Nicholas Raised To Uphold The Strict Principles Of Autocracy

The Last Tsar On March 15, 1917, three centuries of Romanov rule in Russia ended with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II . After decades of social, economic, and political turmoil, the Russian masses rose up against their monarchical leader, fuelled by a hatred for the brutal status quo. At the core of the Russian Revolution of 1917 lay Nicholas II’s inability to compromise in the face of changing social dynamics and his weak leadership, which led to massive defeats during WWI and widespread disapproval. The citizens of Russia, seeing progress made elsewhere in Europe, called for more democratic and Westernized measures to reform Russian government. Therefore, the complete abolishment of the monarchy was not inevitable as some historians have
For his part, Nicholas did not see any grievances or resentment from his people. Letters to his wife, the Tsarina Alexandra, reveal the delight of the “good peasants” as he passed through. Thus, Nicholas’s view was certainly clouded by a belief in his own mythic status and more importantly, the invincibility of it. Indeed, so certain was he that Russia’s success lay in following a strict system of autocracy, that he dismissed any attempts at democratic reform as “senseless dreams.” However, as early as the 1890’s, the shortcomings of the Tsarist regime were becoming clear. For instance, the system of bureaucracy in place did little to alleviate the famine of the 1890s—so bad was the situation that committees were formed by the public to provide aid to starving Russians. Nicholas himself was unable to effectively guide policy in a system that depended on his leadership, which meant that his government “lacked co-ordination, cohesion, consistency and a grand
On January 22, 1905, however, this image would be destroyed after soldiers fired into a crowd of unarmed protestors marching towards the Winter Palace . The protestors consisted of workers, but also women and children, who desired reform in the form of higher wages and better working conditions. This massacre of over a hundred innocents would come to be known as “Bloody Sunday.” The Tsar would even earn the nickname “Nicholas the Bloody” for his readiness to arrest and execute perceived enemies of the autocracy . But even more importantly, the violent shooting of unarmed, peaceful protestors outside “the tsar’s very windows carried immeasurable symbolic significance.” Indeed, the protestors had marched while still viewing Nicholas as their father and carrying his icons and symbols. While historians debate the importance of Bloody Sunday, Alexei Anisin argues that the event effectively stripped Nicholas of his title as “the Father of the People” and ended with the “killing of his greatest supporters… [which] was fatal for the existence of Tsarism as a political discourse.” Thus, it can be surmised that it was not what Nicholas did, but what he did not do, that led to the destruction of the paternal image of the Tsar. Waves of protests would follow; in the month of January, 1905, the largest labour protest in Russian history would see 400,000 protestors go on strike. In hindsight,