Where is the stabilization in the foundation?
The February Revolution was a blow up from a buildup of faults within the Russian Government. Without rulers knowing what they are doing, there cannot be any prevailing. Not only must the ruler have experience, but also consider the people’s best interest.
Nicholas II was guessing at his decisions that affected the entire country, without the input of the citizens that it was affecting. “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.” (1) Nicholas II was guessing that he knew what was best for the country and did not want to admit any fault. To show that he was the best one suited for his job, he wanted to show he knew what was best for everyone, even without his or her input. Obviously, Nicholas II did not know what was best because still coming out of World War I, the country was weak, struggling for food and very hostile. “Widespread discontent over the ghastly sacrifices of the war, food shortages, and high prices led to bitter strikes and hostile demonstrations.” (3) If Nicholas II would have considered the people and their struggles before he thought about himself and his abilities to provide the best for his country without any input from them, then tensions could have decreased. As more citizens began to lose faith in the Czar because of his inconsiderable actions, people began to take matters into their own hands. “More opposition groups to the Czarist Rule began to increase.” (2) Citizens began to believe that if they outright challenged the Czar’s rule then things would be fixed.
Ultimately, the February Revolution was a collapse from within. This collapse was due to the choices made by the Czar. The more poor decisions the Czar made the more resentment, hostility and tension rose over the way the country was being lead. Thus in order to save the country from ultimate destruction, all the Czar could do was to step down.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Lexi! I definently agree with your post. It was ultimately a collapse from within due to Czar Nicholas II. However, I have a question. Do you really believe that Czar was doing what he felt was best for the country? If he was truely doing what was best for the country, he would have evaluated all costs before entering into WWI, and taken time to listen to the Duma. Czar never made an attempt to be a LEADER and do what was in best intrest for the country. He was more concerned about his own intrests for the country. Wouldn't you say?
ReplyDeleteYou make great points about him not involving the rest of the country in his decision making. I'm just a bit curious as to exactly WHY he didn't involve them. Selfish act that effects everyone.
Dashia, thanks you for agreeing with me! I do think Czar made decisions based on what he thought was best for the country but because he was self-centered and lacked experience he made faulty decisions. Yes, if he did want the very best for the country he would have taken the Duma's suggestions into consideration. I feel like the Czar made decisions without considering the outcome at all, just like when the decision was made to enter into WWI. The Czar made decisions, like putting his wife in charge while he went off to "lead" the war, to cover up that he wasn't a good leader but he did make attempts to lead.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe he was VERY self-centered! And much more concerned about his own interests than the country's.
Lexi, I do agree with your ideas throughout your post. I said some of the same things in mine. For example I said that Nicholas II was not listening to the thoughts and concerns of the whole country and that it is impossible to run a country without doing so. However, when I read your last statement which said, "Thus in order to save the country from ultimate destruction, all the Czar could do was to step down", I had to question this. Yea, I agree that this was probably the best and quickest way to solve the problem, but this was not the ONLY solution. If Nicholas II did not want to step down from being the leader of the country, he needed to do many things. For example, he could have done something as simple as listen to the people of his country. He could have listened to their needs, wants, ideas and concerns. This would make the citizens start to respect and support him and not want him out of power. Also, Nicholas II could also not assume that he is the best person suited for the job like he assumed leadership of the military. So overall, Nicholas II should have stopped thinking about himself and thought about the people of his country. He should have become country oriented and not self oriented.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your post, because it does seem like the more the decisions the czar made the more Russia suffered. Czar Nicholas just as you said made many of his decision because he did not want to take fault. For example his decision about going to war showed that he did not care about his people , yet he never takes fault for his action. Czar Nicholas to me should have just listen to his people and he would have been a more successful leader.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the shortcomings of the Tzar and his unwillingness to take advice did play a major role in his downfall at the hands of his own people; however, I have two problems with your stance. My first problem is that you say the Tzar wanted to show he had the people's best interest at heart, but you also say that he wouldnt listen to the people and learn of their needs. If he has the people's best interest at heart wouldnt a major part of that be knowing what adversity his people faced?
ReplyDeleteMy second point is that in your post you make it sound like the Russian people's problem was with the Tzar's leadership not the actual totalitarian style of government. Therefore why when Nicholaus stepped down and tried to allow his brother to take his place, did the Russian people still threaten to revolt against the new leader when it seems their problem was with nicholaus himself?
Lexi, I agree with your post to a certain extent. Yes the Czar made a lot of poor decisions, but as Dashia stated earlier "do you really believe the Czar was doing what he felt was best for the country?" After World War I, the Czar was in a state of desperation due to the food shortages and increase of discontent amongst his people. He knew little of how to handle these situations, hence the makings of his poorly thought out decisions. In turn, these methods backfired violently against him resulting in the creation of the Duma. His idea of a solution. The Czar was so involved in his own power and state of being that he would rather someone else deal with his problems for him, that someone else being the Duma.
ReplyDeleteYou made some great points about the Czar's absence of his people's opinions in the making of his decisions. However, as a leader, do you think that the opinion's of your people would assist in the bettering of your country and be easier for you in a time where the people are radical and uncontrollable, screaming "down with Lexi!?" (from source 3 "down with the czar!" lol) I belive the Czar was a little intimidated by the situation, don't you?