Question by psapphireb: What would Nicholas II have to do to prevent the Russian Revolution?
What would Nicholas 2 have to do to prevent the Russian Revolution?
Hi I have to write an essay about this topic Pls give me as many points as possible! Thanks:D
Answers and Views:
Answer by Michael N
1) Win the war vs Germany
2) Feed the Russian people
Read all the answers in the comments.
Give your own answer to this question!
Garbanzo Gilligan says
Bed bugs are gay.
Boiled potato says
I agree 1000%
Garbanzo you have made history
kozlik102005 says
Well, the loss of the war against Japan was a disaster for morale and prestige. In a revolution before the Communist one, he was forced to give up absolute power to the Duma (basically a senate.) A constitution was drafted and power was given to the Duma. However, over time, reactionary policies gave back power to Nicholas and reinforced the limits of the serfs and peasants. War exhaustion and attrition, lack of food and the status quo of the first World War led to the Revolution, as well as the serfdom policies dating back to the first reforms of Peter the Great.
Jemma says
haha, not have died. jk, jk. if i remember correctly, he had very little hope anyway. not to mention, you might want to specify which revolution you are talking about. there was a minor one in 1905, and then the one that put communism in power. there had been a huge social movement to begin with. this question your teacher has asked you is terrible, because it was his grandfather who freed the serfs, but then never did anything to help the relieve themselves of their position in life, so they were stuck in a loop that was no longer there. I believe Nicholas 2 would have had to go back in time and either prevent that or find provisions for the serfs in his own time, which was put before him by the Duma, the advisory board of the time…. but i believe he didn't heed their warning. YOu should be doing the research anyway, tho. This is why America is doing so poorly in education, because kids are trying to copy their answers off of Y!A by people who don't really know. I encourage you and implore you to study.
Spellbound says
Nicholas was not the right man to prevent the February Revolution, he was an inept ruler who believed in his divine right to rule without a parliament. But it was by no means inevitable, even as late as January 1917 he could have quashed the desire for change.
He needed to address the following problems:
The cities were starving – this was because the peasants needed to bring in the harvests and to transport food to the cities were mostly in the army.
The workers were poorly paid for very long hours, worked in harsh conditions and had very poor living conditions.
The army was falling apart due to military defeats, poor leadership, infiltration of the army by political groups and the fact that the mainly peasant army wanted to return to their farms.
The peasants were dissatisfied with the Emancipation of some 50 years earlier, which saw them take on 50 year redemption mortgages in order to buy their freedom – millions were indebted.
And the intelligentsia and middle classes were dissatisfied with the lack of political representation.
To solve the crisis that led to his abdication and the February Revolution he could have ensured that enough peasants were left to work the land – even raising city-living volunteers to go to help sow & bring in the harvests.
He could have increased pay for the workers, with promises of better living and working conditions after the war ended.
He could have sent his officer corps to Britain or France to learn how they were holding up the Germans – they would possibly be willing to send troops and advisors to help shore up the Russian front lines.
He could have freed the peasants from their debt, and given them the land on which they worked.
He could have offered a constitutional monarchy, perhaps following the British model, which would have placated the intelligentsia.
In the end, he did none of these things, believing that as God made him Tsar, so he did not have to modernise Russia.
See:
The October Revolution – Roy Medvedev
Jim L says
If he hadn't gone to war in 1914 it quite probably would not have happened.
Luis says
The February Revolution (Russian: Февральская революция) of 1917 was the first of two revolutions in Russia in 1917. Centred around the then capital Petrograd (modern day St. Petersburg in March (late February in the Julian calendar) its immediate result was the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the collapse of Imperial Russia and the end of the Romanov dynasty. Tsarism was replaced by a Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov, an alliance between liberals and socialists who wanted to instigate political reform, creating a democratically-elected executive and constituent assembly. Socialists also formed the Petrograd Soviet, and the two ruled together in a system known as Dual Power.
This revolution appeared to break out spontaneously, without any real leadership or formal planning. Russia had been suffering from a number of economic and social problems, which were compounded by the impact of the First World War. Bread rioters and industrial strikers were joined on the streets by disaffected elements of the city's garrison. As more and more troops deserted, and with loyal troops trapped at the Front, the city moved into a state of anarchy, prompting a revolution the Tsarist regime did not survive.
The February Revolution was followed in the same year by the October Revolution, bringing Bolshevik rule and a change in Russia's social structure, and paving the way for the USSR. The two revolutions constituted a change in the composition of the country: the first overthrew the Tsar, and the second instituted a new form of government.