Being an effective leader takes experience and responsibility. World War I began in 1914 and had left Russia impoverished, starved, and unstable. After Tsar Nicholas II, the monarch of Russia, appointed Grand Duke Nicholas to be in charge of the Russian army during World War I, he thought they weren’t going to be effective without him. As a result, the Tsar appointed himself general because he thought he could lead the army to win the war. In 1915, Tsar Nicholas II decided to lead his own Russian troops to fight in the war, which resulted in the defeat of the Russian army. Russia ended up signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which meant they could not participate in the war anymore. Tsar Nicholas II was at fault for the defeat of Russia during …show more content…
Tsar Nicholas II never had the chance to educate himself about economics or military. He did not know anything about leading armies or different strategies for war. Comparing the Tsar Nicholas II's qualities as a leader to previous leaders allowed the two to differentiate, in which the latter is the better leader: “Unlike his ancestor Peter I (the Great), who had patiently educated himself in the arts of war and based all promotions and assignments - including his own - on strict meritocracy, the unprepared Nicholas merely appointed himself to the Supreme Command” (Ruffley). Peter I actually prepared himself so that he could become a good military leader, whereas Nicholas II just placed himself in a position he knew nothing about. Peter I contributed to being a good leader because he worked hard for his position while there were harsh “meritocracy.” That means Peter I was appointed Supreme Command because of his own capabilities and talents. Therefore, Nicholas II's unqualified skills as a military leader eventually led to the downfall of many of his …show more content…
Some people can say that World War I left Russia vulnerable because it took everything away from them, including their army and their food supply. They say it is the only cause that led to the revolution. World War I may have contributed to the Russian Revolution because of its constant battles. This, however, only played a small role in causing the revolution. Consequently, “Indeed, one of the leading criticisms of Nicholass leadership has been that he single-handedly lost the war and caused the deaths of millions of Russian soldiers” (Quenoy). Nicholas II could not prevent economic conflicts from occurring because it was his decision that caused it. If he never appointed himself as the “Supreme Command,” he would not have caused millions to die and made Russia lose the war. If Russia had not lost the war, World War I would not have affected the country in such a harsh way. Since the Tsar was unskilled as an army leader and unfit as the Tsar, Russia was internally corrupt and
With the coinciding of a revolution on the brink of eruption and the impacts of the First World War beginning to take hold of Russia, considered analysis of the factors that may have contributed to the fall of the Romanov Dynasty is imperative, as a combination of several factors were evidently lethal. With the final collapse of the 300 year old Romanov Dynasty in 1917, as well as the fall of Nicholas II, a key reality was apparent; the impact that WWI had on autocratic obliteration was undeniable. However, reflection of Russia’s critical decisions prior to the war is essential in the assessment of the cause of the fall of the Romanov Dynasty. No war is fought without the struggle for resources, and with Russia still rapidly lagging behind in the international industrialisation race by the turn of the 20th century, the stage was set for social unrest and uprising against its already uncoordinated and temporarily displaced government. With inconceivable demands for soldiers, cavalry and warfare paraphernalia, Russia stood little chance in the face of the great powers of World War One.
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.
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.
It was said that the educated people, the contact with other countries should contribute to the government policy. As said in document 1 , "By 1900 there were political parties raging from far right defenders of autocracy and russian power over all other ethnicities, to far left revolutionaries calling for the overthrow of the government." The government there was autocratic, which was when the tsar had all the power/control of the government. Another cause for the Russian Revolution was the outbreak of WW1. "Even before the war urban workers all over the Russian empire had been increasingly radical, but the war brought the government's incompentence and the people's grievances into sharper relief. The first months of the war were a disaster for Russia." It is much easier to overthrow a government than to try andcreate a new government. As said in document 2,"Chaos, conflict, uncertaunty; more violence are much more common and often led to centralized, authoritarian governments." There was celebration all over the streets after the indication that the tsar was overthrown after 300 years of a tsarist government ruling. "The problem was that, after the party, governing problems arose immediately.
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,
Nicholas in the end was the one to blame. He had the ability to aid in the situations and make different choices but didn’t. In the end it was evident that there were many contributing factors to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty, such as the Revolution, the influence of Rasputin and Alexandra and World War I, which all lead to the social and economic issues in Russia. Even with all these factors it still all comes back to Nicholas. His incapability of supplying the Army with the needed weapons and aid, the lack of preparation and direction to the Army and his failure to provide for or even listen to the needs of his people certainly do not make Nicholas look good. Even though it seems that Nicholas had good intentions he was incompetent as a leader and he in fact was one of the main causes of the demise of a 300 year Romanov Dynasty.
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.
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.
During 1917 to 1924 Russia was experiencing vast political, economic and social change that began with the Bolshevik revolution. The First World War had left Russia in a disastrous state where the nation, was facing alot of social unrest and facing a major uprising. During this time, the Bolsheviks who had just seized control, undertook several measures to establish their authority including the declaration of initial reforms ie the land decree marriage decree and the decree on workers, the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, fighting the Civil War, starting the ideologies of War Communism, starting the red terror and finally introducing the New Economic Policy NEP. All of these actions were each extremely significant in helping the
Frederick William I, the "Soldier King", consolidated his power by forcing all men to receive military training so that they could be kept in reserve. The only way for a king to raise an army previously was to ask the nobility if they could borrow their guards. Frederick William I, by creating his own military, became a completely independent absolute monarch. Louis XIV created a French army in this image, going as far as to standardize uniforms, weapons, and training regiments. Despite all of these military improvements, the most significant change was in Russia. Peter the Great, after returning from a tour of Western Europe, realizes that a great country is determined by its strong military and is determined to create one of his own. Peter the Great not only required all nobles to serve in the military but he forced every man, peasant or noble, to start at the same rank. This simple move not only increased military power but decreased the power of the nobility as well, creating an ideal situation for absolute power. Every great nation needs a military and all great absolute rulers established a firm military presence on their quest for
He was held responsible for the ongoing defeats and lost what popular support he had. In March, 1917, he abdicated as Tsar, and a new provisional government was formed. When the new minister of war (Kerensky) announced a major offensive. The response was negative among both the civilian and military. population.
In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in
Nationalism in Russia can be traced back as far as the 15th century but died off soon after then began to pick back up right before the Russian industrial revolution. Russia under the rule of Tsar Nicholas the Second was very unpleasant. Nicholas even said that he was not capable of Ruling Russia like his father with the same amount of courage or zeal. His main focus was keeping the status quo of Russia and he had very little knowledge of his state affair. His defeat in the Japanese Russo War was very humiliating for him and his country. It had been the first time a European country was defeated by an Asian one. Nicholas had many more failures than accomplishments but one of his major accomplishments was that he proposed many reforms. He put protective tariffs on foreign goods, foreign investment
Few people had enough to eat or support themselves and were on the brink of death. On top of that, Czar Nicholas II, the leader of Russia, often abused his position in order to violate the Russian constitution called Duma and change laws to his own benefit and to help his friends and supporters get into the top governments. When World War One started, unlike most other countries, war production did not help get the country back on its feet. Instead, war production ensured that those at home in Russia did not get enough to eat while those fighting abroad got the food and supplies needed to fight. As agriculture’s worth kept on decreasing, more and more Russians left their country farms to work in weapon making factories and shops.... ...
In the years leading up to the revolution, Russia had been involved in a series of wars. The Crimean war, The Russo-Turkish war, The Russo-Japanese war and the First World War. Russia had been defeated in all except the war with Turkey and its government and economy had the scars to prove it. A severe lack of food and poor living conditions amongst the peasant population led firstly to strikes and quickly escalated to violent riots. Tsar Nicholas II ruled Russia with an iron hand while much of Europe was moving away from the monarchical system of rule. All lands were owned by the Tsar’s family and Nobel land lords while the factories and industrial complexes were owned by the capitalists’. There were no unions or labour laws and the justice system had made almost all other laws in favour of the ruling elite. Rents and taxes were often unaffordable, while the gulf between workers and the ruling elite grew ever wider.