The Contribution of Nicholas to the Collapse of Tsarism
Summary:
By the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was a backward and antiquated agricultural society. A great part this problem was due to Nicolas II's inefficient leadership of his country. But the main problem was that the entire system of absolute autocracy and very nature of the social structure was fundamentally flawed'. The flaws of Nicholas and Tsarism and the role he played in his demise
By the beginning of the 20th century, Russia in comparison to other countries was "in every way a backward and antiquated agricultural society." A great part this problem was due to Nicolas IIs inefficient leadership of his country, though we can not overlook the originally flawed Tsardom and it's corrupt beaucracy and chuch. These organisations increased the gap between the wealthy and the poor, creating havoc in Russia where stikes, rebellion and violence from the workers were rife. Perhaps it was for these reasons why so many believed in the Marxist theory that "communism was inevitable."
Nicholas inherited the role of Tsar at the age of 26 when his father Alexander III died. The position of Tsar not only meant wealth, but unlimited and absolute power where "God himself commands his supreme power be obeyed." All laws emanted from him, yet despite such power Nicholas wasn't able to reform Russia. This was because he was indeed a weak figure who admitted himself "I am not prepared to be a Tsar... I know nothing of the business of Ruling." This was evident as he attempted to "uphold the principle of autocracy as firmly and undeviatingly as did my late father." By imitating Alexender III, Nicholas allowed little development and change for his country and oppressed his people to live in a severly backward society.
As Nicholas also trained as a solider in his youth, he willingly used violence, executions and exilement to control the rising social discontent. His secret police The Okhrana and the cossocks implemented these oppressive measures to control anyone who fought for better life or change against the old regime. This was a dangerous method of ruling a country as Nicholas never deals with the problems of his country, instead allowing the social injustice to become greater and greater - as Custine states "I fear the explosion."
Nicholas incompetence in dealing with problems or even acknowledging any problems suggests an inadequate leader. His inflexiblity on change was also a great attribute to his and Tsardoms demise.
Despite the failure of Nicholas II leading his people to reform, it's of important to realize that Russia was already admist a flawed system where the peasants and proletartiats were severly oppressed by the privilege-promoting social stucture. Thus Nicholas not wholly the reasons for Russia's problems prior to 1917.
The social heirachy oppressed the poor who not only worked for most of the hours in a day, but for low wages and unsafe work conditions. Because the corrupt beaucracy and church, who has always had a dominate effect in the lives of deeply religious russians peasants, peasants grew poorer and poorer as they funded the church, nobles and upperclasses who lived an luxurious life. This was deeply disturbing as many peasants were sticken by immense poverty, denoted in a an foreigners account of peasant (95 % of the Russias populations) lifestyle"having soup... by boiling water with chopped-up hay - simply for having something hot."
It's evident that Russian society prior to Nicholas reign was already struggling. As a leader is crucial in the well fare of a country, especially an autracratic monarchy such as Russia, Nicholas role as Tsar was vital for Russia reform. Unfortunately Nicholas wasn't a strong leader and ignored the critically important economic, social and political problems of Russia. Perhaps if he used his power efficiently and was interested in assisting his people from social injustice instead of repressing them, only then might Russia have found some stabilty
This is the complete article, containing 575 words
(approx. 2 pages at 300 words per page).
