Tzar Nicholas II - Downfall of Russia :: Russian Russia History

Tzar Nicholas II - Downfall of RussiaIt was Tzar Nicholas 2 governingal naivete and extreme mulishness that led to the downfall of the RussiaCertain aspects of czar Nicholas 2s behaviour definitely contributed to saving about the fall of the Russian Empire, however most of these qualities were not weaknesses in character as such, they were qualities we would associate with poor leadership. When we say weakness in character we loaded being easily influenced/controlled by others. Nicholas himself was a buckram believer in autocracy he was virtually unmovable in this tactile sensation. And this obstinant teaching distinctly illustrates he stuck to his beliefs, although in his early years as tsar his uncles had colossal influence. That said, the fall of the Russian Empire was not all a forget of Nicholas character and poor leadership qualities, we must also see that the ample socio-economic changes happening as well as the outbreak WW1 hugely influenced the approach about o f and the timing of the revolution. These changes would be hard for any government to manage. Nicholas 2s firm and obstinant belief of his commitment to autocracy can be clearly seen in a letter of reply he sent to a great(p) zemstvo head before his coronation. I shall maintain the principal of autocracy however as firmly and unflinchingly as it was preserved by my unforgettable all of a sudden father (Alexandra 3)(Nicholas & Alexandra, Robert K. Massie). His ultra-conservative governmental outlook was influenced greatly when a child Tsar Nicholas was educated by the reactionary tutor Konstantin Pobenonstev, enemy of all reform. If on that point were any doubts about Nicholas belief in autocracy they would have been border to rest. Pobenonstev was once called The Highest Priest of Social Stagnation. He once declared, Among the falsest of political principles is the principle of sovereignty of the people. In his early manhood Nicholas lived the support of an idle socialite uni nterested in the affairs of state, he found government meetings boring and uninteresting. As he had never taken a liking to political affairs he was underprepared to take the throne, this fact along -with his stubborn belief in autocracy- also goes a long way to explain his political naivete in many of the difficult situations he toned. Was this unwillingness to face the political realities due to him being blinded be his obstinate belief in autocracy or was it just that he was politically nave? Throughout his rule as discontent rose Nicholas still believed that he still had the support of all his people save for a bracing of undesirables.