(here's a site I found on the history of Czar Nicholas II)
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/alexpalacenrbio.html
I was getting so tired of reading blog posts with the exact same opinions; "The Czar was a bad leader" or, "The collapse was from within." I am here to give a different opinion on the matter.
Using the information I found, which when referenced will be called, "(4)" I began to understand the position of Czar Nicholas II a little more than what we were told.
Czar Nicholas II took the throne of Russia at the age of 26. His father Alexander had unexpectedly died (4), and therefore he was not prepared to suddenly take charge. So based off of this information, we have a rich prince going into the position of ruling one of the largest countries (and political powers) on the face of the Earth, with no experience on ruling. And yet, we still blame him for not doing a "good job."
In class, we discussed the causes for the February Revolution. These are all based around one thing; the lack of proper leadership from the Czar. The Russians, as we know, lost to the Japanese (1) and were humiliated by this defeat. Later on, we know that because of the food shortages in Russia (Fyodorovna) and bad economic planning on the Czar's part, the people revolted on "Bloody Sunday." (2) Finally, bad leadership in World War I caused the Russians to have limited war supplies (2), and eventually drop out, only a year before, as said in class today, the allies won.
These are the accepted facts.
What is the pattern of all of these events? Improper leadership of the inexperienced Czar. What is the finale of the bad leadership of the Czar? I present the evidence of the Duma. The Duma was created by the Czar to help understand the wants and needs of the people (2). However, based on the growing political unrest and the further outrage against the head of the government presented at Bloody Sunday, Nicholas had but one choice; throw the blame off himself. Whenever a bad decision was made, it was the Duma's fault, not Nicholas'. Michael Rodzianko, president of the Duma, says this: "It is urgent that someone enjoying the confidence of the country be entrusted with the formation of a new government. There must be no delay. hesitation is fatal." At this point, the Duma is expressing concern to the Czar, but to the Russian people, with no apparent change by the Duma because of the limited power given to it by Nicholas, the Duma is responsible. Because of this, the blame is partially taken off of the Czarship.
Why would Nicholas take the blame off of himself? Because he was inadequate. However, this is not his fault. Everyone else seems to blame the Czar for the unrest in Russia, with which I must agree, however, I do not believe that we should penalize him for having a job thrust upon him for which he was not prepared. As shown from his creation of the Duma, he clearly was unfit for the job. Why did he not leave? My final piece of evidence, from the online biography:
"Yet he believed, even with all his inadequacies and self-doubt, that God had chosen his destiny."
He thought he was meant to rule, even though it led to the February Revolution. He protected himself the whole time. The cause of the first revolution was definitely the Czar, my focus is however, whether or not we should blame him. If you do, as the title of this says, I will smack you.
If Czar Nicholas II is the cause of the first revolution, as you said, why not blame him? With the evidence given in class and the new evidence that you presented, it seems obvious and logical to blame Nicholas II. The fact that he was unprepared for Czarship is a bit of a stretch, he was in line to be Czar someday and I'm sure he had some idea what he was getting in to. He had the best education of any European Monarch after all. No matter the hardships he encountered the success of his reign would rest on his shoulders no matter when or how he took the throne. As for the Duma, it was not their fault that they were not listened to or even created for that matter, just Nicholas II trying in vain to appease the people he did a pathetic job of providing for.
ReplyDeleteBut what if Nicholas II had won the war, would there still have been a revolution? Most likely yes, because the people's needs were not being met on the home front and there were revolutionary groups all over Russia that wanted to over throw the Czar in any circumstance. All the excuses in the world do not justify his poor leadership, had he been either a better leader or listened to the Duma perhaps he never would have been overthrown. But as it remains he lost the war, did not listen to the Duma, and was ineffective as a leader which caused Russia's government to collapse which then in turn opened the door for the Romanov Dynasty to be overthrown from without.
Josh I guess your going to have to slap me because I blame Nicholas, and after further review, you might have to slap your self haha =]
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rob and disagree with Josh. In my opinion the extra evidence you provided overwhelming supports the idea that the February Revolution occurred because of a collapse from within. Josh, when reading your evidence and claim that states “we have a rich prince going into the position of ruling one of the largest countries (and political powers) on the face of the Earth, with no experience on ruling. And yet, we still blame him for not doing a ‘good job’” I came the opposite conclusion. YES, we can blame can blame him for not doing a good. With the way things work in the Russian government those who are destine to be Czars know this from the time of birth, and therefore spend their life preparing to take over and rule. His father dying unexpectedly and leaving him in charge at the age of 26 is no excuse for his being unprepared to rule (4). Furthermore, in that time the age 26 was not that young given the life expectance is not what it is today. His age has nothing to do with his readiness to take the crown or lack of leadership. The question at hand is “was the February evolution an overthrow form without or a collapse from with in”; we are not questioning whether or not Nicholas should be held responsible in he was not prepared. In answering the given question the evidence you(Josh) provided, that says Nicholas was unprepared, supports that it was a collapse from within, caused by the uneducated decision made by the Czar.
First of all, Josh, please don't slap me. Second, I agree with Rob in that most of the evidence you presented seems to support that it was indeed Czar Nicholas' fault. As the movie Spiderman has taught me, with great power comes great responsibility. The czar was given great power (heck, he ruled over one of the largest countries in the world at the time all by himself). he missed huge opportunities to take responsibility. He could have made Russia a great and powerful country, listening to the people's needs and renovating the system around that. Instead, he made decisions that catalyzed the February Revolution.
ReplyDeleteI'm agreeing with both Rob and Alyson here...could you please clarify HOW your evidence supports that he was just a victim?
I agree with all of the above Josh. Sorry. I would say that the timing of the leadership was probably the worse, yes. HOWEVER, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY HE HANDLED THE COUNTRY WHEN TAKING OFFICE. If he was so unsure of leadership, THE DUMA was right there to help him and give their opinions. You would think that since he was new to it at an unexpected time, that he would turn to some sort of opinion of those who were living with the situations. I definently agree with Alyson, Rob, and Elizabeth, and say that as a leader, he should have evaluated ALL SITUATIONS BEFORE PILING PROBLEMS ON TOP OF PROBLEMS WITHOUT HELPING TO RESOLVE ANY OF THEM. And why is it that as a leader he left his wife in charge if he was so unsure of how to be a leader, to go and lead the military in a war? Therefore the collapse was from within. Your information is irrelevant to the question in my opinion. I agree with Alyson all the way.
ReplyDelete(continuation) I am also wanting to know the answer to Elizabeth's question and also, what makes Czar a victim to something that HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CEASE HIMSELF?!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not count it as one of my "response" comments, I will do as you wish and clarify.
ReplyDeleteI am simultaneously stating that yes, the events in Russia were the responsibility of Niholas, but also that he is not to blame. I remember something Mr. Henthorn once told me: you go to school for 8 years, but you never actually learn how to teach. (Random information, but I believe it's an experience to which most of us can relate) Nicholas II may have had the best education of any monarch in Europe at the time, but that doesn't mean that he had the skills to lead. He himself stated that he knew he was not ready to lead; his only real experience was being a colonel, a languid job which involved drinking and partying with his friends, an aristocratic life. This supports the fact that he was not ready to lead, I think we can all agree on that.
With great power does come great responsibility, but what if one does not know what true responsibility is? It is impossible for us to know the true mindset of Nicholas II, so I present an offering of a different perception: after a failed attempt at victory in the Russo-Japanese war, he felt the need to redeem himself, despite a bad leadership. After all, being the first Czar to lose to an Asian nation, would you want to leave behind a distasteful legacy? He knew that his inadequate leadership had put him in a bad position, but he still knew that he had the ability to fix it, and the country. He made attempts to fix the country later on, such as creating the Duma, but did not follow up on his plans as well as he should have. So yes, I'm admitting that he did not lead as well as he should have, but this is because of his lack of true experience leading.
He did not abdicate, Dashia, because he knew that it would only lead to further political unrest. A revolution was already underway, and he still thought that he had the ability to stop it. Leaving the country to another would have only created further turmoil, even if it had another of his family. Think outside of the box. Had he had actual leadership experience, how might have the country have been different?
Josh, this is what you just said: "yes, the events in Russia were the responsibility of Niholas..."
ReplyDeletePlease smack yourself.
Ok I'm kidding. But I still think that his inexperience puts him at fault. It is important as a leader to recognize inexperience and weaknesses and reach out for people who are strong in those areas to help. Tsar Nicholas did not do so (1, 2, 3).
Reflecting on your question above: In my opinion, if Nicholas had actual leadership experience, he would have known better than to try to run a whole country by himself. He would have known to listen to his people (who ultimately make up the country). You are right in that his inexperience probably played a huge role in bringing on the February Revolution. And while I see that you aren't blaming him for his inexperience, I still believe he is to blame. It is the responsibility of a leader to realize they aren't perfect and recognize their flaws so they can do something about them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOk, so, since you did your own little research, I had to play my part. Yes, the leadership role was basically thrust upon Tsar Nicholas, but he had ruled for almost twenty years before WWI even started. That year was his 20th year, aka his leadership started in 1894. So, by then, I do believe it is a fair assessement to say that he either had a grasp on leadership by this point or he didn't, but by this point it was his fault. So sure, he may not have been ready to lead when he STARTED, but after twenty years of it, I believe he should have gotten the hang of it. Sure, you can go to school for eight years and not learn to teach, but when you actually try and gain experience, you learn. And, sure, you can blame the loss of the Russo-Japanese war on Nicholas' inexperience, but we're talking about the February Revolution. With your follow up/comment statement "He knew that his inadequate leadership had put him in a bad position, but he still knew that he had the ability to fix it, and the country.", you do not hold well for your case. If he "knew" that he could fix it and he failed, then there is no one else to blame but him. And, being the Tsar to lose to an Asian power, wouldn't you assume that he'd be more cautious with the next war he tried to enter? Why after being DEFEATED in war, why would you jump into another one ten years later? It was his faulty leadership, not his inexperience. He had experienced war, and was defeated with it. So this second war (WWI) was not a new thing to him. He had done it before.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying ALL of the blame goes to him because there is always going to be the rebellious group and the economic and environmental hardships, but it is not fair to say it wasn't his fault because he was inexperienced. Sure it may have created a "political unrest" with abdicating, but do you not agree that after the unvolunteered entrance to WWI that the people were put in, would you not agree that there was political unrest forming?
