Was Nicholas II Responsible for His Own Downfall Essay Example

those days.

b) Explain why Source's A and B are different?Source B is an account from Mikhail Rodzianko, president of the Duma writing about the events of February 27th 1917. Source B is a lot more reliable than Source A as it agrees with what we know as the truth. It talks about the soldiers going on strike, which is true because they refused to fire upon the demonstrators who were most likely their friends and neighbours, as most of the soldiers were peasants. It also agrees with the timescale as the soldiers went on strike the day before.

Source B also shows us four phrases, which the demonstrators were supposedly shouting out, these were:'Land and Freedom' 'Down with the Dynasty' 'Down with the Romanovs' 'Down with the Officers'This would be true as these four things were what the peasants wanted. The peasants had be campaigning for more land as their numbers were increasing fast and the Nobles still had most of the land. The peasants also wanted to get rid of the Tsars altogether as they felt they weren't treated fairly under the system.I think this source is highly reliable because it agrees with history.

This source is more useful than the first as it gives a more historically correct version of the events leading up to the February revolution.The first major difference between the sources is that one is a lot more reliable than the other. I think another reason for source B being more reliable is because a lot of confusion surrounding the first two days would have been over, which is why Tsaritsa Alexandra's is so inaccurate because everyone was probably unsure

what was happening. Which leads to another difference that the sources were written on different days, before and after the soldiers had gone on strike. Also another difference is that Mikhail probably saw what was happening first hand whilst Tsaritsa Alexandra had messengers for her and the information was probably distorted by the time it reached her. Historically Source B is more accurate and therefore more trustworthy.

c) Study sources A, B, C and D. Does the evidence of Source C and D support the version of evidence given in Source A or in Source B?Source C is a table of the estimated workers on strike in Petrograd in late February 1917. Mainly it is sourced from Richard Pipes 'The Russian Revolution, 1899 - 1919', written in 1990. Although it was written decades after the events I still believe it to be accurate. This is because it agrees with the historical knowledge of that period in time. Using my historical knowledge of the events leading up to the February Revolution that the strikes in Petrograd started with small groups (of thousands) of workers firstly went on strike because of the price of bread, as the days went on the numbers of workers on strike increased as the strike became more political as they voiced their opinions about the Tsar.

Source D is an extract from the diary of a British nurse who was working in Petrograd in 1917. This source gives us an accurate account of what happened on the 26th February. It is likely to be accurate as it comes from an eyewitness account, most likely to be written on the day from an unbiased point

of view. As this source is highly accurate it is very useful in helping piece together the events leading up to Nicholas II abdicating.

The source tells use how the nurse had seen the Tsars soldiers fire upon the demonstrators. She also comments that now the soldiers had fired upon people 'nothing now could stop the revolution'.I think both sources C and D agree with the evidence portrayed in sources A and B. Although Source A is inaccurate the there are threads of truth. It tells us how the workers had gone on strike and that others had encouraged more workers to demonstrate.

This information is also shown in Source C with the figures of the workers on strike dramatically increasing during the period of the revolution. Source C also agrees with the information given from Mikhail Rodzianko in Source B. Source B is accurate and trustworthy, it tells us of how the Tsar is gradually losing grip on his capital city. This agrees with sources C as Source B tells of the loss of control in the capital, which is usually associated with mass demonstrations, which we know about from the figures in Source C.

Source D was written before Source B, but they both lead on from each other. Source D tells us of how she thought revolution had become inevitable with the soldiers firing upon the demonstrators. Source B then goes on to say how the soldiers had mutinied, who were mostly peasants in uniform. With no method of control in Petrograd the Tsar was unable to stop the demonstrations.

Revolution was now inevitable. Source D helps support the evidence given in Source

B, by giving us the truth before the soldiers mutinied. This helps us with the reliability of Source B, which we can now comment on being very reliable as it tells us about the events that we would expect following the news in Source D.Both Source C and D help support the evidence given in Sources A and B.

They also help to support my views on the reliability of the sources by the strength of the connections with the other sources.d) On 2nd March 1917 Tsar Nicholas II abdicated. Use the sources and your own knowledge to explain why he did this?Nicholas II had huge pressures upon him to succeed; he was in power from 1894- 1917. The peasants were important to Nicholas' success but he couldn't keep them happy so in return they gave him grief.

For most of Nicholas' rule Russia was unstable. During his reign he had to cope with both the Russo- Japanese War and World War One. Failure in both of these was not good for his popularity, and he soon lost control of the country. So in a vain effort for popularity Nicholas created the Duma (the Russian Parliament) but as soon as his army regained control he ignored the Duma. Although, Nicholas was able to survive as Tsar on a shoestring, the final blow came when the February revolution stirred.

