Nicholas II Essay

The speaker is Baron de Breteuil, a French diplomat from Moscow. The speaker is credible because even though he acknowledges how certain aspects of her reign will flourish and how her passion proves useful in Russian society, he does mention negative vices that will inflict havoc upon her sovereignty and ultimately lead to internal faults in her empire.

Tsar Nicholas I is depicted in a most unfavorable manner. He delights in causing terror to those around him, in one case an army officer and his female companion at a masquerade (Tolstoy p71). In the same scene Nicholas is portrayed as a lecherous man, having liaisons with various women (Tolstoy pp70-71). This portrayal of the Tsar is problematic as he is considered by historians to have been a family man and devoted to his wife, with whom sexual intercourse was impossible due to her health problems (Moss p357). Tolstoy obviously finds this unacceptable. Nicholas is stupid and egotistical as well, taking credit for the successes of the raids on Chechen villages when he had advocated a completely different policy. Tolstoy also accuses Tsar Nicholas I as not being a serious Christian when he depicts him saying his prayers “without attaching any

Another view considering the cause of the 1905 and 1917 revolution in Russia is rather than being due to one solid event it is rather the general life of Russians, who revolted due to being dissatisfied. An extract from Witte’s Diary’ states ‘a general feeling of profound discontent with the existing

The telegrams exchanged between Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany and Tsar Nicolas II of Russia between the dates of 29 July and 1 August, are merely a small section of the vast array of telegrams exchanged between the two, ranging more than 2 decades (from 1894 to 1914). While the early volumes of the telegrams were attempts by the Kaiser to “(stir) up the Czar’s monarchical instinct against the French Republic ” and to appear congenial, the final telegrams between the Kaiser and the Tsar were cautious warnings against mobilising and the threat of war. The telegrams between Wilhelm and Nicolas are directly weaved into the events of the July Crisis and the eve of World War 1. The tension between the two rulers is reflected through the firm and stern tone of the conversation, and the hidden animosity between the two. The Kaiser and the Tsar, related through Maria Pavlovna by blood and through marriage as the Tsar’s wife was the Kaiser’s first cousin, often close their telegrams with either “Willy” or “Nicky”, however the hidden conflict between the two is observed when considering their position towards the Sarajevo assassination.

As World War I was heading towards its end Russia was focusing on internal issues. Led by Vladimir Lenin the Bolsheviks embarked on a campaign against the war. Using propaganda which focused on trying to turn the allied troops against their officers Lenin looked to inspire a socialist revolution. The Bolsheviks were also fueled by the poor conditions of the Russian Army. Nicholas II, in a letter to his wife Alexandra, admitted the obstacles that the Russian Army faced, "Again that cursed question of shortage of artillery and rifle ammunition - it stands in the way of an energetic advance." Czar Nicholas tried to deny the fact that his Army was in no condition to continue the fight. Lenin and the Bolsheviks used this information to gain

Alexandra did little to dispel growing discontent for her husband. She ruled side by side with her extremely influential friend, Grigory Rasputin. Rasputin was the only person able to treat the hemophilia of her only son, Alexis, heir to the Russian throne. Rasputin’s close relationship to the Empress allowed him to gain his own sense of power. He quickly began dismissing efficient ministers and appointing incompetent ministers solely on whether or not they supported him. Nicholas began to be seen as a man who willingly let his incompetent wife run the government, while he attempted to regain his pride on the western front. Conservatives began to plot against Nicholas in order to save their monarchy.

Recently learning of this mysterious man and having few options, the Czar and his wife called upon Rasputin for medical assistance. On the day of Rasputin’s arrival, Nicholas II recorded an entry that stated, “we have got to know a man of God-Grigori- from the Tobolsk Province.” The Czar’s confidence and belief in Rasputin was a result of his seemingly miracle work. Rasputin was able to prevent further bleeding of their son Alexis. Mosolov, a bystander, spoke of his “incontestable success in healing.” Alexis’ previous nurse, Teglova, also commented saying, “Call it what you will, he could really promise her [the Empress] her boy's life while he lived." Although many were impressed by Rasputin, he by no means had complete influence over the noble family. Rasputin’s only duty was to mitigate the disease of Alexis. Inevitably though, Rasputin became a close advisor to Alexandra and began to represent his true influence (Encyclopedia of World

