Clearly, Nicholas had no knowledge of the world of men, politics or government. His ultra- conservative political outlook was influenced greatly by his reactionary tutor Konstan (Ferro 1991 p 39). He only recognised an inherited belief in the moral rightness of the autocracy and a religious faith that he was in Gods hands and God inspired all his actions (Weiler).
So, Nicholas was heavily under prepared to take the throne, he only knew that he had to hold a stubborn belief in autocracy. This probably goes a long way to explain his political naïveté in many of the difficult situations he faced.
The Tsar had announced that he would change nothing his ancestors had built. His opinion of liberal forces such as Zemstvos was that of indifference and irritability. The scholar Ferro (1991 pp 42) observes that Nicholas was incensed that the State should clash with the powers he possessed. Hence the liberals came to the conclusion that they could expect nothing from Nicholas.
Russia was in a very difficult and troubled time. Unmet class expectations and perceived social inequality contributed to the peasant’s hatred of the Tsar. The peasant world was stirring, the capital more indifferent than ever (Ferro 1991 p 44). Russia's industries were beginning to develop and the number of people living in towns was increasing. These people were the urban working class of Russia and were not eager to accept the poor wages and conditions. The scholar Mc Donald (1989 p 3) connotes that Alexander II failed to adjust to the changing social circumstances. Most historians blame the individual monarch for the situation Russia was in.
When Nicholas became Tsar, he was quick to heed advice from others, as he would continue to do through out his rule. It seems that the advice given to him was always weak, poor and corrupting of Nicholas’ power. Nicholas first confided with Grand Duke Vladimir, his eldest uncle. The scholar Van der Kiste (1998 p 6) recounts the advice given: “Changes would be required, but there is no need to hurry.” Valdimir also recommend that Nicholas follow his father’s policy blindly and of course Nicholas followed obediently. One could argue that this advise was backward looking and severely misguided. Vladimir did not think much of the Tsar, ill advising him at will and bullying him as he liked (Weiler).
Nicholas had differed from his father when he took Russia to war with Japan. Alexander III despised armed conflict. In the 1904 war against Japan, Nicholas had folly dreams of becoming the Emperor of the East (Ferro 1991 p 68). It was an ‘ill – fated, ill – advised attempt at expansion’ into the East that resulted in ‘total humiliation (Weiler). Though the Russian army was many times larger than the Japanese, it was hampered by inadequate railways and poor leadership (Brooman 1986 p 10). The defeat of Russian forces led to the revolutionary events of 1905.
In 1904 Plehve, internal affairs minister, tabled a crude democracy (Van der Kiste 1998 p 170). Soon Nicholas was loosing faith in his advisers (not because of the loss at war) but because they were advising him to loosen his autocracy (Ferro 1991 p 69).
The real starting point of revolutionary activities was the January 9 1905 protest which became known as 'Bloody Sunday'. The protest was a large crowd bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched towards the winter palace in St Petersberg . This crowd went with the hopes of presenting the tsar with a petition which attacked the exploitation of the people by capitalist factory owners and demanded a series of measures designed to improve the workers position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they had suffered. The tone of the petition seemed to be one of loyalty to the tsar, appealing to him to sort out their difficulties. One can argue that this protest showed the unshaken confidence in the Tsar as a source of charge and initiative. Although this confidence did not last long as the response to this protest was for the troops to open fire on the crowds. Even though the Tsar was not in the winter palace at the time and hadn't ordered the troops to fire the popular image of the Tsar was eroded as was the structure of tsarist regime (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/788.php).
The liberals became worried about the deterioration of the nation. They proposed a democratic parliament of sorts; however Nicholas continued to be annoyingly dogmatic about his autocracy. It is suggested by the scholar Ferro (1991 p 92), through examination of Nicholas’ diary entries that he was confident he could convince the liberals that the autocracy was in the best interests of Russia. He seemed to be more concerned about mutinies at sea.
After consistent pressure from liberals and advisers, Nicholas produced the October Manifesto, granting Russia a Duma and other freedom. The main aspects of it were to 'provide to the population unshakeable foundations of civil liberty on the principles of true inviolability of person, freedom of conscience, speech, assembly and association' .and a state Duma that would be elected on an indirect vote from certain sections of the population ().
Some liberals accepted the Manifesto but others (in particular the organized workers) were preparing for a revolution to displace the Tsar completely from Russian politics. Ferro (1991 p 94) suggests that Russia’s history was thence at a turning point; never before had there been a division between those rising against the autocracy.
1905 was the first stage in a process leading to 1917 but suffered the interruption of WW1. The poor Russian war effort probably only strengthened the revolutionary causes. The October manifesto resulted in regrouping of an organized and aggressive extreme Right. The Tsar knew that a challenge on the autocracy was being mounted. To avoid this, Nicholas made an amendment to the law, now stating that he held supreme power in Russia. He was ‘inviolable and scared’, becoming the head of all Government bodies (Ferro 1991 p 108).
Between 1906 and 1913, under Prime Minister Stolypin’s regime, Russia was promoting industrial development and industrial growth. The war effort put a drain on resources and labour. This coupled with rash decisions by the Tsar, at war let to an unprecedented ministerial revolt. The government was looking forward at the coming catastrophe but Nicholas continued to only ignore them (Weiler).
His fatal decision to go to the front to command Russian troops in WW1 proved to be a catalyst for the revolution; he left behind him in Petersburg his wife Alexandra and the mysterious ‘man of god’ Rasputin. Alexandra’s power was manipulated by Rasputin who was able to influence her to the extent that he was appointing ministers and incredibly incompetent ones at that. The only criterion was that the ministers should support Rasputin.
The fact that Alexandra and Rasputin were interfering so much in government matters led to Nicholas’ support fading among the nobles, officials and army generals. This was probably a weakness in character for Nicholas that he had let Rasputin; through Alexandra wield so much power. But Rasputin was an incredibly cunning man and was able to do something special to Alexis so was it weakness in character on Nicholas’ part or was it that Rasputin was so smart and cunning that he could not be stopped.
The 1915 defeats, replacement of the head of the army by the Tsar, the resource crisis in Russia, the war machinery crisis in the front lines, incompetence of Alexandra and the ‘holy monk’ Rasputin ruling in Russia all stirred up revolt amongst even the higher classes (Ferro 1991 p 171).
Through the final years Nicholas managed to alienate most of his traditional supporters in the upper class. The scholar Van der Kiste (1998 p 187) also notes that by September 1916 deep divisions within the imperial family were occurring. Nicholas had lost interest in everything but eating and surviving. With Alexandra’s increasing influence over government policy, made largely by the soon to be murdered Rasputin, Nicholas became increasingly isolated from the family. The Tsar refused to form a popular government – this can be seen as another example of his political incompetency. If he had managed to keep a united upper-class the 1917 revolution might have been avoided. His ultra-conservative outlook prevented the emergence of a stable middle class and a liberal type government.
There were other factors that contributed to the revolution. There were massive socio-economic changes taking place, some of which led to the recomposition of the upper-class and an urban bourgeoisie (http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/3318.php). It created a new class of factory workers, the urban working class, mostly peasants moved to the city, and who now worked in shocking conditions. With the outbreak of WW1 the Russian economy had to produce everything itself. After Turkey entered the war on the German side cutting off the last realistic trade route, this led to food shortages which contributed to the growing discontent among workers who were already deeply anti-government (Weiler). Nicholas did make the decision to go to war which can be seen as a catalyst for accentuating discontent.
CONCLUSION:
One must remember that the Russia Nicholas inherited had weaknesses in its social structure. The bulk of the population was peasantry and they were having the hardest time. The time was right for revolution
Bibliography
Brooman, J. (1986) Russia in War and Revolution, Longman
Ferro, M. (1991) Nicholas II The Last of the Tsars Viking Press, London
The text provides an in depth, involved analysis of Nicholas’ personal, social and political life. It is a scholarly discussion written with pain staking detail. Everything from official Government documents to personal diary entries are considered to draw appropriate and balanced conclusions.
It is probably the most useful source included in this bibliography. A wider perspective of the individuals involved is given than in the other sources. Its reliability is very high though it is by no means a totally objective, encyclopaedic text. Though where opinion is given, it is backed up with full explanation and reasons allowing the historian to draw his or her own conclusions.
Mc Donald D Russia’s Old Regime, Document of Victorian Teachers Association
Simpson, J. et. Al (1996) Problems and issues in the Modern Issue, OUP
Van der Kiste, J. (1998) The Romanovs 1818 – 1959, Sutton Publishing, Thropp
Weiler