I have several sources telling the story of events, which led up to Nicholas abdicating the throne of Russia. Source A, as we have already established is very unreliable and so not useful for helping us to find what truly happened in the Tsar's last few days as

ruler. Although, it does give us the basic information about what was happening. However, Source B agrees with what we know as historical fact and so is very useful to us to find out why Nicholas abdicated.

In brief the first two sources tell us of a workers uprising and then later joined by the soldiers over the price of bread and their lack of land.The soldiers joined because they related more to the workers, as the soldiers were little more than peasants in uniform, and when on the 26th February the soldiers where forced to fire on the workers and soldiers decided they had had enough and so mutinied. The first two sources give us one of the first possible reasons for Nicholas' abdication. As there was no soldiers left in the city to fight the workers the Tsar could no longer control them, and he couldn't draft more in because most of the other soldiers were fighting Germany alongside the Tsar. Also a second reason we can get from the two sources is that as the workers were on strike factories ground to a halt and so no goods were being produced, Nicholas had to solve this fast, the pressure for him to do so was immense as some of the factories in Petrograd produced important supplies for the front line.Source C gives us numerical figures telling us how many workers approximately were on strike during the first few days of the revolution.

I believe this to be trustworthy as it agrees with historical fact. This source also backs up the claim that Nicholas was slowly losing control over his capital city.Source D

an extract from a British nurse's diary who was working in Petrograd at the time of the revolution tells us of how the tsars soldiers fired upon the people and it goes on to say that nothing now can stop the revolution. Also source E a photograph of soldiers taken on the 27th February showing their mutiny after being forced to fire upon their own kind. The photo shows banners which a said to read 'Down with Tsar. Long live the republic' I believe this source to be trustworthy as it is pictorial evidence and it is unlikely that it has been edited in any way.

Again these two sources back up the fact that the Tsar was slowly losing control over the people and there was nothing he could do to stop them apart from meet their demands, as they were the greatest force in Russia.Source F shows a telegram from Mikhail Rodzianko telling of the serious situation in Petrograd on 26th February and how Nicholas responded. Rodzianko is accurate in most places, but I do think he exaggerates slightly. In his telegram he says that army units fire on each other, from my historical knowledge I think the soldiers would not fire on each yet as they are still working together and they have not yet mutinied.

Although, it does mostly agree with historical knowledge I would partly agree with Nicholas saying that Rodzianko spread alarm to extract political concessions. In his response Nicholas tells us how he decided to ignore the information given to him by Rodzianko. Which, I think if he had taken notice of he still could have saved his

position. So this again backs up the claim that Nicholas could do nothing to control the workers, as he didn't believe what was taking place.Of two reasons, which possibly could have forced Nicholas to abdicate, I believe that the fact that he could no longer control the workers in his capital city is the most important.

If Nicholas had heeded Rodzianko's warning he might have been able to regain control, but he decided to ignore the warning and so led to his own downfall. Another way Nicholas could have restored his country is to give into the workers wants, but he knew if he did he would have another battle on his hands with the upper class. Nicholas II abdicated the throne on 2nd March 1917, I my opinion, because he no longer had control over want was happening in his country and he had left it so late there was nothing he could do to stop it.e) Study the following interpretations of the February Revolution:i) Nicholas was responsible for letting the situation in Petrograd get out of control in February 1917ii) Revolution was inevitable in Russia by 1917.The February Revolution began on the 23rd February 1917 (Old Style), event leading on from this eventually led to Tsar Nicholas II abdicating in favour of his younger brother the Grand Duke Michael on 2 March.The Tsar's armies were away fighting Germany on the western borders leaving no or little methods of control within the towns and cities.

Source A, although slightly bent from the truth gives us a brief idea of what had irrupted in Petrograd. Source C shows the estimated figures for the number of

workers on strike, which shows how out of control the situation was. With no serious enforcers in Petrograd, the police were not powerful enough to calm the situation and the soldiers that remained were little more than peasants in uniform; the workers soon had control of the situation using it to make their demands known. The Tsars instruction had come too late only by the 26th February had the Tsar order the soldiers to fire upon the demonstrators. This supports the first interpretation of the February Revolution, as Tsar Nicholas let the situation grow more and more out of control before stepping in, when it was too late.The Tsar's sudden preparation for the war with Germany had left many people in Russia working together for the war effort.

