Nicholas II Was to Blame for His Own Downfall By Sarah Thompson _______________________________________________________________________________________ Since the beginning of mankind, empires have risen and fallen. Governments and leaders fought to hold power, and the thirst for power is where conflict is created. Conflict has shaped who we are and the world we live in. A particularly interesting conflict is the Russian Revolution. The House of Romanov ruled over Russia for just over three centuries. In this time many Tsar’s took the throne until the Emperor Nicholas II was abdicated in March 15,1917. Many factors contributed to the Russian Revolution, but the Tsar Nicholas was mainly responsible for the following reasons: His character …show more content…
But this type of infatuation would become the foundation for his undoing, as he would rather spend time with his family than be involved with political affairs. Additionally his weak character allowed for his wife Alexandra to convince him to do anything she wanted, she said “The emperor unfortunately is weak, but I am not and I intend to be firm” (Alexandra, journal, 1905). The Tsarina herself was very involved with ‘Russification' and was strongly politically minded, but her ideas were often misinformed. This was certainly not the type of person who should be directing ideas to the weak Tsar. In recovered letters written by Alexandra, she convinces the Tsar to have conservative ways, talked him out of reforms and concessions, as well as forcing him to be enemies with the few people that would give him the political guidance he needed (Llewelly, 2014). She would also boost the Tsar’s confidence by encouraging him and complimenting traits he didn’t possess, none of which aided him in being a more successful leader. The Tsarina also convinced Nicholas that Rasputin was a strong asset, and now both the Tsar and Tsarina
Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime. Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country.
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
Why the Tsar Fell From Power in 1917 On March 2nd 1917 the Tsar agreed to abdicate, this was the accumulation of a series of factors associated with the Tsarist Russian society. All workers, middle classes, aristocrats and even some of the Tsars oldest and most faithful supporters were starting to resent the system they were under. Famines, inflation, strikes and incisive rumors all took their toll on the populace. The icing on the cake came in the form of the extremist feelings of anger the army felt towards Nicholas I, and their withdrawal of support for him. Here are some of the events that led up to the 1917 revolution in more detail.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
situation is not serious at all and if it is ignored, it will go away.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
Rasputin and the Tsarina had been believed to have been in control of the Tsarist regime in the years 1914-17 during the Tsars absence in its entirety. But this was in fact not the case in all respects, such as the control of the armed forces, which were still very much under the control of generals as it had been in the time beforehand. Although Rasputin and the Tsarina seemed to have control over this, it was obvious that Tsar Nicholas II would not leave his army under the control of people who were not qualified, especially under the likes of Rasputin. Some people believe that Rasputin was able to influence the Tsar through the Tsarina who was highly fond of him for his ‘healing’ of her ill son, but this can be argued as wrong due to the fact that the Tsar, although he listened to almost everything his wife had to say, did not always actually use her advice in his acts as the Tsar, even if they could sometimes be persuading in his decisions.
The Romanov Rule in Russia The Romanovs had ruled Russia since 1613. When is the last tsar of all? Nicholas II, was appointed to the throne in 1894, there was no hint of the fate that awaited him. Many among the huge crowds that lined the streets for his coronation celebration saw him as their "little" father.". They believed God had supposedly appointed Nicholas to rule.
Czar Nicholas’ poor leadership forced him to abdicate and caused the Bolshevik takeover. One of the reasons I say that is because of the way he handled “Bloody Sunday”. “Bloody Sunday” was when troops killed over a thousand people in a peaceful worker assembly. After “Bloody Sunday”, workers all over Russia went on strike, and peasants caused uprisings that were suppressed by Nicholas II’s troops causing tensions to increase. Another reason was his disastrous involvement in World War I. In the beginning of the war, Russia’s armies did not do well. To fix this, Nicholas became the commander. Now under his command, their continued failure reflected the Czar himself, further decreasing his popularity. Lastly, civil unrest grew as food riots, chronic food shortages, and labor strikes continued to proceed. This eventually erupted into open revolt, and Czar Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate. Soon after, the new government was overthrown by the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin.
Rasputin’s seamless integration into the Romanov family caused greater distrust towards the Dynasty by the Russian people. When he was introduced to Tsar Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna, Rasputin quickly became almost a member of the imperial family. Favoured by Alexandra due to the belief that Rasputin’s mystic healing powers could heal her haemophilic son. Source E depicts how close-knit Rasputin was to the Romanov’s. “Tsarina Alexandra with Rasputin, the Romanov children and a governess… 1908”. This family photo includes Rasputin, he is standing in the middle of the family which suggests that he is an integral part of the Romanov family. The fact that he is even featured within a family photo displays that the Romanov family treated him as one of their own. The Tsar and his family were already mistrusted and disliked by a large amount...
It was Tzar Nicholas 2 political naivete and extreme obstinance that led to the downfall of the Russia
5. Czar Nicholas and the Romanov Dynasty: Nicholas II of Russia was the last emperor of Russia. He caused the loss of the russo-japansese war, and approved the entrance into ww1 which led to the death of millions. He also was in power during bloody Sunday. Czar Nicholas was in turn the last straw before the start of the march the most significant in Russian history (Beck et al. 701).
...holas had set a path to glory for Nicholas, who himself is man of poor intellect. Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich. At the time of his father's death in late 1894, Nicholas was an inexperienced youth wholly unprepared for the great task destiny had placed on his shoulders. Nicholas II was barely twenty-six years old at the time of his accession. During his son's golden youth, Alexander III did not allow his son Nicholas much participation in affairs of government. It is likely that Alexander III feared that his eldest son was not intellectually capable of handling the inheritance that was rightfully his. Therefore, the father kept postponing the son's introduction in to the daily running of Russia. Not one person, most of all Alexander III, ever imagined that this young and inexperienced Romanov would ascend the throne as early in life as he did. Czar Nicholas II’s mother Czarina Maria-Feodorovna was nortorouis as a mother who did not allow her children to grow. Therefor altering the young Czar’s behaviour to that all would regret. As Leon Trotsky once said:
The government and reform; the actual character of Nicholas II hindered his time in office, for example his outlooks on situations meant he did not trust a lot of his advisors, he was also seen to have been very lazy with respects to making decisions, other observations included him being, weak, timid and lacked guts. This all adds up to a very weak leader that is vulnerable to opposition, due to his tunnel vision and un-ability to see the main needs of the country. The duma was another challenge to the tsar; after the 1905 revolution the tsar had set up an elected body called the duma, this was a way of showing the public that he could be open minded in that delegating decisions to other people, looking back in hindsight this would also be seen as a challenge to the tsar as he never gave the duma any real power, and were easily dissolved, this meant that people were further angered and he was receiving opposition from all sides, it did however hold off opposition for a small period of time in order for the tsar to retain his power. Other individuals had an influence to the challenges facing the tsar, Nicholas had brought some new people in to try and conquer some problems, these included Rasputin who he had originally appointed to become saviour of family, he managed to influence the tsar in many of his decisions, this inevitably caused there to be conflict as the he was relying on Rasputin to relay details of the state of the country, these were not accurate which meant that tsar could not act upon opposition. Other people did help the tsar for example stolypin and his reforms.
The Nature of Tsarism and the Policies of Nicholas II as the Cause for the Revolution of February in Russia 1917