Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper

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

There were four elected Duma which were all dispersed by the Tsar who would find an excuse to not trust them. Once the October Manifesto and the Fundamental Laws were passed, the Tsar Nicholas II ordered the army to shoot at protestors but the army refused and took the side of the revolutionaries. These Fundamental Laws re-established the autocracy as the Tsar became more reactionary. After the 1905 Revolution, the Tsar was able to regain control the uprisings in his country. He sent the police to arrest the leader of the St. Petersburg Soviet, a Worker’s Council, Trotsky and exiled him to Siberia. The army crushed a strike in Moscow which caused 1000 deaths. The Black Hundred who were the official strikebreakers, stopped riots in different parts of Russia and murders approximately 500 Jews. Eventually, the workers lost the will to fight and started working again in order to feed their families. The split of the opposition parties turned out to be an advantage for the Tsar who was able to use this against them.

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

“The power still has to be snatched from the hands of the old rulers and handed over to the revolution. That is the fundamental task. A general strike only creates the necessary preconditions; it is quite inadequate for achieving the task itself”(Trotsky). The ineffectiveness of the strikes can be found in the fact that in nearly every occasion the soldiers were ordered to shoot on the crowd, stopping the revolts and leaving the tsar as obnoxious to the situation as before. Also the peasants in the countryside suffered land-hunger due to the growth of population caused by the decreased of mortality rates. Backwardness was also caused by the “open field system”, which didn’t motivate the peasants to improve their machinery or seeding methods since their land would be taken away from them and redistributed when a member of the community died. Nicholas II was a weak, indecisive and obstinate ruler who, being very conservative and reactionary, used extensively the secret police (“Third Section”) and the army to suppress uprisings and political enemies. He alienated the intelligentsia and angered the liberals with his lack of political participation and exaggerated reliance on the Fundamental laws, which said that the tsar was appointed by god and was rightfully in charge of the country. As a response, the liberals initiated a banquet campaign that started in November 1904, and ended in January 1905 with the aim of making the tsar give

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

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

On the 20th October 1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne as tsar of Russia. He idolised the concept of continuing to rule Russia under the autocratic system, in the same way his father and predecessor Alexander III had done so. However, Nicholas lacked the qualities and characters of the autocratic style of leadership. The

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

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.

Ever since its founding, Imperial Russia was a land full of turmoil and social unrest. This turmoil became even more apparent during the reign of the Romanov Dynasty. Started by Tsar Mikhail Romanov, the dynasty would last three-hundred years until the last of the dynasty, Nicholas II, abdicated the throne in light of the February Revolution. During most of this three-hundred year span, Russia was a society based on social class, with serfs at the very bottom. The serfdom was a controversial subject to begin with. Many believed that the serfdom should be abolished, while the nobility wished for it to continue. One of the many peaks of this conflict occurred during the reign of Catherine II. Catherine, in order to gain the favor of the nobility,

The beginning of the 20th century brought radical changes to the social and political structure of autocratic Russia. It was a period of regression, reform, revolution and eradication. Eradication of a blood line that had remained in rule for over 300 years; the Romanov Dynasty. The central figure of this eradication was Tsar Nicholas II, often described as an incompetent leader, absent of the “commanding personality nor the strong character and prompt decision which are so essential to an autocratic ruler...” (Sir G. Buchman, British ambassador to Russia from 1910 in H. Seton-Watson, The

“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.”

fall of Czar Nicholas II. The next major event that occurred in 1905 was the mutiny on the Russian battleship Potemkin. The sailors on the ship were already leading a life of servitude, backbreaking work and little if much food to eat. On June 27, 1905 the enlisted men not willing to be abused anymore and after being served maggot invested rancid meat mutinied against the officers of the ship. After taking control of the ship the men would pilot the ship for eleven days as they sailed from port to port in an attempt to find safe harbor. This mutiny soon spread out to other army and navy units and by October 1905 more and more Russian workers were taking up the flag of revolution and going on strike against the repressive rule of Czar Nicholas