Tsar Nicholas II Downfall

Good Essays
Nicholas II played a vital, negative role in contributing to his complete downfall during the early 20th century. His reluctance to become Tsar was a major factor that contributed to his own demise. The release of the October Manifesto in 1905 was one of the key events that led to the end of Tsar Nicholas’s rule over Russia. Tsar Nicholas’s poor leadership in World War 1 as well as his weak-willed personality was also issues that further contributed to the collapse of the Romanov Dynasty. These factors and events severely influenced the political, social and economic aspects of his ruling .The use of sources throughout this essay would amplify the idea, in which Nicholas II played a major role in contributing to his own downfall and eventual …show more content…
The October Manifesto was established as a reaction to the ongoing peasant strikes that resulted from the event, Bloody Sunday. It consisted of three articles including granting the people their civil rights as well as the establishment of the Duma. However, an extract from the October Manifesto unveils how this reform contradicts itself and this factor negatively influences the social aspects of Tsar Nicholas’s regime. “…freedom of conscience, speech, assemblies and associations” is granted to the population, but the representatives or ministers is chosen by the Tsar himself. The line “…by authorities whom We shall appoint” clearly shows how the Tsar is reluctant to give his people their rights as he wanted to keep his power and the system of Autocracy in Russia. This can be amplified in a letter to his ‘dearest mama’ on the 2nd of November, 1905, “…this terrible decision, which I nevertheless took quite consciously” further reinforcing the fact that Nicholas II was not sincere in improving his own nation from the release of the October Manifesto . The contradicting statements in the October Manifesto further stimulated the growing discontent of the people as the rights that they are given are still limited by Tsar Nicholas. As Trotsky states in 1905, “Everything is given and nothing is given”. Therefore, the release of the October Manifesto was a key event …show more content…
In August 1915, Tsar Nicholas sent a letter to the experienced Grand Duke Nickolai Nikolaevich, “…take the supreme command of the active forces and to share with my army the fatigues of war…” He sent this to inform Grand Duke Nickolai that he will be taking over as the Supreme Commander in Chief of the Russian Army. This was a thoughtless decision as he had no experience in leading and organizing such a large-scale war. Russia herself was in no position to fight in such a big war either. An American historian described the effects of supply shortages in 1992, “Men were flung into the firing line without rifles, armed only with a sword-bayonet.” This unveils that the lack of ammunition became a crucial issue when compared to the modern machine guns of the Germans. This resulted in repeated defeats and was reflected in Tsar Nicholas’s lack of experience in large-scale warfare. Also, the high demands of supplies for the troops were costing nearly five times more than it was budgeted for in 1913. This negatively impacted Russia’s economy and amplified the discontent of the people. Because of his role in the war as the Supreme Commander, his people began to blame him for the military defeats and also the economic conflicts. This intensified the political disillusionment about Tsar Nicholas’s rule over Russia. Thus, Tsar Nicholas’s poor

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    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.…

    • 789 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To what extent was Tsar Nicholas Responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty Tsar Nicholas was responsible for the fall of the Romanov dynasty and accelerating the russian revolution. Tsar Nicholas was a major cause of the downfall but his wife tsarina and Rasputin also contributed. The tsar left to the war which was already creating uproar in russia as it was weakening the economy, creating worldwide hunger and unhappiness throughout. Unhappiness lead to demonstrations that developed into political action against the tsar. Furthermore the tsar;s leadership and understanding of reality was abysmal during the war.…

    • 1200 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Since the early 1600’s Russia had been ruled by the Romanov family. The final Tsars were increasingly ineffective and when Tsar Nicholas II came into power he did not fix the mistakes of the past Tsars and due to his bad leadership he is solely to blame for bringing his country into ruin which in turn led to his downfall, however, the people of Russia were eager for change because of the mistakes of the past Tsars and Nicholas II could not govern the entire country and keep them from wanting a revolution. During the course of Nicholas II reign he made various mistakes that contributed to his downfall. Nicholas II’s father, Alexander II, brought a police of Russification which stated that the non-native people of Russia must give up their…

    • 1333 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The most explicit of these differences is in what they find to be the underlying causes of the collapse. For Fitzpatrick tsarism collapsed because of a combination of social and economic pressures. Taking the exact opposite stance Pipes explicitly states, “the principle causes of the downfall in 1917 (as also in 1991) were political, and not economic or social.” However, Fitzpatrick does write that the economic conflicts in tsarist Russia “were likely to turn political.” While she does concede that the worker strikes in Russia were political, the root of the cause for Fitzpatrick still lies in social conflict. When reading Fitzpatrick there is a sense of inevitability to the collapse of tsarism, however in Pipes’ book he focuses much more on the “accidents” of history. Throughout his explanation he brings up that no one saw the collapse coming, he later goes on to explain the success of the Bolsheviks in this same way.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Also, his poor leadership in war led to the Russian revolution. The lesson not learned by Tsar Nicholas II is to listen to others opinion and not be selfish and conceited about the amount of power. The Russian Revolution is one example of a weak leader mistakes because of his reckless, naive and…

    • 1177 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Ill-fated by the Khodynka Tragedy, the reign of the last Tsar was plagued with public discontent from his inauguration. Nicholas’ fear that he was “not prepared to be Tsar” caused him to cling to the outdated social and economic rhetoric of his father, Tsar Alexander III, despite the rapidly changing and evolving state of Russia. By 1905, many of the classes, particularly the peasants, urban workers and the reformist middle class were angered and politicized by Nicholas’ reactionary policies. The events of 1905 were preceded by a Progressive and academic agitation for more political democracy and limits to Tsarist rule in Russia. Nicholas II caused grievances for almost every class of people under his protection, to the extent that the gentry…

    • 1247 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Treaty of Versailles may have been written in an effort to stop World War I and bring peace between the opposing countries, but it 's outcome was much more harmful. Most facts show and support that the Treaty of Versailles failed in many ways, which therefore lead to World War I. Some facts that help me prove my point include, the treaty highly offended Germany causing them to want revenge, the treaty diminished Germany 's economy, and the treaty affected Germany 's military. All of these points show how the Treaty was responsible for World War II, and how it failed in many different ways. Also, these atrocities made Germany very vulnerable, and lead to the rise in power of Adolf Hitler.…

    • 1707 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For instance, Russia was affected politically due to its tsarist autocratic government. Tsar Nicholas II desired to maintain the current autocratic system, and was the successor of his father Alexander II. However, Tsar’s leadership was dismissive and weak. Russia was prideful and arrogant regarding the Russo-Japanese War, therefore greatly underestimating Japan’s strength. Thus, the overconfidence evident in Russian government led to poor military strategies and leadership.…

    • 1277 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Those losing power called Nicholas II stupid, others treasonous. All of these things accumulated in a distrust for the tsarist…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    World War I was not playing out the way the Russians had intended and the general population blamed Nicholas II because of it. The awful choices he made caused a negative demeanor to establish itself within the lower class, which in the long run made them start a revolution. The February Revolution brought about a liberal government called the Provisional Government. Vladimir Lenin,…

    • 271 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays