Throughout his reign, Tsar Nicholas II had increasingly lost connection with his people. On his orders, Cossack guards brutally repressed the 1905 revolution, memorialized as ‘Bloody Sunday’, and the 1912 Lena goldfields protests. Suddenly, people discovered that their leader was not the caring idol they had previously idolized, but a ruthless official determined to keep order. His most grave mistake was when he took over full control of the armed forces in August 1915.…

    • 755 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    He entrusted the Tsarina and Rasputin to help him rule and they failed to do so in a way that would improve Russia and the people’s opinion of the Tsarist regime. Russia was a large country and it was hard to hear all the people’s voices and act on what they wanted. The incident of Bloody Sunday cannot be blamed on a Tsar that was not at the palace and who therefore could not stop the Cossacks. The incident of Bloody Sunday is to be blamed on the general who gave the order to attack the innocents. As WW1 broke out and the Tsar took control to fight against the Germans who threatened to kill millions of innocents and control all of Europe the revolutionary parties were able to use the food shortages and complaints to blame the Tsar as a scapegoat to further their own agenda’s.…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    During the pre revolutionary Russian revolution was incompetent; Nicholas could not manage Russia’s vast population and stop anyone who oppose or try to help him. He was always suspicious of anyone that might pose a threat to his sovereignty. Additionally, his advisors and top officials were fundamental bases on loyalty than skills. The government was inefficient and corrupted. A historian Richard Pipes argues that,”the revolution was the result not of insufferable conditions but of irreconcilable attitudes of a clash between those who wanted sweeping changes in government and a government whose ruler refused to change anything”(Collapse of Tsarist Russia).…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    On Bloody Sunday, 200,000 works walked to the czar’s palace in St. Petersburg, but the czar’s soldiers mistook them for revolutionaries planning to attack, so they killed or hurt thousands of Russian works. This arouse a series of strikes and fights across the country. The entry into World War I was a complete mistake for Russia. The country did not have the finances or the military in order to be successful. Russians knew this, and they were angry with the czar when he ordered the country into combat.…

    • 1022 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II’s poor leadership made the people lose faith in him, and therefore lose faith in the Tsarist regime, resulting in anarchy and revolution. Nicholas was unprepared for the difficult situation he was put in as Tsar, and he was totally unequipped to deal with it. Founder of Spartacus Educational and former history teacher John Simkin states, “Nicholas inherited from his ancestors not only a great empire, nut also a revolution. And they did not bequeath him one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire. Or even a country" [Simkin, 1997] The system needed reform, but he was unwilling to limit his power at all, for the sole reason that he thought it was his duty to pass on his full and complete autocratic powers…

    • 1329 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Falling wages, coupled with the rising cost of living amongst poor working standards and unsanitary living arrangements led to Father Georgei Gapon, ‘a renegade priest with police connections,’ presenting a petition outlining the grievances of the people of St. Petersburg. The affected workers and their families would march peacefully to the Winter Palace on the 22nd January 1905, begging for political, economic and social reform. They did not ask for much, only for their human rights to be upheld. 150,000 nonviolent people marched towards the Tsar’s residence and hundreds of those passive individuals; men, women and children where trampled, killed and wounded by the army and Cossack cavalry. Although it is believed that the Tsar was not at his residence or St. Petersburg at the time, he would be held responsible for the senseless firing on innocent people on Bloody Sunday.…

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ivan feeling defeated went to Pope Gregory XIII in hopes that he will end the battle. Pope Gregory XIII created a cease fire protecting Russia from taking any more losses. The war ended with Russia suffering. Although Russia previously held access to the Baltic Sea, after losing the Livonian war they lost all access which was now held by Sweden. This made it much harder to trade with the…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The archbishop of Montreal, Monseigneur Bruchesi sent a warning to Prime Minister Borden, “Dear Sir Robert, Do you not think, in light of our population, that we have largely done our share? The people are agitated. In the province of Quebec we can expect deplorable revolts. Will this not end in bloodshed?”5 Robert Borden didn’t listen to the warnings, which led to two days of violence and rioting in Montreal. Tramway rails were ripped up and store windows smashed.…

    • 1260 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays