Kaiser Wilhelm II Strengths And Weaknesses

Meanwhile, food shortages and poor working conditions also led to strikes. This led to the defeat of Nicholas II, who lost control of the Petrograd and the support of some key political leaders. Nicholas left the throne on March 15, 1917. (Goff p.140). Russian citizens lost faith in Nicholas due to many factors, but most notably was Russia’s poor performance in World War I. Germany proved to be too industrialized for Russia to put up much of a fight, and Russia was forced to

Nicholas the Second was a large contributing cause to his own abdication. Nicholas the Second continued to make countless amounts of unreasonable decisions throughout his reign. His bad decisions drove many of his original supporters away. For example, even on the day of his coronation he managed to start off his reign on a bad foot. This was due to the fact that when many celebratory mugs were being gifted to the people of St Petersburg to celebrate the coronation of the Tsar there was not enough to go around and in an effort to acquire one of these limited mugs many citizens were brutally killed. In the interim, Nicholas showed no consideration or sympathy towards the dead or those affected and continued with the coronation. Consequently

As much as the Kaiser had the ability to appoint his chancellors, he did not however have the ability to control their free will. With many of the chancellor’s appointed, Wilhelm would merely dismiss them as they became too independent minded and involved in policy making. In 1908 an article was published in the Daily Telegraph, detailing conversations the Kaiser had. Wilhelm suggested that whilst he himself was pro-British the German public opinion was not. This caused great controversy and severe criticism. In order to stop the Kaiser from intervening and creating a ‘personal government’, Wilhelm was forced to issue a statement, promising to respect the constitution. This shows that the Kaiser did not have personal rule as he couldn’t control his chancellor and had no control of the Reichstag.

the people’” but many others disagreed . They felt that he was manipulating the family. This only added to the discontent and secrecy surrounding the family. Many people did not like how isolated the family was, not only from everyday Russians, but also the aristocracy. This made Nicholas an incapable leader because he separated himself to a large extent from Russian society. His shyness added to the list of reasons why he was a bad leader for Russia which lead to the end of the Old Regime.

On the 20th October 1894 Nicholas II ascended the throne as tsar of Russia. He idolised the concept of continuing to rule Russia under the autocratic system, in the same way his father and predecessor Alexander III had done so. However, Nicholas lacked the qualities and characters of the autocratic style of leadership. The

Tsar Nicholas II was one of the central figures to the Russian February Revolution of 1917 and secured the downfall of the Romanov dynasty. Nicholas II continued the regressive reforms of his father Tsar Alexander III, ultimately disenchanting the constituents from the neglect of longstanding grievances; he epitomised the fundamental problem of absolute rule, as years of suffering would eventually lead to revolution. His mismanagement and direct involvement in World War I undermined the already unstable government, causing his subjects to join radical movements to overthrow the tsarist regime.

The lower class of Russia, which was composed of the working people felt misrepresented- or not represented at all.Nicholas II was the son of Alexander III of Russia, who was also the Emperor of Russia, before Nicholas. He was the heir of approximately 200 years of Czarist rule in Russia.Coming from a very rich family, Nicholas could hardly relate to the lower class. He had inherited Russia’s rule from his dad, and was not elected, which meant he was not necessarily qualified to correctly rule Russia, as he later proved through his actions.After he had angered the working class by slaughtering their own people, losing major battles in the war with Japan as well as in WWI, there was no way for him to amend for the mistakes he had made. Therefore, had the people been given the choice of taking down the Czar, they would have not hesitated.Their anger was represented through Lenin, with whom they felt they could connect to.Due to their dislike for the Czar, not many were dissatisfied when he was overthrown, and lated ordered to be executed by

Therefore, morale in Russia was not a reason why there was an outbreak of revolution in 1917. Nevertheless, the few military successes could not make up for the shocking casualty list revealed later on in wartime. Also, when the economic and military problems arose they could have been tolerable for the general public if they were encouraged by the people at the top such as the Tsar but no leadership was shown. Though this was a problem in Russia the morale in Russia was not too bad although people did begin to focus more on taking care of themselves because of the effects of the war on everyday life. On the other hand, the fact that central leadership was not being provided to the Russian public, criticisms began to be pointed directly at the Tsar. Nicholas failed in being commander-in-chief of the Russian armed services. He did not encourage war effort and did not prove to be the appropriate representative for the Russian people. In addition, the fact that he took on this important role meant that he was responsible for the wars consequences and the survival of Tsardom depended on military success. Due to the lack of success, Nicholas II was blamed and not his generals. This was a reason for the revolution in February 1917 to happen as it appeared to the citizens of Russia that they did not have a strong leader, also the tsarist system’s claim to the loyalty of the Russian people had been forfeited thus