This is a page from the diary of Nicholas II after he had been placed under house arrest by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Nicholas II was not always hated by his people, and in fact, many Russian citizens once saw him as a father figure in Russia. In truth, he never intended any malice toward his people, and in his own journal he regards the “Bloody Sunday” massacre as a tragedy when he writes, “A painful day. There have been serious disorders in St. Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded. God, how painful and sad.” His indifference to politics, however, is something that is almost worse, and ultimately proved to be fatal to the

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was an event that many historians have offered different perspectives on, as it was the start of a regime that greatly impacted the history of totalitarianism. Though much went on during 1917, the February Revolution and the fall of Tsarist regime was an event that created dialogue and prompted historians to pose perspectives as to what factors contributed to the Russian Monarchy ending in catastrophe. Many of these perspectives are focused on personalities. Some historians may argue that the rule of Tsar Nicholas II was tragically flawed, as there were many political mistakes such as mismanagement of the war effort by the Tsar, therefore upsetting the Russian civilians, such as the nobility as well as the monarchists who believed that the Tsar caused the crisis of the autocracy. However, there is also attention to the wartime crisis that preceded the eve of the uprising at the palace and, therefore, blaming the revolution on multiple conspirators such as the Russian Freemasons, many of which were in the Duma. Meanwhile, there is much attention on Valentin Rasputin due to the influence that he had on Nicholas and Alexandra, as well as the public’s dislike of Alexandra, which eventually leads to many turning against Nicholas II and ultimately contributed to creating an environment where the Duma was wanted instead of the Tsar, forcing him to abdicate. This paper will explore six different historian’s interpretations of the fall of the Russian

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,

In many instances many people do not trust the tsar or tsarina judgment because of the presence of Rasputin. Rasputin becomes more of a nuisance to the royal family because he’s very uneducated and makes poor choices. His St. Petersburg apartment became a very busy office where he would take care of medical problems and with his healing powers. He let payment be paid in money, pledges of loyalty, or the most controversial “kisses.” This would have passed with no questions if at that time Russia were not entering a period of crisis of war. Nicholas was forced to grant the constitution and convene a parliament. Many loved and admired the tsar he was remarkably charming and just gave a special atmosphere to the people. Though during these times Nicholas’s greatest problems came from the moderate opposition. Liberals and moderate conservatives were alarmed over defeats. Nicholas refused to share power with the Duma. As time past in Russia tsar Nicholas and Alexandra became very unpopular with the people of Russia. By the early 1916 Alexandra was the most hated woman in Russia. Much popular opinion held that she was the leader of the dark forces that was driving the Russian nation to destruction.

He compares this “mental and moral apathy” (Trotsky, 13) to the suffering of the people, invoking an emotional response and showing that the Tzar was unfit to lead. He also recounts statements about the monarch’s personality from those close to the monarchy to build credibility. Some believed that the Tzar’s numbness was due to narcotics, but Trotsky was quick to refute, saying that “the fatal ‘dope’ was in his blood. ”(Trotsky, 13). Trotsky claims that Nicholas II was born incapable of running Russia, which led to the people’s growing unrest.

Kurth, Peter. Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra. Back Bay Books, 01 Nov.1998

The extract argues that the First World War was the most important cause in bringing about the February Revolution. According to liberal historian Figes, it was not only World War One that caused the Revolution but argues that “Nicholas was the source of all problems”. His lack of ability to lead Russia to victory during the war was undermined by his incompetence as a monarch, resulting in the abdication of both himself, his heir Alexis and the outbreak of revolution. While Perrie argues that “it was… key figues who persuaded him… to respond to the Revolutionary events”, Figes states that “For twenty-two years he had ignored the lessons of history, as well as the pleading of countless advisors.” Nicholas’ abdication of his own accord rather

I have married him now, and I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I couldn’t wait for you. I know that ruling over Russia is difficult and time-consuming, but that doesn’t mean that our mutual love cannot triumph the importance of your duty as tsar. I was impatient, angry, and frustrated, and I should have waited for you. I thought that maybe I could get over the pain of a long-distance relationship by taking the risk of giving my heart to another man; I was wrong. My heart is still yours, Nicholas.