Why Is Tsar Nicholas II's Failings

“The February Revolution was entirely due to Tsar Nicholas II’s failings.” How far do you agree or disagree? (25 marks.)

Tsar Nicholas’ autocratic rule over Russia placed him in a position of personal responsibility over the country’s political, social, and economic affairs. In light of this, it should be argued that the discontent leading to the revolution of February 1917 came as a direct result of the Tsar’s weaknesses.

On the one hand, there is evidence to challenge this statement. It can be said that upon his death, Nicholas’s father Alexander III handed his son a poisoned chalice. Alexander’s domestic policies, which included attempts to homogenise the deeply multinational Russia into a country which spoke a single language and had

a single religion, had already led to an intense distrust of the monarchy. Therefore, it can be argued that his father’s reign had already tipped Russia past the point of no return, and that any of Nicholas’s attempts to win over his people would be futile. Hence, the disdain for the autocratic monarchy which led to the revolution of February 1917 can be seen as having been cultivated not by Nicholas II, but by his father Alexander.

Another reason that Nicholas II was not entirely at fault for the revolution was due to the role of the Tsarina Alexandra and Rasputin. Alexandra’s unwavering loyalty to Rasputin, whom she believed had been sent by God to save the Tsarevitch Alexis from haemophilia and thus save the Russian throne, led to her continually excusing his notorious excesses. The pair was politically incompetent, choosing to dismiss seasoned ministers in favour of friends who performed poorly. Thus, the situation in the cities deteriorated rapidly, with supplies of food and fuel declining further. Her inability to govern paired with her liaison with Rasputin damaged the Tsarina’s reputation both at court and in the public, and the higher echelons of society were distrustful of the Tsarina’s leadership. Thus, it can be said that the Tsarina’s incompetent rule and the influence of Rasputin were major factors leading to the discontent which sparked the revolution.

On the other hand, there are many factors which support the idea that the February Revolution was entirely the Tsar’s fault. For example, it can be said that his poor decisions at the time of war contributed massively to growing public discontent, such as his decision to leave the country to lead the army from the front in September 1915. This decision made him personally responsible for subsequent military failures, of which there were many, such as the loss of 200,000 men in the Battle of Tannenberg in 1915. The growing casualty lists led to a general disillusionment of the Russian people. Peasant families were being torn apart by the conscriptions of fathers, uncles, and sons, the majority of whom would never returned from the front, and the majority of the population grew to resent the Tsar for his incompetence as a military leader, further eroding support for the Tsar.

Furthermore, the February Revolution can be argued to be Tsar Nicholas II’s fault because of his political mismanagement of the country.

While the Tsar had allowed the creation of a legislative Duma following the 1905 Revolution, it is clear that he refused to relinquish any of his autocratic powers to it. An example of this is his refusal to replace his largely ineffective cabinet with a ‘Ministry of National Confidence’ led by members of the Progressive Bloc, a side-group of the Duma consisting of Russia’s progressive parties. This in turn led to the Progressive Bloc becoming a focal point of political resistance, and meant that the Tsar would never again have the support of the political parties which could have supported a constitutional monarchy and the continuance of the Romanov

dynasty.

Finally, Tsar Nicholas II’s failings caused the February Revolution due to his economic mismanagement of the country.

The most prominent example of this is his appointment of Sergei Witte as Finance Minister, whose economic reforms hit the peasants and working classes the hardest, leading to growing resentment. Witte not only increased state taxes and taxes on everyday items such as salt, kerosene, and alcohol, but kept urban workers’ wages low so that all available capital went to industrial development. This was supposed to lead to huge industrial growth, but following the international slump in 1902 and bad harvests in 1900 and 1902, peasants were pushed past their breaking points. The periodic famines suffered by peasants combined with grievances such as poverty and high taxes led to widespread violence in which the homes of landowners were looted and burned. This economic mismanagement further increased the suffering of the lower classes and thus led to a growing hatred of the Tsarist regime, which ultimately led to the strikes which began the February

Revolution.

This essay has argued that Tsar Nicholas’s position of absolute power gave him a personal responsibility over the country’s political, social, and economic affairs, and that his failures in managing these ultimately led to the February Revolution and the end of the Romanov dynasty. While the roles of Tsarina Alexandra and Rasputin were definitely key in increasing the people’s anger, it must be remembered that had the Tsar not decided to lead the army from the front, the Tsarina and Rasputin would never have had the opportunity to lead Russia and make disastrous political decisions. Additionally, while it cannot be denied that Nicholas II was indeed handed the poisoned chalice of an exceptionally difficult task, his predecessor cannot be held accountable for any of the decisions Nicholas II made during his reign. Overall, it must be argued that the Tsar’s position of absolute authority also places him in a position of absolute responsibility, and it is for this reasons that it must be argued that the February Revolution occurred entirely due to the Tsar’s failings.