The fall of the Romanov Dynasty in 1914 proved that the Tsar could not handle the problems of Russia. Ironically, he would have been ideal as a constitutional monarch, but was adamant against the idea. As the First World War started Russia’s problems arises, from short-term and long-term causes. The war brought back inflation which led to “demonstrations over food shortages combined with workers’ grievances,” (Hosking, 2012, p. 91) thus this destroyed Nicholas’s image as Father of Russia. Military became ineffective as the transport system was not adequate, thus leading to food supplies decreasing in key cities such as Petrograd. Historians believe the impacts of the First World War led to Russian society becoming unstable and was ultimately the main reason of the downfall of the Tsar. However other factors, such as the Tsarina placing large amounts of trust into Rasputin who was notorious for his reputation as an alcoholic and a womanizer (Westwood, 2002, p. 215) and the role of the revolutionaries due to Lenin promising peace, land and bread, eventually leading to the growth of the Bolsheviks Party. Although, it can most rightfully be deemed that the impact of the war was the main reason for the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in 1917.

Nicholas II was known, not only for being the Emperor of Russia but also for his character and personality which undoubtably led him to his own downfall. Nicholas was often referred to as not being ready to become Tsar as well as being a weak leader. Firstly, Nicholas II himself, amongst a very large proportion of Russian society, believed that he was not prepared to be coronated Emperor. Nicholas himself stated “What is going to happen to me and all of Russia? I am not prepared to be a Tsar. I never wanted to become one. I know nothing of the business of ruling.”. (Russian Revolution Quotations 2015). Nicholas was aware of what he was getting himself into and that he was not prepared for such a role. This is further corroborated by the

Some may argue Tsar Nicholas weak leadership help contributes to the Russian Revolution but World War I was be the primary cause. Tsar Nicholas was not the best leader but that did not have a big enough impact to cause the Russia Revolution because his actions did not lead to as many problems that World War I had caused. World War I had a greater impact because it led to many problems within Russia that caused the citizens to be furious.

Various aspects of Nicholas II’s political decisions reflected his clear unsuitability for the role of Tsar, and these decisions form a preliminary basis for both his own legacy of incompetency & the eventual undoing of the Romanovs. In comparison to rulers preceding, Nicholas was ill-prepared for the role: his father, Alexander III, failed to adequately develop his son’s understanding of civil & state responsibilities before his death in 1894, under the guise that he would live long enough to teach Nicholas of these affairs. Upon his consecration as Tsar, Nicholas spoke in his diary of his apprehensiveness

In conclusion to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, it is shown that Nicholas had the biggest impact of Russia becoming a communist country as he did not have a greater understanding on the way to run his country, he also didn’t take full responsibility for his people and the soldiers in WW1,

One resource used for this investigation was Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie, which describes the reign of Nicholas II. This source was published in 1967 in the United States, thus the book is a secondary source. Massie is a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian whose work focuses on the Russian Romanovs. Massie’s alma mater includes Yale and Oxford University. The source is highly valuable in its extremely detailed and comprehensive research of nearly 600 pages, providing the thoughts of those in positions of power and interesting, insightful perspectives to the situation at the time. An analysis on connecting causes and effects are thorough and

As The Economist (September 28th 2013) says, Angela Merkel won a landslide victory and became the chancellor of Germany for the third time. The crisis gave us a hard time and most big European countries dumped their leaders during this period. However, Angela Merkel again proved to be a leader that most people follow and admire. Is it purely because she does things right for her people? Or does it rather spark from her personality, including her behavioral, communication skills or influential authority? This paper will elaborate ideas on what makes Germany’s chancellor such a powerful leader and by using psychological theories it will lead the reader to defining the leadership style Ms. Merkel exercises.