The Influence Of Nicholas I Police On Russia

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

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

His ideas about important issues were independent because nothing really influenced those ideas, he had immaturity and lacked understanding (source I). This affected his ability to govern Russia because he never gained a sense of confidence and self reliance. Nicholas believed he was not good enough to rule Russia. He felt as though he didn’t have the abilities or the experience, and with his lack of political knowledge (source H).His lack of confidence and weakness allowed him to be governed by other individuals.

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

Nicholas the Second was a large contributing cause to his own abdication. Nicholas the Second continued to make countless amounts of unreasonable decisions throughout his reign. His bad decisions drove many of his original supporters away. For example, even on the day of his coronation he managed to start off his reign on a bad foot. This was due to the fact that when many celebratory mugs were being gifted to the people of St Petersburg to celebrate the coronation of the Tsar there was not enough to go around and in an effort to acquire one of these limited mugs many citizens were brutally killed. In the interim, Nicholas showed no consideration or sympathy towards the dead or those affected and continued with the coronation. Consequently

The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by

To keep the people content, power should be used conscientiously to appease the needs of the people and not the ruler or their family. Alexandra’s and Rasputin’s constant interference in Nicholas’ power weakens it to the point of collapse. They estrange him from his country and his people’s needs. Near the end of Nicholas’ rule, his wife, with Rasputin dead, ostensibly seizes control of the government, with Nicholas only watching her with uninterest. When Nicholas’ friend and cousin, Sandro, attempts to warn Nicholas of forthcoming doom, Alexandra interrupts and dismisses Sandro’s advice. Fleming says: “The only way to end “the nation’s wrath” was to immediately

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

" Yertle would do anything to see beyond his one small pond. Similarly, Nicholas I wanted to control more under his reign in Russia. Both rulers were willing to do whatever they had to in order to gain the power they craved.

One resource used for this investigation was Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, which describes the reign of Nicholas II. This source was published in 1967 in the United States, thus the book is a secondary source. Massie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose work focuses on the Russian Romanovs. Massie’s alma mater includes Yale and Oxford University. The source is highly valuable in its extremely detailed and comprehensive research of nearly 600 pages, providing the thoughts of those in positions of power and interesting, insightful perspectives to the situation at the time. An analysis on connecting causes and effects are thorough and

In this lesson we explore the life and reign of one of Russia’s most reactionary monarchs of all time, Nikolai I, who had to quell a rebellion immediately upon his accession in 1825.

‘The optimists believe that imperial Russia was ruined by the First World War. The pessimists maintain that the war provided merely the last mighty push to bring the whole rotten structure tumbling down.’ When Russia become engulfed in World War I, the Russian army mobilized 15.5 million men and suffered great casualties. This leads to the shortage of workers for the factories and farms and thus cause a widespread shortages of food and materials. As supply decreases and demand is increasing, this causes the prices of goods to increase dramatically, causing unrest among people, leading to revolt and labor riots. Soon, famine hit Russian cities. The worst of all is that Nicholas II held fast to his anachronistic political faith in unfettered

“I have been questioning his methods of ruling for years now, ever since he stripped my family of my beloved brother. I had idolized my brother and was inspired to follow his footsteps in a fight for change when the Tsar’s okhrana brutality took him from me on May the 8th, 1887. I believed the Tsar Nicholas’s ruling methods to be outdated and his use of brutality and ignorance to be the cause of the minorities depression within this mislead country. The motivation my brother’s death brought to me pushed me to investigate further into politics. Here I found more unjust laws the Tsar stood by and I decided to work hard enough to make a change.”

Napoleon's Conflict with Russia Napoleon was one of the greatest military leaders of all time. By 1812 Napoleon had expanded the territory of France all over Europe including Spain, Italy, Holland, and Switzerland. The countries that Napoleon did not directly control, he was usually allied with. The turning point of Napoleon's career also came in 1812 when war broke out between France and Russia because of Alexander I's refusal to enforce the continental.