Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Tsar nicholas's abdication
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Tsar nicholas's abdication
By Casey Whyte
1. To what extent does the film Nicholas and Alexandra show inadequate leadership that led to the collapse of the old regime? Provide supportive evidence with appropriate referencing.
The film Nicolas and Alexandra portrays inadequate leadership as one of the main causes of the collapse of the old regime. Nicholas was an inadequate leader, the film shows this by portraying him as a man who put his family first, who was too stubborn to appoint a Duma and who didn’t want to be in power. The film implies that this insufficient leadership is what led to the collapse of the old regime however what it doesn’t put enough focus on is the fact that Russia was behind when it came to industrialisation. This too was a major contributing factor that led to the collapse of the old regime.
Tsar Nicholas II was a family man who put his family before the wellbeing of the country. In the Bloody Sunday scene thousands of people were marching to the Winter Palace to request help and protection from the Tsar because he was supposed to be in St Petersburg. However he was not there, he had gone home to tend to his son because he was ill. This resulted in the massacring of approximately 200 people who meant no harm . After his abdication in a conversation with his son Alexi he tells him that he abdicated for him. He tells Alexi, “I didn't want
…show more content…
He was not popular with those who supported the Tsar because he made him look like a “weak autocrat unable to control his wife or hold onto his moral and political authority.” This weak, inept image of the Tsar created by Rasputin is supported by one of his ministers stating that “he did not like to send Rasputin away, for if Alexei died, in the eyes of the mother, he would have been the murderer of his own son.” This shows how great an impact Rasputin had over the Tsar and the
Another accuracy in this movie was the concentration camps in this movie, they were portrayed very well. Just like history, immediately after arriving at a concentration camp, they were split up and divided by gender and age. As soon as they arrived people who the Nazis did not see fit to work were killed. Along with this people
For centuries, autocratic and repressive tsarist regimes ruled the country and population under sever economic and social conditions; consequently, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, various movements were staging demonstrations to overthrow the oppressive government. Poor involvement in WWI also added to the rising discontent against Nicholas as Russian armies suffered terrible casualties and defeats because of a lack of food and equipment; in addition, the country was industrially backward compared to countries such as Britain, France, Germany, and the USA. It had failed to modernize, this was to do with the tsars lack of effort for reforms. The country was undergoing tremendous hardships as industrial and agricultural output dropped. Famine and poor morale could be found in all aspects of Russian life. Furthermore, the tsar committed a fatal mistake when he appointed himself supreme commander of the armed forces because he was responsible for the armies constant string of defeats.
...al events. Some events that happened in the film, didn't actually happen in history. Especially the whole romantic theme, though the scenes with romance helped develop the plot of the film, and to elaborate on the film's themes and message. Although the film seems to be mostly inaccurate, it still held some historical accuracy.
In this instance Nicholas did not understand the magnitude of his people's, more specifically the soldiers suffering while at war with Austria and Germany. Often times the war minister, Vladimir Sukhomlinov, misinformed Nicholas regarding the conditions of soldiers leaving the Russian army without food, clothing and weapons. Through this miscommunication, it left not merely the soldiers without defense, but the country defenseless along with them. As a result, “By the following spring, the shortage had grown so severe that many soldiers charged into battle without guns. Instead, commanders told them to pick up their weapons from the men killed in front lines. At the same time, soldiers were limited to firing just ten shots a day. Sometimes they were even forbidden to return enemy fire” (134). This was just one piece of the puzzle that led to the crumble of the Russian autocracy. Especially considering the fact that everyone could see their efforts for winning the war were dissipating all except for one, “. . . everyone in the tsar’s government knew it… everyone, that is, except Nicholas himself” (135). As shown in this instance, basic misconceptions can begin a ripple effect that has the power to put a country in
...is very historically accurate because the film incorporates, characters private lives, real film and speech, and great filming technuques that highlight the previous two examples.
I can use this source in my research project to defend why Czar Nicholas II is innocent to the abuse of power of the office of Czar.It reveales to me that even thouch Nicholas struggled with being the new Czar he truly did a lot for Russia to improve in learning abilities.Above all else, Nicholas loved Russia first and then his family; He thought the fate of the two was inseparable. No one knew the fault of the Romanov Dynasty better than him. Czar Nicholas sincerely felt his responsibility for the country, He thought that his destiny was within the country he ruled. I think it was really difficult for him but it was the only way to admit his mistakes and to say "sorry" to his people.
