Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Role of Nicholas II in the fall of the Romanov Empire - Coggle Diagram
Role of Nicholas II in the fall of the Romanov Empire
Stubbornness for political change
Although some of the government eg. Witte, Stolypin, saw the need for reform, the Tsar was hostile to the political demands and social transformations that reforms entailed
The economy expanded due to people like Witte and Stolypin, but progress was stifled by the inflexibility of Nicholas II.
In failing to support them, Nicholass showed his stubborn opposition to reform
not equipped to manage Russia through a time of major social and economic change - Russia needed a strong leader
Obsessed with outdate idea of autocracy and was unwilling to consider other alternatives, to the autocracy
Believed that he has been chosen by god and was obliged to rule
did not listen to his people - not open to change in a society in a society that was wanting change - autocracy was outdated
Liberals wanted more freedom, local autonomy and self-government, civil rights and to escape the authority of the tsarist state
Zemstvo have been active towns and a growing number of them believe they should play a more active role in running society
October Manifesto
: granted peopel politicla nad civil rights
Made lots of promises that he did not uphold
Did not limit working day hours or improve working conditions
Duma
: Tsar's failure to utilise the Duma to keep revolution at bay contributed to the decline of the Romanovs - people mistrusted him
Shown that he was never willing to work with or listen to the Duma - Only concerned with preserving autocracy
Was not willing to accept democratic government could be effective in that he could give away some of his responsibilities and avoid some of the criticism directed at him
The promised constitutional government in the OM was never developed and Nicholas lost none of his power
No laws could come into force with the Tsars approval - Duma had little power to initiate and enact legislation
before being dissolved by the Tsar on multiple occassions
Personality
Perceived to be distant - he wasn't a leader, did not lead from the front
Weak - not qualified to lead, incompetent and unable to exercise power, easy manipulated and controlled
Removed from the people - Knowledge of constitutional, social and economic problems was little and refused to educate himself
He was ignorant and disregarding suffering of his own people
Ill-prepared
Came to the throne after his father died unexpectedly, so lacked the training and experience for leadership
Foolish, naive- thought everyone was completely devoted to him
leadership
Foolish - Lacked military experience and tried unsuccessfully to be a military leader
To maintain his position, has to use force and repression and abuse his power
Could have reformed but chose to repressusing brutual methods
By crushing or dismissing all opposition, he was showing his disregard for the people and their demands
Misjudgements and mistakes
Bloody Sunday -
People came to the palace with hope in the Tsar but his guards opened fire on them
resulted in massive loss of respect for the Tsar
Hundreds of people killed
1905 Revolution
: Ignoring the warnings signs, he failed to see how broken and outdated his system was, and that didn’t just affect the civilian population, but also the economy and the military.
Khodynka Field Tragedy - May 1896:
Event was an omen for future of the Tsar’s reign and tarnished his reputation
Became known as “bloody nicholas” because his reign began with death and destruction
Thousands of people in attendance at the celebrations that accompanied Nicholas coronation, coming for the free souvenirs and food they were expecting
Catastrophic ending - people fell in thousands and were crushed, leaving thousands wounded and over 1300 were dead
When Nicolas went to a party and join in other coronation festivities, there was public outrage for his apparent lack of concern
Tsar however, had tried to cancel the event, vans visited wounded in hospitals, paid for burial of the dead
Rasputin
: support for him damaged the reputation of the royal family - became focus of public anger towards the regime
Impact of Rasputin became even more damaging during the war - Leaving government in hands of Tsarina and Rasputin
seen to control the royal family
Taking personal command of the army in 1915
reflected poorly on Russia in WWI
Feb 1917
: did not comprehend the seriousness of the situation and took action too late
While these event unfolded, the tsar was still at the war front
Nicholas’ response was to suspend the Duma and sent loyal troops to march on the capital torestor order
Tsar himself who initiated the mutiny of his own soldiers
Hearing about the trouble in Petrograd, he ordered that troops put down the disorders - regiments opened fire on the crowds, killing a number of demonstrators
Crowds became hostile and soldier regiments moved over to the side of the people
Tsar made a desperate effort to get back to the city but his train was stopped outside the city
2nd Feb -abdicated in favour of his brother Michael, but Michael realising the entend of anti-monarcal feeling, refused and the Romanov came to a swift end
Russo Japanese War
Public support for the war quickly turned to dismay
Catastrophic defests justified the opposition claims that the autocratic government was irresponsible, incompetent and reckless
War was disastrous for the economy which was already emerging from a depression - Resulted in a rise in food prices and high levels of unemployment which led to greater discontent - catalyst for 1905 revoltuion
Instability in Russia worsened by war with Japan in 1904
1905 Russia could have been avoided if Russia did not go to war - catalyst for the 1905 revolution