The Role Of Nicholas II In The Downfall Of The Romanov Dynasty

Assess the role of Nicholas II in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917.

Undeniably, Nicholas II had an enormous role in bringing about the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty in March 1917. Whilst many historians argue the fall of the Tsarist regime to be the direct response and product of World War I, it is quite evident that it was Nicholas’ inefficient and fatal autocratic ruling which led to the March Revolution of 1917. The effects of Russia’s involvement in numerous wars only heightened and highlighted Nicholas’ unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and his absolute and stubborn belief in autocracy. Had Nicholas’ various choices throughout his reign differed, the Romanov Dynasty could in fact, have existed
Like his father, Nicholas was prepared by his tutor Constantine Pobedonostsev, an extreme nationalist, who instilled in Nicholas a stubborn belief in the divine right of kings and absolute power. Many historians such as George F. Kennan, argue that it was this wholehearted belief and upholding of autocracy, which was in fact, the main reason for the March Revolution in 1917. By 1905, the changing needs of the rapidly industrialized Russia were disregarded by Nicholas, who instead ruthlessly repressed any opposition to the government and its’ autocratic system. Nicholas’ heavy censorship and policing developed a huge level of oppression and discontent amongst the Russian public. Protest was met with relentless violence such as the Bloody Sunday incident on the 22ND January 1905. With over 1000 civilians killed by Nicholas’ army, the massacre which came to be known as “Bloody Sunday” highlighted the regime’s brutal approach and the Tsar’s autocratic unwillingness to address the issues of the Russian population. The incident caused a significant decline in the Tsar’s authority, destroying Nicholas’ image as the people’s benevolent father. Bloody Sunday also triggered widespread protest and revolt, which led to the 1905 revolution. The growing resentment towards Nicholas was furthered after his failure to accept the Duma which he promised in
Nicholas’ autocratic method of ruling blinded him from the growing needs of Russia, and enforced a level of oppression which only heightened the discontent which led to the March Revolution in 1917. The diplomatic and military failures at war highlighted and showcased these flaws in Nicholas’s autocracy. If Nicholas had been more willing and able to adapt and reform, he could have ensured a gradual transition from an autocratic nation to a constitutional democratic nation, where the Romanov dynasty still existed to this