Tsar Nicholas II Research Paper
The war had an adverse effect on the Russian economy. The rising cost of food caused food shortages. Industrial workers went on strike to increase wages and by the end of the war and a new government emerged following Nicholas II abdication. The already delicate domestic political situation in Russia would be imperiled by Nicholas II’s personal affiliation with the military wealth of his country. Any other military commander could be blamed for a disaster and then dismissed, but by taking personal command the Emperor would now take personal as well as political responsibility for all military failures. The crumbling of the Russian position in the field after he assumed command made such an outcome inevitable regardless of innumerable
…show more content…
Nationalism is defined as follows: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. The definition suites the aspect of the Russian people of the time, however they felt patriotic towards many separatists, not the Tsar. Nicholas II failed to unit his people under one patriotic belt. After riots of Bloody Sunday, many citizens became loyal to a man named Gapon. Gapon was a “socialist priest” (Warth 88). Gapon further led to the dis-functionality of Nicholas II in WWI by forcing him to focus on riots at home rather than his armies, along with putting workers out of the factories protesting for better conditions. On January 6, 1905, Gapon wrote a petition to Nicholas II that addressed the fact he was unaware of his people’s needs. “The Tsar does not know of our needs, and we will tell him,” (Warth 90) is what Gapon preached to his followers as they roared in confidence for change, further blowing the bubble of Nicholas II’s control closer to the bursting point. On January 19, 1905 after riots got increasingly bloodier and he further dug his whole among his people, Nicholas II proposed a manifesto for workers to “air their complaints” (Warth 99.) As a result, he retracted his idea for a more “monarchy friendly” approach as to receive a deputation of “reliable workers.” This however, led to verbal and physical abuse of the deputies and engulfed mistrust further among the working-class citizens towards the monarchy. With failing to unite his people under the wing of the monarchy, Nicholas II’s armies were feeling the hurt from home. Work related crisis along with food shortages affected not only the production of Russia’s citizens but the might of Nicholas II’s armies. At Tannenberg
Nationalism is defined as follows: patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts. The definition suites the aspect of the Russian people of the time, however they felt patriotic towards many separatists, not the Tsar. Nicholas II failed to unit his people under one patriotic belt. After riots of Bloody Sunday, many citizens became loyal to a man named Gapon. Gapon was a “socialist priest” (Warth 88). Gapon further led to the dis-functionality of Nicholas II in WWI by forcing him to focus on riots at home rather than his armies, along with putting workers out of the factories protesting for better conditions. On January 6, 1905, Gapon wrote a petition to Nicholas II that addressed the fact he was unaware of his people’s needs. “The Tsar does not know of our needs, and we will tell him,” (Warth 90) is what Gapon preached to his followers as they roared in confidence for change, further blowing the bubble of Nicholas II’s control closer to the bursting point. On January 19, 1905 after riots got increasingly bloodier and he further dug his whole among his people, Nicholas II proposed a manifesto for workers to “air their complaints” (Warth 99.) As a result, he retracted his idea for a more “monarchy friendly” approach as to receive a deputation of “reliable workers.” This however, led to verbal and physical abuse of the deputies and engulfed mistrust further among the working-class citizens towards the monarchy. With failing to unite his people under the wing of the monarchy, Nicholas II’s armies were feeling the hurt from home. Work related crisis along with food shortages affected not only the production of Russia’s citizens but the might of Nicholas II’s armies. At Tannenberg