Tsar Nicholas's Response To The 1905 Revolution

1538 Words 7 Pages
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