Wow, Josh! I'ma spam your post too!
ReplyDeleteEven though you're not Russian, high five for patriotism. I'll expect you singing "God Save the Romanovs" first thing tomorrow.
I can't agree with Elizabeth or Chelsea that Nicholas' inexperience put him at fault entirely, but I also can't say that he had no control over what happened. I think he would have saved his rule by surrounding himself with people who were experienced and knew what they were talking about- and deflated his ego long enough to really hear what they were saying. You aren't born knowing how to rule a country- especially Russia. As Mr. Churchill said, "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest." There isn't one Russia, but many Russias. Ever taken a gander at how many different cultures they have, all living together? You can not please everyone, but you can learn to give just enough to each. I don't think Nicholas was given the chance to learn how to rule, but some of that was his own arrogance getting in the way. The Tsars before him probably set him up for a lot too, because what watered down reform he was willing to make to the people were not (could not be) enough to compensate for what his forebears had done.
I think there is an underestimation of how hard a job he had, to be frank.
Oh this is fun! It appears as though I've started a revolution! :D
ReplyDeleteI have to give you props Kayla, you seem to find the middle ground between my "extreme" assertion that Nicholas shouldn't be blamed for the revolt, and the countless oppositions that he was in fact, responsible. If there are no more "slam" comments, I think we can all settle on this middle ground:
-Nicholas II had a lack of leadership upon taking the czarship.
-Nicholas II had 20 years of leading experience prior to the revolution.
-His leadership during the Russo-Japanese war was less than satisfying
-He attempted to solve the problems of the people, but was unsuccessful.
Make with it what you will, but it seeems as though you've put a lot more thought into opposing someone than agreeing with someone.
And so, my job is complete...
Interesting debating ftw!
Okay, Josh, contradictions are fun and all, but wrong is wrong.
ReplyDeleteTsar Nicholas was an inadequate leader, who failed in his political responsibilities to his people, and also in his militaristic duties when he assumed control of the war front in the Great War.
Yes the position of Tsar was pushed on him, that's kind of how those governments work, and why they have ended up failing, but instead of accepting right away that he could not lead his country, he tried to rule anyways. He made a step in the right direction with his installation of the Duma, but then went right back to his fault of being an over confident leader when he ignored all of their advice. He never meant to use the Duma as a way to better his leadership, but only to pass blame onto to someone else when his actions were not supported. He even further showed his arrogance when he took out his military leaders and took control of the war efforts himself, which showed he believed himself a better leader than anyone else could be. The Tsar holds more blame than anyone, for not recognizing his own faults, and for allowing his country to sink into such unrest. I agree with Elizabeth, Spiderman says it all, he left out his responsibilities, and only cared about his own power. He acknowledged, but did not try to truly improve his inadequacies as a leader.
As you cited in your source 4, the Czar was inexperienced. There have been hordes of inexperienced leaders, HOWEVER there are workarounds. For an illustration: "Tutankhamun was nine years old when he became pharaoh and reigned for approximately ten years." (Source 5). Tutankhamun was unique because, even as a child, he was able to rule Egypt for 10 years. Czar Nicholas was 26 when he took the throne. The difference in approaches, however, is where the true distinction lies. Tutankhamun allowed his advisors to do just that, advise him. Because of this, he was a good leader. He allowed those with a specialty in an area to influence his decisions because he realized he knew nothing of the military, or of the economy. Czar Nicholas, however, ignored his advisors. He created the Duma, as you said, to inform him. However, in source 1 we see him callously ignoring the words of a member of the Duma, in fact expressing -contempt- that the man bother him. He believed he knew best, when he did not. It was his hubris and his decision-making that led his reign (and the government of Russia) into the ground.
ReplyDeleteAw, come now Ian. Let's give Tsar Nicholas some credit, at least the poor man tried. He had one of the hardest jobs imaginable, let's cut him some slack! Kudos to Seth for bringing King Tut in, though.
ReplyDeleteOh, and, Josh has a point, "slam" comments don't prompt diplomacy. Let's all love each other. Mar har har.