Preview

How Far Was Nicholas Ii Responsible for His Own Downfall?

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1510 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
How Far Was Nicholas Ii Responsible for His Own Downfall?
How far was Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

In 1917 Tsar Nicholas II signed a deliration to abdicate from power; this was due to a number of long term and short term factors; some being of Nicolas II own problems and some being general problems that faced Nicholas II. When Tsar Nicholas II came to power many problems faced him, such as lack of industrial revolution, political problems, economical problems etc… Nicholas II was a very strong believer in autocracy and the belief that he had been made Tsar by God, however Nicholas was a very poor leader to the people of Russia, growing political problems and the war pushed Nicholas II to abdicate.

Tsar Nicholas II was a very poor leader for the people of Russia, he lacked leadership skills. His poor leadership qualities lead too many problems within Russia that were not dealt with efficiently. For example he did not trust the Duma, in 1906 the first Duma was introduced; after 72 days Nicholas dissolved the Duma as he did not believe in their policies and he did not trust them. This angered many people, Nicholas was not giving anyone a chance to speak and help him to change Russia.
Nicholas poor leadership and traditional beliefs meant that there was little change in Russia, outside Russia many countries were thriving on industrialization where as Russia was still lacking behind. The new Western ways built growing political tensions; left wing oppositions were forming against the Tsar and waiting to over throw him. This long – term factor is seen as Nicholas II own problem for his downfall, his lack in leadership skills angered the country and people knew Nicholas could improve his leadership, but would not do so.

Russia was still an autocracy, this meant that the Tsar had complete power and his rules and beliefs could not be challenged. The autocracy system was growing old, people in Russia wanted westernization and democracy, however Nicholas II opposed these beliefs. After the events of

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    War broke out in 1914, with Tsar Nicholas becoming commander-in-chief in 1915, meaning he was away from Petrograd. Not only was this poorly thought out by Nicholas because it gave the people an opportunity to plot against him, but as he was away he left Tsarina (also a German princess), Alexandra, in charge during his absence. Due to the war being against Germany, this made the Russian people nervous and skeptical towards the extreme power she had over them during such a crucial time. Not only were they disgruntled by this, but also Alexandra’s close friendship to Rasputin, a Serbian peasant. This particularly angered the aristocracy and middle classes as they believed they were being led by someone of lower demeanor than that of themselves. This weakened support for the autocratic rule and lost the Tsar many of his supporters, which put him in a vulnerable position in the case of revolutionary upturn. This also could have inspired the peasantry to discover greater aspirations and encourage their belief that they could have greater status which in turn could trigger new revolutionary ideas amongst the lower classes. This demonstrates a link between Nicholas being away in order to commandeer army movement for the war, however it is arguable that it was a lack of authority and respect for the Tsarist regime that caused the change of opinions towards the Tsar amongst all classes, lessening his support and leaving him far more vulnerable in the case of a revolution.…

    • 1166 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    All state leaders across the whole period held qualities that didn’t please the whole of the population in Russia. During the reign of Alex II, the government showed some strength with controlling opposition from the peasantry through the emancipation of the serfs in 1861. It was thought that to prevent revolt from below, this was a key movement that had to be made, and therefore prevented future unrest and opposition. However, the new liberated serfs had to deal with more laws concerning land ownership with led to further unrest and repression in the peasantry by the state. The state moreover, appeased the most vocal critics but in such a way that allowed dissenters to express themselves in the knowledge that Tsar’s decision would be final. Compared to Nicholas II’s reign, this showed a decisive leading technique, as Nicholas’s style was more conservative, and showed weakness, relying on others’ advice to fuel his decisions. A key failure throughout his period was the mixed rule attempt with the Duma introduced from 1906 to 1917, it is arguable that Nicholas II made concessions only to keep opposition temporarily at bay and that his aim was to uphold the principle of autocracy.…

    • 1646 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Tsarist Autocracy

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Tsarist autocracy has succeeded for more than three hundred years, but the Russian Revolution that occurred on November 1917 ended the long term autocracy. During this time period, Tsar Nicholas II was the leader of Russia and indeed the last one. He caused Russia’s downfall and made many Russians frustrated about the government. The Tsar did not acknowledge the nation's problems and failed to improve the lives of the citizens. As the Russians struggled with limited rights and lack of help from Nicholas II, they had to make a move. Although peasant unrest led to the Russians protesting and rebelling against the country, the Russian Revolution occurred because of Tsar Nicholas II’s weak leadership, in which he failed to accomplished the Russian’s goals, horribly managed the military, and thought that the system should not change.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Czar Nicholas II Impact

    • 1570 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Czar Nicholas II, also known as Nikolai Aleksandrovich Romanov, was born on 18 May 1868. Czar Alexander III, Nicholas’s father, died with kidney diseased at the age of 49, and Nicholas II “succeeded his father in 1894” (NicholasII BBC). Czar Nicholas II was neither trained nor ready to rule Russia. Even though as kid, he had private tutors, his father did not inform or teach him…