However, opinion changed when the costs of war hit home. The Tsar's quick move into war had left many vacancies in jobs in many of the important industries; many farmers had been taken away to fight previous to 1917. In Source B, Mikhail Rodzianko comments how the soldiers were not soldiers but peasants taken from the fields. These gaps in the industry had a great strain population, prices soared as every day foods became scarcer. This led to demonstrations over the price of bread, described in Source A.

Then later the peasants made their other grievances made known, as told in Source B. Again this supports the first interpretation, if the Tsar had planned and taken into consideration the effects of going to war, the Tsar might not have been faced with the problems that occurred in Petrograd.However, the grievances Rodzianko comments about had a history. The

small group of workers that had started the demonstrations over the price of bread allowed the more extremist views of the workers to be voiced. It was not the price of bread that caused the revolution, not like Source A assumes.

It was the less obvious problems the workers had at the time. These grievances had been stored up; the primary demonstrations had created a platform for these views to be expressed. This is shown in Source B.'But Peasants taken directly from the fields who have found it useful now to make known their peasant demands.

In the crowd, all one could hear was 'Land and Freedom', 'Down with the Dynasty', 'Down with the Romanovs', 'Down with the Officers'This proves that the peasants were unhappy with the Tsars rule before 1917. This is further proved by Source E, which is a photograph of soldiers. The soldiers are holding banners, which are said to read 'Down with the Tsar. Long live the Republic'. Both these views support the second interpretation that revolution was inevitable in Russia by 1917.

Source G is a summary of a memorandum written in February 1914 by P.N Durnovo, who was an extreme right-wing member of Nicholas II's State Council. This source should be very accurate, as Durnovo would have an excellent view and understanding of the political situation. The memorandum states that if Russia did go to war and were defeated, a social revolution would be the probable outcome.

'Any defeat on the battlefield would result in a surge of opposition to the Government, which would be blamed for all Russia's failing and backwardness. Complete social revolution would be the probable outcome.'As Durnovo

comments earlier Russia was in no fit state to fight and win comfortably.'Economic strength, financial resources and political unity would be key factors in determining defeat of victory in this conflict. In all these respects Russia was ill-equipped to fight.

'In brief this memorandum is basically predicting Russia's downfall through a more than probable revolution due to Russia's poor military situation. This evidence agrees with the second interpretation of the February revolution, that the revolution was inevitable.However, Source G does also prove Nicholas' ignorance, by him not heeding Durnovo's warning.'Russia must not be drawn into such a conflict, and least of all on the side of liberal England against conservative Germany.'This ignorance continues in Source F (ii), which is Nicholas' reaction to a previous telegram from Rodzianko warning him of the volatile situation in Petrograd. Rodzianko is recording in the telegram saying 'Situation deteriorating, Imperative to take immediate steps for tomorrow will be too late.

'Nicholas chose to ignore this in his reaction.'That fat fellow Rodzianko has again written me all kinds of nonsense which I shan't even bother to answer.'This ignorance led to the revolution finally taking place. If Tsar Nicholas had taken notice of Rodzianko and had taken appropriate measures to calm the situation in Petrograd the revolution might not have happened.

This final view on the situation agrees with the first interpretation that Nicholas was responsible for letting the situation in Petrograd get out of control.All these reasons contributed to the February Revolution in 1917. Many of the reasons are also closely linked. The tsar had left no reinforcements behind protecting his capital in case of any revolutionary plots, even when Rodzianko recommended that

he did take action, the Tsars ignorance kept him form doing so. The same ignorance was seen with Durnovo's memorandum and the threat of revolution if Russia did suffer defeat. If the Tsar had taken action and planned for the future when the first warning of revolution was sewn in Durnovo's memorandum in 1914, the Tsar might have avoided the situation he was faced with in February 1917.

Also if the Tsar had planned and prepared for war carefully and not created the huge strain on the industry, he might not have had the workers demonstrating over the price of bread that created a platform for the other problems, the workers and peasants faced, to be shown.All the reasons had a part to play in sparking off the revolution. However, as shown above if you took out or altered some of the causes the revolution might never of occurred. Without Tsar Nicholas' ignorance and lack of planning for war, he could of avoided revolution in February 1917.

These reasons I think are the most important as they both sparked of a chain reaction previous to 1917. However, Nicholas' ignorance towards events and peoples advice building up to the revolution has the greater importance of the two as he could of crushed any stirring revolutionaries long before it reached a large scale.In conclusion, I think revolution in Russia was inevitable by 1917. Nicholas' ignorance is the main factor, which led to the revolution.

This is evident in many of the sources where he refused to accept people's advice. Although Nicholas' ignorance features in other factors which led, in the short term, to the revolution. It was

a character defect, which would have been with him most of life and therefore his ignorance along with other factors made revolution inevitable by 1917.