...go is quite accurate in it’s portrayal of the facts. Everything from the ideas about the revolution to details on the buildings were historically correct. Names and locations might have been changed, but what they represented is factual. Even though the movie’s focus is on the love story and not the revolution, the details for the revolution seem to be accurate.
The Romanov Empire had reign the Russian Empire for about 300 years before Nicholas II became the monarch. Unfortunately, the new Tsar of Russia was also advised by Konstantin Pobedonostsev, who promoted autocracy, condemned elections, representation and democracy, the jury system, the press, free education, charities, and social reforms; an outdated ideology by the turn of the twentieth century. Although Nicholas II possessed some skills that would have been advantageous as the leader but, overall he was not suitable to be the Tsar of Russia. Even though Czar Nicholas II implemented limited reform that were beneficial for the empire; there were more fiascos during his reign thus lies the collapse of the Romanov Empire on his political skill,
Well you can start off with Russia in 1915 before all the revolutions. Nicholas II, a very incompetent leader, and not the smartest one either during a time of bad economic crisis. So that didn’t help the government at all, not to mention they were fighting in WWI with half of the skilled workers fighting. While fighting in WWI, Nicholas thought that the troops would fight harder if he were leading them. While Nicholas was fighting he left Tsarina Alexandra in charge of Russia. The problem with this is that she made horrible decisions, partly because of Rasputin (a monk, or faith healer), She would hear different sides of the argument and then the last person to talk to her would make her mind up for her. So Rasputin would basically just wait to be the last person to talk to her so that way he could get stuff done in the government. But this earned him a bad reputation and got him assassinated. This would lead to increasing problems and the start of a revolution.
Certain aspects of Tsar Nicholas 2's behaviour definitely contributed to bringing about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say 'weakness in character' we mean being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a firm believer in autocracy; he was virtually unmovable in this belief. And this obstinant belief clearly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had huge influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a result of Nicholas' character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the huge socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the coming about of and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage.
What parts of the movie seem to be historically accurate? What parts seem to be embellished?
The movie was historically accurate mainly in the larger events; the director said 80% of this movie is factual. The Nero Decree by Hitler was factual, as well as the Monuments Men finding the artwork in the mine at Altaussee because of a dentist. While the causes of the deaths were not the same, it is true that only two Monuments Men died in combat (Donald Jeffries and Jean-Claude Clermont in the movie, Ronald Balfour and Captain Walter Huchthausen in history).
The shots rang out and they did not know how to react. The Romanov’s lived a privileged life, being the last ruling family of the Russian Monarchy. They experienced acts of cruelty that no one should have had to endure in their lifetime. There is an abundance of intrigue and mystery behind the story of this family and their untimely deaths. Rumors of affairs and surviving members of the horrible tragedy that befell them plagued the family long after their deaths. The Russian nation was divided at this tough point in history. The tsar, Nicholas II, was partially to blame ("Russian Revolution."). The name Romanov is synonymous with unknown actions and phenomenons that the world is just incapable of comprehending.
Its accurate when presenting the terrifying and woefully sad themes, all of Richard Nixions descion’s, four yearlong bomb campaign and all of the actors they hired. As I already discussed, it’s because of the casting of Haing S. Ngor, it really goes to add a sense of accuracy. Which benefits the overall accuracy of the film. In summary, I do believe the film is accurate to real events. I greatly appreaticate Haing S. Ngor for documenting these events, and feel an incredible amount of sorrow for Pol Pot, Penh and others who had to go through literal
Nicholas II’s abdication was a reaction to the events that had transpired in Petrograd during the February Revolution. Public demonstrations, the formation of the Petrograd Soviet and the defiance of the Provisional Committee to not dissolve at Nicholas’ orders had shown that the autocrat had lost control of the capital. The abdication itself reads as a feeble attempt to unify the disparate elements of the nation with Nicholas using collective nouns such as ‘our’ to reflect on a shared fraternity between all Russians. This in conjunction with his evoking of God and the sanctity of the throne harkened back to the conservative ideal of God, Tsar, and Fatherland. Yet this nostalgic sentiment shown by Nicholas II for autocracy is ironically symbolic of one of the main reasons why Tsarism ended on March 2nd, 1917. His obstinacy to reform due to an uncompromising belief in the Tsar being divinely appointed made him too stubborn to react to the rapidly changing dynamics of Russian society until it was too late.