The two essays I have selected take different approaches concerning Tsar Nicholas II and his decision making process. The two men take not only different approaches to the tsar but arrive at different conclusions. Rotem Kowner’s essay, Nicholas II and the Japanese body: Images and decision-making on the eve of the Russo-Japanese War, examines Nicholas’s attitude toward the Japanese and how it affected his decision. Raymond Esthus’s essay, Nicholas II and the Russo-Japanese War, shows Nicholas’s commitment to autocracy and a stubborn resolve to defend Russia’s honor. Ethmus dismisses the idea of Nicholas being weak minded and easily led. It was the mismanagement of the administration that caused Nicholas to misread the political realities the Russian nation was encountering. The Russians were not aware of the threat they were to the Japanese, as the Russians pushed for the completion of the Trans-Siberian Railway. Russia’s management of the situation was an idea of avoiding a conflict Kowner sees the increasing strain on the relationship between Japan and Russia as the tsar “meddled with the work of the ministries in the capital.” While Ethmus sees the administration as mismanaging the situation, Kowner would agree with the tsar misreading the crisis but not where the mismanagement came from. He places the blame directly on the tsar. “Had the tsar realized the full military potential of his enemy, Russia could have prepared better for war, and strategic decisions, such
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,
The last Tsar Nicholas II ascended the throne in 1894 and was faced with a country that was trying to free itself from its autocratic regime. The serfs had recently been emancipated, the industry and economy was just starting to develop and opposition to the Tsar was building up. Russia was still behind Europe in terms of the political regime, the social conditions and the economy. Nicholas II who was a weak and very influenced by his mother and his wife had to deal with Russia’s troubles during his reign. In order to ascertain how successfully Russia dealt with its problems by 1914, this essay will examine the October Manifesto and the split of the opposition, how the Tsar became more reactionary after the 1905 revolution, Stolypin’s
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
What was the significance in WW1 in bringing about the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II in March 1917?
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
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
Within a few days in February 1917, Tsarist Russia came to an end. The Romanov family, who had ruled Russia since the 17th century, were overthrown and the monarchy crumbled. Traditional historian Bernard Pares argues that incompetent ministers and weaknesses of Nicholas II is to blame. While traditionalist historian Edmund Walsh blames the incompetence of the Tsarina and her mysticism beliefs. There are however many factors contributing to the Russian revolution of February 1917, such as: World War 1, political and economic failures. Therefore this essay will consider the impact of each factor in order to assess whether the winter of 1916-17 was the final straw for the people of Russia.
In The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth Century Russia, Cynthia Whittaker argues that depending on the historical, cultural and contextual period, there can be demarcated two types, both distinctive and contrasting, of Russian sovereigns, namely the “good tsar” and the “reforming tsar”. The scholar juxtaposes the two models of monarchs against the backdrop of “medieval” versus “modern” type of governance. According to it the “good tsar” typology, which is typical for the earlier Muscovy realm, defines the ruler as pious and inert, characterized by its liturgical form and static nature of the rule. The “good tsar” is bound to uphold Orthodoxy, preserve and control public order, help the poor and the underdogs
Russo-Japanese War. To understand why, this paper considers the elements of the Fabian strategy and compares how those elements were satisfied, or not, by General Washington and the Russian
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
The Russo-Japanese War The Russo Japanese war was a conflict between Russia and Japan in 1904-1905. The cause of the war was because Russia wanted to expand into Asia and ran into Japanese plans for gaining a foothold on Asia main land. In 1898 Russia leased Port Arthur from china, with the intention of making it into a great Asiatic port and the headquarters of Russian naval power in the pacific. Russia already had troops in Manchuria during the boxer rebellion in 1900, but Russia had to face the anglo-japanese alliance of 1902, which promised to leave Chinese territory. The promise was not kept and in June 1903 Japan proposed a mutual agreement recognising japans interest in Korea and
This book explores why there has been no peace treaty signed between Russia and Japan since the end of world war two. It also discusses the relations between Russian and Japan dating back to the 1600’s and discusses their complex relationship and also
Between 1968 and 1912, Japan was going through a reformation called Meiji Restoration in order make the country strong as western countries. It had caused changes in many parts of Japan such as society, government, military, etc. Some of these changes still can be seen in the Japanese society today such as emperors are honored by Japanese citizens and seen as a special figure. Since this reformation had a great impact on development of Japan, it can be consider as a very important part of Japanese history.This study will seek to answer the question: To what extent did the Meiji Restoration succeeded to reform and strengthen Japan? In order to answer the question, the investigation will analyze military reform and economic reform caused by
Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus