Nicholas II Abdication Essay

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. A key historiographical debate surrounding Nicholas II’s abdication is whether or not the abdication itself was meant to end the monarchy. Nicholas himself

Sarah Badcock notes that the common perception of Nicholas is as a man more concerned with his family than stately affairs. He abdicated in favour of his brother because Nicholas did not want to be separated with his son. Autocracy relies far too much on the ability of a single person that distractions like that of family can prove to be disastrous. Nicholas II’s personality is perfectly summarised by a quote collected by Rex Wade where on the eve of the February Revolution, Nicholas writes to Alexandra of the peace of ‘no ministers, no demanding questions demanding thought’. His disinterest in state matters compared with filial matters is indicative of person not ready or able to be the