To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for the eruption of the Russian Revolution in 1917
It was the political naivety and utmost stubbornness of Tsar Nicholas II that led to the eruption of the Russian Revolution. Some facets of the Tsar’s behavior decidedly contributed to the autumn of Russia. nevertheless tonss of these qualities were non failings in his character. but instead hapless leading qualities. Some of the causes included Tsar Nicholas II’s bossy rulership. the socio-economic alterations go oning at the clip. dearth and besides the eruption of WWI. It can be argued that Tsar Nicholas II’s bossy rulership was a chief cause of the Russian Revoultion. The working and lower categories did non hold any state in how the state was run. and were tired of this. However such can non be blamed soley on the Tsar’s ain determinations. as nobility was instilled in him by his male parent. Alexander III. Therefore. if their were any uncertainties about Nicholas’ belief in autarchy. they would hold been put to rest. Because of this long running bossy rulership. and the unfairness which came along with it. people were at their marbless end and grabbed onto the first chance they saw as a opportunity at democracy.
This is why Lenin – who promised the people bread. peace and land was able to acquire such a big following in such a short period. There were other really large factors that contributed to the revolution that the Tsar had small do to with. There were monolithic socio-economic alterations taking topographic point. This created a new category of mill workers. The on the job category. largely the provincials – who comprised of 84 % of the Russian population – were moved to the metropolis to work in mills. Little could hold been done approximately this as merchandises had to be manufactured in the state. as trade paths were cut off due to WWI. On one manus. due to Tsar Nicholas II bossy policies. there were no trade brotherhoods. to look out workers rights. For that ground life and working conditions were really bad. Workers worked for 14 hours a twenty-four hours and slept in overcrowded housing houses. as illustrated by Father Gapon in 1905. On the other manus if the workers were treated better. they wouldn’t have been so speedy to travel against the Tsar. His epathy farther allienated his people.
His fatal determination to travel to WW1. was a strong cause of the revolution.
Furthermore he decided to take affairs into his ain custodies by going Commander in Chief. He thought that his tactics. maneouvering and royal presence would win Russia the war. Unfortunately this did non travel as planned. and Russia was defeated. Although they had lost the war. Nicholas as a leader had stepped up and tried to do his state winning. It was his deficiency of military experience that had devasted the Russian ground forces. non a failing in his character. Nevertheless. Russian citizens seen this as another failure in their leader. as they suffered more losingss than any other state. This damaged Russias morale. The people had. had plenty.
The Winter of 1917 was a hard period for the people of Russia. The railroads which transported the nutrient froze. Peoples were hungry and angry. They blamed their swayer. Tsar Nicholas II for their adversities. Although dearth and cold was a natural catastrophe. Tsar Nicholas II was partially to fault because of his incompetency as the leader. A leader of the people would hold foreseen the deficit of nutrient. because Russia was known for its utmost cold Winters. Therefore nutrient should hold been stock piled or alternate conveyance methods should hold been made to acquire nutrient to the people. Lenin appealed to the people. as he promised them staff of life.
During the concluding old ages of his regulation. Nicholas alienated most of his protagonists in the upper category. They wanted reform. but the Tsar refused to make a popular authorities. Indeed this was a consequence of his political naivety. He didnt recognize the extent of the state of affairs. If he did pull off to maintain a united upper-class. the revoultion could hold been avoided. However. even before he was made Tsar. Nicholas lived the life of an idle socialite. As he had ne’er taken a wishing to political personal businesss. he was underprepared to take the throne. This fact along with his obstinate belief in autarchy – explains his political naivety in many of the hard state of affairss he faced.