Questions

QUESTIONS

1. **In your opinion, what was the Tsar's biggest mistake which would lead to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty?**

 Although World War I was the beginning of the end for the Tsar, it cannot really be considered his biggest mistake as there was no real way of avoiding it. Russia was obligated to participate due to their alliances and considered they bordered with Germany it would have been extremely difficult to remain neutral. Therefore, his biggest mistake was in 1905 after the revolution. At this point Nicolas had the opportunity to calm the people by creating a true constitutional monarchy. However, the Duma was more for show than anything as it was elected by wealthy Russians who formed less than 10% of the population. It was not all representative of all of Russia, and Nicolas II did not even truly listen to them anyway. Nicolas had made so he was still in complete control and could veto any law made by the Duma. Had he given the people what they wanted and allowed everybody to vote for the Duma, a second revolution in 1917 might have been avoided and the Romanovs might have been able to continue ruling as a constitutional monarchy, at least for some time. For example, Canada and England have been successful constitutional monarchies for years. Conversely, the Queen is now more of a figure-head rather than a political leader, a position the Romanovs would have not have been satisfied with.  Although, in some ways it's hard to say any of Nicolas II's mistakes would lead to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty, as the fall had been coming for years. Decades before Nicolas was born resentment and bitterness towards the Royal Family. That being said, Nicolas II was an incredibly inept leader. He was immature and extremely ignorant of the dire circumstances that surrounded him. Some may argue his greatest fault was in his personality. His belief in fate angered so many Russians due to the fact that he saw everything as being out of his hands and more an act of God. As well, his traditional views prevented him from adjusting to the Industrial Revolution. Nicolas II failed to relate to his people in a time when it was extremely crucial to do so and this added to the downfall of his family.

2. **Was the fall of the Royal Family inevitable? Support your answer.**

 Overwhelmingly, the fall of the Romanov Dynasty was absolutely inevitable. Historically, it has been shown that people who are oppressed for centuries will eventually revolt and get the rights and freedoms they want. Although Nicolas II's mistakes probably accelerated the pace of the revolution, the Royal Family would have fallen no matter what. The cause for Revolution had been building over hundreds of years and the Industrial Revolution sealed its fate. The Russians had been ruled for centuries by unlimited monarchies that were controlled by rich families. Meanwhile, 90% of the Russian people were peasants who had no say in the government. One particular cause for complaint was serfdom. Although serfdom was abolished in 1861, the peasants were cheated out of their land. This made many people very angry and started to increase the anti-monarchy sentiment. It's impossible to restrict people's freedoms and rights as much as the Romanovs did without a major revolt happening. As well, although some Romanovs were more liberal than others, it was clear that no one was prepared to make the necessary changes to adapt to the constantly changing world. The Romanovs were stubborn and traditional, making their reign in a world full of economic and social reforms disastorous.  Historically, the oppression of the majority of people has usually led to an overthrow of government or a full-blown revolution. For example, the French Revolution was due to religious and aristocratic privileges that were received by so few, and ended up tearing down a century-old monarchy in less than five years (France subsequently became a republic). Additionally, the Glorious Revolution resulted in a constitutional monarchy for England and the American Revolution made The United States a republic rather than a monarchy.  The Industrial Revolution assured once and for all that the Russian Revolution would take place. It created a new class of people making revolutionaries professionals, they were no longer all poor uneducated peasants. The rest of Europe was industrializing faster, and with so many neighbours that were so much more modern and advanced, there was no way to keep the Russian people from revolting. Today, countries containing oppressed people are often surrounded by countries that have similar governments. Russia's circumstances were very different as in 1905 (the year of the first revolution), Britain had a fairly elected Prime Minister, France had a President, and Italy had a prime minister. There were two other major empires/monarchies (Germany and Austria-Hungary); however, these were beginning to break down as well and neither would survive World War I. Russia was an old-fashioned empire in a modernizing world, a combination that was bound to collapse.  In conclusion, it was inevitable that the Romanovs would fall as they were unchanging people in a world full of change. The people were too angry and they were too unwilling to compromise-there was no other way it could have ended. The Industrial Revolution was the beginning of the end, which combined with World War I finally finished a three-century-old dynasty that's time had come.