How Far Is It Accurate to Say That Nicholas the Second Was Personally Responsible for the 1917 Revolution

483 Words2 Pages
How far is it accurate to say that Nicholas 2nd was personally responsible for his own downfall in February 1917? It can be argued that as a leader, Tsar Nicholas the 2nd was responsible for his own downfall due to his involvement in worldwide affairs like ww1 and his own personal mistakes throughout his reign over Russia. Things such as his family orientated approach to ruling effecting his stature as the “little father” or his failure to combat the German problem. However it can also be suggested that Nicholas did in fact have a mostly successful rule and prior problems such as land, the peasants and a poor economy presented problems which would be there long after his reign. Nicholas’s decisions in things such as the war and internal affairs were at the best poor. One of the main factors in the downfall of Nicholas 2nd was his lack of reform. Throughout the course of his reign he had many opportunities to implement improvements in areas such as the government, social welfare for the peasants and the working class. His attempts to improve things but still hold onto as much power as possible, led to him deceiving his people through the nobles holding onto power and his self-elected and so called democratic dumas. This was made possible by him controlling the majority of the dumas funding meaning he could deny a new law by limiting their financial strength. Not only did he offer too little reform but in the case of the working class, he offered none at all. By doing this he sent a message of deception to his people which therefore lowered the support towards him. Another way in which he personally created problems for himself and Russia was his choice to leave Petrograd and appoint himself as commander in chief of the army. He did this to show his strength and bravado yet by doing this he allowed himself to become personally responsible for any and all military
Open Document