Thursday, October 29, 2009
A collapse from within allowed an overthrow from without
Nicholas II failure to listen to others, to find out the needs of his citizens, resulted in a collapse of his government from a lack of respect, which allowed for an overthrow from without by the unhappy Russian people. Nicholas II’s actions and non actions caused an up roar among Russian civilians which lead to the February Revolution. Nicholas II was not in tune with the needs of his citizens. In a letter from Duke Mikhailovich to Nicholas, he said “It is impossible to rule the country without paying attention to the voice of the people, without meeting their needs, without a willingness to admit that the people themselves understand their own needs.”(Source 1) To others in the Russian government it was visible that the king was not listening to those he governed over. If others were to make suggestions of a better way to rule Russia the Czar would respond negatively. In a telegram to his wife he said, “Again, that fat-belled Rodzianko has written me a load of nonsence, which I won’t even bother to answer.”(Source 1) This lack of realizing what the people need resulted in a drive from those same people to over throw his rule. The Czar was losing their respect and therefore their support; the Czar was fueling the fire of their revolt. In an effort to appear to be catering to the needs of the people the Czar created the Duma, a representative group for the body of people.(Source 2) This group was suppose to info Nicholas of what the people needed, but again the Czar ignored the advise of others by “ignoring the request from the Duma”(Source 1) The Czar fought more appear as if he cared about the needs of the people more than actually following through with those actions. The Czar also promised to increase the civil rights of his governed people, but never followed through on these promises.(Source 2) If the Czar had listened to the Duma then the needs of the people may have been better met, causing the citizens to be more happy with the government and not look to revolting to be heard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry Coach Belk I forgot to put my name before the title.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyson on Nicholas’ failure to cater to the needs of the people. Everyone wants to be part of something and feel important and not only appear important. This is how the Czar appeared to the people.” If others were to make suggestions of a better what to rule Russia, the Czar would respond negatively” I think the moment the Czar responded in a negative way, then that should have been a sign to the people that they really were not a concern to the Czar. He made them feel as if he had more important things to worry about. With him having that title of ruling a country, he has multiple responsibilities that must be taken care of. If the manager of a restaurant only worries about the food that is being prepared and not about the customer service part, then that restaurant might go out of business. The manager has responsibilities just like the Czar and not fulfilling them thoroughly might result in the people revolt causing an overthrown from without.
ReplyDeleteOn a quick note: Brittney i liked your analogy about the restaurant manager :). But on Alyson's post...I agree that the Czar caused part of the downfall due to his disconcern for the people. To rule a country you have to have positivity and as she stated "...the Czar would respond negatively." That is a prime example of Nicholas II's mal-leadership. He deserted them in a time of need to lead their military and basically showed not only the Russian citizens but the world that he likes power but hasn't a care for the people over which he rules. So that in itself makes me wonder...was the past rulers of the Romanov Dynasty like this, and the people had had enough during Nicholas II's rule OR was he just the bad apple of the family?
ReplyDelete