    • 1570 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas II would be the Tsar that Russia would ever have, the Romanov dynasty would wiped out along with Nicholas II and his family. The Tsar was a caring father and a dutiful husband which could ultimately be the reason he abdicated, to protect his family but ended the way in he and his family would die. Because of his abdication. Russia was facing a series of problems when Nicholas II came to the throne; he had a series of poor harvest in 1891, 1892, 1898 and 1901. To complement this situation there was a serious rise in population. In 1796 the rural population was 35 million and this represented 96.4% of the population, whereas in 1897 the…

    • 1556 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Tsar Nicholas soon decided (or knew no other way) that he would rule the same as his father, and all the Romanov generations before him ruled, with absolute power. He decided to rule this way because he saw no need for change - 'it's worked for nearly 300 years, why change now?' the tsar was once quoted saying. What the Tsar didn't realize is that he is ruling with a 17th Century mind-set, and it was now the 20th century.…

    • 1855 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    - Concerned with frontiers and borders, protect territory; (surrounded by Turkey, Iran, China, NK) – brought into conflict with other nations.…

    • 1142 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    While this was happening, World War 1 was not going well for Nicholas, who had still not won a large battle which he could tell the people about. This meant that most of the Russian moral had gone and the war effort had lost all of its momentum first gained. Also the severe winter did not help, it meant that there was a shortage of food for all classes of people, and the means of transport were disabled.…

    • 735 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nicholas seemed not to understand the real nature of the problems his nation and his dynasty faced. Firstly, what the tsar’s power showed was how little Russia had advanced politically compared with other European nations. By the beginning of the twentieth century all major western European countries had some form of democratic or representative government. Not Russia, it had remained outside the mainstream of European political thought. There had been reforming tsars (Peter I, Alexander II) but achievements had not included the extension of political rights. In Russia in l894 it was a criminal offence to oppose the tsar or government, political parties had no legal right to exist, there had never been a free press in imperial Russia and government…

    • 821 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Tsar Nicholas II succeeded in making a bad situation in Russia even worse. He became a leader at a difficult time, and could never stop the process of revolution. The Tsar was not a good leader, and was out of touch with the Russian people. He was also weak and indecisive, and extremely stubborn. Nicholas II was not equipped to effectively rule a country the size of Russia, and with a vast variety of people with different language, religion, race and culture. Additionally, Nicholas II was mainly concerned with family issues, instead of being concerned with political issues. It was these traits in Nicholas II?s personality that hindered him in being able to attempt to steer Russia away from revolution.…

    • 1455 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Tsar’s flaws as a leader were an extremely important reason as to why he was losing control of his country. Russia was an autocracy- this meant that the Tsar had full control of the country and had the final say in every decision. This could have been positive, but I think it was a negative thing. He was not a very decisive person, and he would not delegate to others (An example of this being, how he interfered in the appointments of local midwives.) While he was busy doing the wrong jobs he needed employees that were capable of the best. Another flaw of Nicholas’ was that he was extremely suspicious of those cleverer than him and fired many of his best workers (Count Witte) and preferred to hire only family and friends. This helped to weaken his control on Russia because not only did he lose respect from his people, but also he was not doing his job and as the only ruler of the country, Russia did not have a focused authority figure.…

    • 1597 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nicholas II Research

    • 3161 Words
    • 9 Pages

    Source 11: Nicholas was “even more poorly prepared than his father for the burdens of kingship. Nicholas had no knowledge of the world of men, of politics or government to help him make the weighty decisions that in the Russian system the Tsar alone must make.” From H. Rogger, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1983…

    • 3161 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    One mistake the Tsar made was taking over the army. By being in control of the army the Tsar Nicholas II not only was blamed for Russia’s poor performance in the war but he also left the Tsarina to run the government; this didn’t sit well with the people as she was unpopular amongst the people. The Tsarina was unpopular with the people as she was German- at that time the Germans were their enemies was accused of being in sympathy with the enemy- and her decisions were under the influence of the hated Rasputin. Rasputin was despised as he had a bad reputation for living an unorthodox lifestyle and was known for his sexual promiscuity, which was frowned upon. Rasputin was acting as Tsarina Alexandra’s confidant whilst Tsar Nicholas II was fighting in the war. As a result of this, loyalists who believed Rasputin was a danger to the regime tried to kill him, and after many attempts succeeded. However, this left Tsarina to be the…

    • 1104 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The cause of Tsar Nicholas II downfall is controversial but I believe there are three main reasons for it. Rasputin and the Russian people’s resentment towards his influence over Nicholas contributed significantly. However, world war one was also a discernible cause of the downfall of the Tsar due to the terrible state it left the country in and the negative effects this had on the people. The most important contributing factor to Nicolas’ downfall was himself because he was an ineffective, autocratic ruler who refused to listen to the needs of his people worsening the other factors.…

    • 1998 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It can be seen by anybody that Nicholas II indeed played a huge role in his downfall. This downfall portrayed political, social and economical failures. Firstly, Nicholas’ abhorrent autocratic beliefs and his infamous ways of maintaining it contributed to his downfall. Also, the infamous massacre known as “Bloody Sunday” also contributed to his downfall, and finally the decision Nicholas made to fight in the Japanese and First World Wars all led to his own downfall.…

    • 1222 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays