Grigori Rasputin Research Paper

Tsar Nicholas II was a poor leader. It seems that he does not want to be the Tsar (71). When the Tsar received the telegram of the destruction of the Russian fleet a Tsushima, he simply placed into his pocket. He shows no interest in being a leader. A normal would have quickly reacted to that situation but the Tsar did not. During his reign (Nicholas II), Russia was in disaster (72). Forcing someone to do something, that person does not want to do will lead to disaster. He such a "leader" that Kaiser Wilhelm II patronizes him of "only fit to live in a country house and grow turnips." (9). The man has no strength, his is everything but strength. There are many holes in the government of Russia and in his leadership. The holes could have been filled up if he had picked up the slack and pushed himself to be leader. The resulting consequences of his poor leadership could have also been

It must be concluded that although Rasputin did have an influence in the increasing discontent felt by many Russians and their loss of faith in Nicholas’ ability to rule, there were many other reasons for the downfall of the Romanovs. Among these were the fact Nicholas was not a strong leader to begin with this is proven by the defeat in the war, the Tsarina’s influence over him, his irrational decision to go fight in the war and is inability to provide social, economic and political instability for

The Grand Duchess Olga wrote in her journal: “…and he was wholly ignorant about governmental matters. Nicky had been trained as a soldier”. (Fiehn, T. 1996). Nicholas’ sister suggests that he was not ready due to his lack of training. Margot Tracey, daughter of a Russian industrialist declared in 1917, after Nicholas’ abdication “Everybody was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak. When he abdicated there was great rejoicing everywhere. My parents opened champagne bottles and celebrated with friends.”.(White 1994 p.14) Margot shows her understanding of what was going on at the time and that Nicholas was very weak leader, although still a tyrant. Margot’s statement supports the hypothesis as it plainly says that the people did not like Nicholas as a leader due to how weak he was. Margot’s statement is further corroborated by Sergei Witte, a Russian Minister during Nicholas II rule “I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign. What did he inherit and what will he leave? He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his defects as a ruler, especially an autocratic and absolute ruler.” (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). These sources work together to support the fact that Nicholas II was responsible for his own downfall due to his weak character and that he was not properly prepared for the role. This caused

Various aspects of Nicholas II’s political decisions reflected his clear unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and these decisions form a preliminary basis for both his own legacy of incompetency & the eventual undoing of the Romanovs. In comparison to rulers preceding, Nicholas was ill-prepared for the role: his father, Alexander III, failed to adequately develop his son’s understanding of civil & state responsibilities before his death in 1894, under the guise that he would live long enough to teach Nicholas of these affairs. Upon his consecration as Tsar, Nicholas spoke in his diary of his apprehensiveness

However, Nicholas’s personality was not the sole reason why the Old Regime collapsed. Chubarov argues that “another Peter the Great could have saved the Romanovs and Imperial Russia. It is obvious though that the last tsar could not” . Nicholas’s lack of

Rasputin was a witch doctor. When the Russian ruler went to fight in the front

Tsar Nicholas II is thought to be personally responsible for the collapse of the Russian Monarchy. His nature wasn’t well suited for the role he held therefore he was an incompetent leader. Russia was undergoing many changes and was in early stages of industrialization. This was followed by an embarrassing string of defeats of which the Tsar was badly prepared. His unsuccessful involvement in the First World War added to the disappointment in the government’s incompetence and corruption. There were many opportunities for Russia to modernize but this would require political change, which the Tsar was unwilling to do. Nicholas had many opportunities throughout his reign to reform, but destroyed his last chance of survival.

The topic of this investigation is to analyze to what extent did the personal influence of Grigori Rasputin lead to the fall of the Russian Empire. The analysis will investigate the relationship of Rasputin to those in positions of power, starting from the time when Rasputin first treated Alexei to the last days of the Romanov Dynasty. Statements from those acquainted with Rasputin and

Rasputin Gregory Yefimovich was a peasant and a self proclaimed holy man. He was born in 1872 in the Siberian village of Pokrovskoye to a simple village family. He faced many

As an autocrat Nicholas II expected unquestioning loyalty and obedience from the Russian people, loyalty which was gained through the Russian Orthodox Church. The church taught and encouraged the Russian people to love and respect their Tsar by promoting ‘The Divine Right of Kings’, meaning that the Tsar was appointed by god to rule and he therefor had absolute power. His absolute power also came from fear, as his secret police, the Okhrana would act viciously to anyone who opposed the Tsar.

Good thing he is special and extraordinary. He believes that people like Napoleon and Mohammed were extraordinary and they did not have to follow social norms. Additionally, their morals transgressed society because their action were for the good of all. This idea allowed Raskolnikov to think that the murder of Alyona was justified. She was a mean person who beat her half sister Lizaveta. This, his dream about the horse, and overhearing the conversation about killing Alyona cemented the idea in Raskolnikov’s mind that his murder was justified and the best thing for the

Both Alexandra and Marie Antoinette were hated because they were outsiders who could not sympathize with their people. The scandal of Rasputin, the Siberian peasant who wandered into St. Petersburg, declaring himself a healer and holy man, was seen by Alexandra as her miracle. Her son Alexi had hemophilia and she eternally blamed herself for his heredity disease. In reality, Rasputin actually was able to stop the ceaseless bleeding, but their friendship, and rumored affair, severed her relationship with the Russian people, who knew that Rasputin was not a holy man, but an exploiter. Known for attending parties, taking drugs, and being quite popular with the Russian ladies, the people knew his true identity.

Rasputin was a peasant born in 1872 in Siberian village known as Pokrovskoe. His name at his birth was Grigori Efimovich Novykh. Grigori’s reputation for his addiction to sex “earned him the surname Rasputin, Russian for ‘debauched one’” (Grigory).

was brought in due to the Tsar’s son Alexia suffering from haemophilia, and was told he had the powers from God himself to heal him. However, Rasputin was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer. (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) Even though Alexia was getting better with the aid of Rasputin his own desires were not at bay. Geoffrey Hosking stated “Rasputin influenced court and even government appointments, exploiting his power to make sexual conquests among high society ladies.” This enables us to understand that Rasputin did not have Russia in his best interests.

• His nature was not suited to being Tsar and he allowed himself to be influenced by the Tsarina, Pobedonostov and various ministers – most famously Rasputin.