Sergei Podbolotov is an instructor of Russian and European history, teaching primarily on the courses of Russian civilization. He is the author of multiple scholarly articles, covering subject matter from national problems in the Russian Empire to Russian nationalism and conservatism. In addition to this, he is a recipient of IREX awards for research. In his work, Monarchists Against Their Monarch: The Rightists Criticism of Tsar Nicholas II, he addresses the criticism of Tsar Nicholas II from the point of view belonging to the monarchists. Though there was a positive side to the monarchist movement, there was a very negative side to it as well, and they believed that the Tsar himself caused the crisis of the autocracy. Podbolotov structures
…show more content…
For revolutionaries, they were not concerned as to who was sitting on their throne, but they saw the Russian system as one that was by definition headed by a tyrant who was an oppressor of the people. Due to Nicholas II’s personal qualities, he was thought to be unfit to be the ideal monarch. Podbolotov does call attention to the fact that the objective circumstances of the era that ultimately prevented the Tsar from reigning “autocratically” were not taken into account by conservatives. Yet, Monarchists’ attempts to influence Nicholas collided with his lack of indifference and initiative, which were attributes that were deemed unsuitable for an autocrat. Podbolotov also explains that the criticism of the Tsar strengthened from the defeats in the Russo-Japanese War and the Tsar’s “childish desire” to conquer Manchuria. B.V. Nikol’skii was a critic that had made a positive impression on Nicholas II for his thoughts about the need for autocracy in Russia, and, Podbolotov includes a passage from his diary which reveals his true thoughts about the say, and it …show more content…
Many others believed that with a Tsar like Nicholas, the autocratic course was destined for failure. The presence of Rasputin also gave the people, especially the monarchists, a very negative outlook of Nicholas II, but the tsar was blinded by his family concerns. Podbolotov describes that by 1917, the irritation of the Tsar was at new heights. A group called the “progressive Nationalists” had entered the Progressive Bloc leading up to 1917, joining the opposition. The tsar’s “faithful people” began to rise up in opposition for the good of society, and this as well became more universal among monarchists. Though there were some that still remained loyal to the regime, the vast majority sympathized with the opposition. For the influential group of the progressive Nationalists, it was evident that the Romanovs were leading their country towards a catastrophe. Podbolotov concludes that the reaction of relief was not surprising when the Tsar abdicated in February 1917, as his whole reign had been criticized for the type of ruler he was, and the ways that he had failed the Russian people as an autocrat. Tsar Nicholas II’s incompetence stimulated a crisis of the already inefficient system, and he worsened things as he showed favor to right-wing politicians in attempts to secure support for his regime. Climactically, his attempts only ended in the
For revolutionaries, they were not concerned as to who was sitting on their throne, but they saw the Russian system as one that was by definition headed by a tyrant who was an oppressor of the people. Due to Nicholas II’s personal qualities, he was thought to be unfit to be the ideal monarch. Podbolotov does call attention to the fact that the objective circumstances of the era that ultimately prevented the Tsar from reigning “autocratically” were not taken into account by conservatives. Yet, Monarchists’ attempts to influence Nicholas collided with his lack of indifference and initiative, which were attributes that were deemed unsuitable for an autocrat. Podbolotov also explains that the criticism of the Tsar strengthened from the defeats in the Russo-Japanese War and the Tsar’s “childish desire” to conquer Manchuria. B.V. Nikol’skii was a critic that had made a positive impression on Nicholas II for his thoughts about the need for autocracy in Russia, and, Podbolotov includes a passage from his diary which reveals his true thoughts about the say, and it …show more content…
Many others believed that with a Tsar like Nicholas, the autocratic course was destined for failure. The presence of Rasputin also gave the people, especially the monarchists, a very negative outlook of Nicholas II, but the tsar was blinded by his family concerns. Podbolotov describes that by 1917, the irritation of the Tsar was at new heights. A group called the “progressive Nationalists” had entered the Progressive Bloc leading up to 1917, joining the opposition. The tsar’s “faithful people” began to rise up in opposition for the good of society, and this as well became more universal among monarchists. Though there were some that still remained loyal to the regime, the vast majority sympathized with the opposition. For the influential group of the progressive Nationalists, it was evident that the Romanovs were leading their country towards a catastrophe. Podbolotov concludes that the reaction of relief was not surprising when the Tsar abdicated in February 1917, as his whole reign had been criticized for the type of ruler he was, and the ways that he had failed the Russian people as an autocrat. Tsar Nicholas II’s incompetence stimulated a crisis of the already inefficient system, and he worsened things as he showed favor to right-wing politicians in attempts to secure support for his regime. Climactically, his attempts only ended in the