Why Was The Fall Of Imperial Russia Inevitable

Improved Essays
Was the fall of Imperial Russia Inevitable?

The fall of the Russian Empire was a cause of many events, but was it inevitable? In short yes. I believe that Nicholas II was kindling to the fall of Imperial Russia and World War 1 was the spark that lit it. On the optimist’s side, there were signs of Russia slowly becoming more stable before the war ruined all the progress made. Their economy was rapidly growing in Europe. Russia would have had an industrial economy in less than a decade. Therefore, employment and living standards would have improved. This would have calmed political opposition, reduced the number of strikes and strengthened the security of the monarchy. Thus, Tsarism had a good chance of survival if the industrial boom continued.
…show more content…
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. When the army continued to be defeated, Russians lost all sense of a protective and wise Tsar and it gave them an excuse to criticize him. By the time rumors of Rasputin’s sexual scandals in the royal court started spreading, along with rumors of the unpopular Alexandra’s interference in royal affairs, it simply confirmed people’s disbelief in the Tsar. Loss of esteem was important because it was something relied heavily upon by such out of date regimes to keep largely illiterate populations under control. Its loss played straight into the hands of the political opposition such as the Bolsheviks, an alarming trend that was already strong before war was …show more content…
In 1905 he was forced, unwillingly, to introduce a limited constitution, a parliament and legalize trade unions. This attracted liberals, who unsuccessfully demanded more. However, over the following ten years he tried to reverse these enterprises. The Fundamental Laws immediately rebuffed the October Manifesto and Order No. 1 gave the Tsar power to veto the Duma, it blocked by Tsarist conservatives. This conservative reaction drew the anger of the left and offered them ammunition to argue with. Sooner or later the issues would have been raised again regardless of whether war broke out or

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Since the early 1600’s Russia had been ruled by the Romanov family. The final Tsars were increasingly ineffective and when Tsar Nicholas II came into power he did not fix the mistakes of the past Tsars and due to his bad leadership he is solely to blame for bringing his country into ruin which in turn led to his downfall, however, the people of Russia were eager for change because of the mistakes of the past Tsars and Nicholas II could not govern the entire country and keep them from wanting a revolution. During the course of Nicholas II reign he made various mistakes that contributed to his downfall. Nicholas II’s father, Alexander II, brought a police of Russification which stated that the non-native people of Russia must give up their…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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. Historian Richard Malone states that “the mystical union tying the Tsar to his people was forever severed”. The 1905 Revolution and Bloody Sunday saw a erosion of confidence in the Tsar drop, which contributed to the revolutionary…

    • 1841 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    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…

    • 1538 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    What were the consequences of the Decembrist Revolt? One of the most serious consequence from the Decembrist Revolt was that the endeavors made to rid any rebellion ruined the ability to reform or implement a constitutional-run government. The second most serious consequence was that this revolt sparked a series of revolts directed a czar ruled government which did not cease until the collapse of the monarchy in 1917. 16. Explain the reason why Nicholas I was considered the "iron czar" and often called by his countrymen…

    • 807 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II Downfall

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The line “…by authorities whom We shall appoint” clearly shows how the Tsar is reluctant to give his people their rights as he wanted to keep his power and the system of Autocracy in Russia. This can be amplified in a letter to his ‘dearest mama’ on the 2nd of November, 1905, “…this terrible decision, which I nevertheless took quite consciously” further reinforcing the fact that Nicholas II was not sincere in improving his own nation from the release of the October Manifesto . The contradicting statements in the October Manifesto further stimulated the growing discontent of the people as the rights that they are given are still limited by Tsar Nicholas. As Trotsky states in 1905, “Everything is given and nothing is given”. Therefore, the release of the October Manifesto was a key event…

    • 842 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Although the withdrawal was called a year earlier, it was hard for the Soviets to just leave the country in the hands of radical insurgent groups and gave it one last push, but to no avail. Scholars argue that the repercussions of the Soviet Afghan War were so serious, that it led to the downfall of the USSR which occurred around four years after the withdrawal. However, one thing that is undebatable is that the war did worsen East-West relations and threw the rest of the world into a frenzy about the extreme measures that were taken throughout the war by the…

    • 2248 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Many others believed that with a Tsar like Nicholas, the autocratic course was destined for failure. The presence of Rasputin also gave the people, especially the monarchists, a very negative outlook of Nicholas II, but the tsar was blinded by his family concerns. Podbolotov describes that by 1917, the irritation of the Tsar was at new heights. A group called the “progressive Nationalists” had entered the Progressive Bloc leading up to 1917, joining the opposition. The tsar’s “faithful people” began to rise up in opposition for the good of society, and this as well became more universal among monarchists.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    A terrible confusion rose.”(Source E). The awful events of this day marked a change in Russian attitudes, previously the Russian people had view their Tsar as the ‘little father’ a protector of Russia however now he was seen as ‘Bloody Nicholas’ the man who’s institutionalised brutality and incompetency be it directly or indirectly to the deaths of thousands of innocents, it was this shift in attitudes that gave way to anti-tsarist propaganda from the Bolsheviks and a revitalised interest by the Russian people in changing the way Russia was…

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Ill-fated by the Khodynka Tragedy, the reign of the last Tsar was plagued with public discontent from his inauguration. Nicholas’ fear that he was “not prepared to be Tsar” caused him to cling to the outdated social and economic rhetoric of his father, Tsar Alexander III, despite the rapidly changing and evolving state of Russia. By 1905, many of the classes, particularly the peasants, urban workers and the reformist middle class were angered and politicized by Nicholas’ reactionary policies. The events of 1905 were preceded by a Progressive and academic agitation for more political democracy and limits to Tsarist rule in Russia. Nicholas II caused grievances for almost every class of people under his protection, to the extent that the gentry…

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays