What Is Nicholas II A Failure In Russia
In the lead up to World War I, Russia faced many problems. Millions of Russian citizens were living in abject poverty, and many felt that Tsar Nicholas II was a weak and ignorant leader who added to (instead of minimized) their struggles. These feelings of dissatisfaction culminated in the Revolution of 1917, in which the tsarist regime was overtaken by Vladimir Lenin, leader of the communist party. Despite the fact that the casualties that Russia faced in World War I added to unrest, in reality it was Nicholas II’s weak leadership and poor decisions that truly sparked revolts and the desire for change.
First and foremost, the Russo-Japanese war led to a shortage of resources and decreased trust in Tsar Nicholas II, both of which paved the …show more content…
Many people believe that the extreme casualties of war left the Russian people hopeless and angry, and that this inspired revolution. While it is certainly true that military failures contributed to the people’s unrest, the fact remains that in taking control, Nicholas II assumed complete responsibility for these failures, as well as abandoned his people in their time of greatest need. Therefore, the tsar, not the war itself, should be held accountable for the revolution. Indeed, Nicholas II “remained oblivious to the disorganized state of his government and the high public dissatisfaction with the war,” and as a result, “street demonstrations broke out in the capital, Petrograd” in March of 1917 (“Nicholas II” 3). Evidently, what led to revolution was not the war itself, but rather Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule. Leaving his subjects with his incompetent wife in charge meant that he no longer had any control over Russian society, and his people subsequently saw him as the man who deserted his people to send countless Russian men to their graves. Furthermore, the quote proves that the people revolted only because they were unhappy with their leader’s continued ignorance and the toll that it took both on and off the battlefield. While a loss of life is to be expected in war, bad leadership is not. The Russian people knew this, and they revolted because of
First and foremost, the Russo-Japanese war led to a shortage of resources and decreased trust in Tsar Nicholas II, both of which paved the …show more content…
Many people believe that the extreme casualties of war left the Russian people hopeless and angry, and that this inspired revolution. While it is certainly true that military failures contributed to the people’s unrest, the fact remains that in taking control, Nicholas II assumed complete responsibility for these failures, as well as abandoned his people in their time of greatest need. Therefore, the tsar, not the war itself, should be held accountable for the revolution. Indeed, Nicholas II “remained oblivious to the disorganized state of his government and the high public dissatisfaction with the war,” and as a result, “street demonstrations broke out in the capital, Petrograd” in March of 1917 (“Nicholas II” 3). Evidently, what led to revolution was not the war itself, but rather Tsar Nicholas II’s inability to rule. Leaving his subjects with his incompetent wife in charge meant that he no longer had any control over Russian society, and his people subsequently saw him as the man who deserted his people to send countless Russian men to their graves. Furthermore, the quote proves that the people revolted only because they were unhappy with their leader’s continued ignorance and the toll that it took both on and off the battlefield. While a loss of life is to be expected in war, bad leadership is not. The Russian people knew this, and they revolted because of