Tag Archives: Abdication

Nikolai II: Two Little Too Late

Posted on by

The document detailing Nikolai’s abdication in 1917 shows to readers that the tsar either possessed a very poor grasp on reality or that he couldn’t bear to really tell the Russian people why he chose to abdicate. In the opening of his abdication, Nikolai remarks that ‘it pleased god to send Russia a further painful trial’ (( http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.k.harrington/abdicatn.htm l)). This frame of thinking completely neglects the real reason Nikolai abdicated–namely that his subjects felt angry and didn’t see him as a fit tsar if he couldn’t (and wouldn’t) change with the times and create liberal-minded policies to appease the general public.

That being said, it’s important to look at his family history in order to fully understand why he chose to be a reactionary monarch, rather than a proactive and forward-thinking one. Members of the Narodnaya Volya assassinated Nikolai II’s grandfather, Alexander II, a great reformer. Nikolai II’s father, Alexander III, adopted reactive tendencies upon ascending to the throne, presumably in response to his father’s violent death.

While there’s a chance that Nikolai didn’t know precisely why he failed as a tsar, it seems unlikely that he would know so little about the feelings of Russians in the time. Rather, did he want to change and make reforms, but felt too afraid to actually follow through with them in the end? Did his grandfather’s death, the death of a reforming tsar, frighten him into not providing the Russian people with the reforms and privileges they so desperately wanted?

Abdication of Nicholas II

Posted on by

A close analysis of primary texts is often helpful in understanding particular political and personal perspectives. Certain phrases and word choice in Czar Nicholas II’s official abdication highlight tensions present in 1917. Nicholas II chose phrases such as “sons of Russia” and “sons of our native land” to emphasize the folk and political ideology of the Czar as a fatherly figure to his citizens. This relationship, whether personal or political, requires a commitment of respect and obedience, since honoring one’s fathers and mothers was a significant and important cultural and religious value in Imperial Russia. This sentiment is further reflected when Nicholas II wrote “we call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar.” The Czar’s paternalistic rhetoric contrasts sharply with the Revolution’s community-oriented rhetoric, which used words such as “brotherhood” and “comrade.” This shows that the values and ideology driving the Revolution were founded in a sense of equality and community.The parent-child ideology perpetuated by the Czar comes with a sense of unequal power – an antithetical position to his opposition.

However, Nicholas II’s word choice also exhibits Revolutionary values and it is with this that the Czar implored Russian citizens to “conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” He also used words such as “foreign enemy” to illustrate the severity of a Revolution in the midst of an international crisis and the need for unification against it. The Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich also took up Revolution rhetoric when he claimed that he was “animated by the same feelings as the entire nation – namely, that the welfare of the country overshadows all other interests.” He called for elections to determine whether the monarchy should continue, an act that shows his respect for the values of his opposition.

Abdication of Tsar Nicholas II (March 15, 1917)

Posted on by

Author- Ruled from 1894- 1917, during his rule there were many military encounters (loss of the Russo- Japanese War, World War I involvement that caused 3.3 million Russian deaths), during his rule the 1905 Revolution occurred which created the 1906 Russian Constitution known for limited the power of the monarchy and instating the Duma, violence towards those politically opposing him (ex. supporters of 1905 Revolution)

Context- Abdicated after being imprisoned in him home with his family during the 1917 February Revolution
Language- Talks up the victory of Russia and its greatness, uses language to make it seems as if he willingly and by his own volition decide to abdicate for the good of Russia
Audience- A declaration to the people of Russia over the change in power, one last message to prove that he governed for the good of Russia and should be perceived that way in memory, asks the people to abide by the new ruler who he named (Mikhail Alexandrovich, who would lead along with the Provisional Government)
Intent- To formally abdicate and remove himself from power, to potentially save his life and those in his family from the violence of the revolutionaries holding them, to pass leadership to his brother (who found out about being the successor- rather than Nicholas’s son who he initially chose- through this declaration)
Message- Nicholas was making one last act of good for Russia (he “owed to our people the close union and organisation of all its forces for the realisation of a rapid victory” in WWI along with their allies), Russia would be victorious and that the people should continue to support and have faith in the Russian government by supporting the newly selected leader

Socialism and Battleship Potemkin

Posted on by

While watching the film, Battleship Potemkin (1925), directed by Sergei Eisenstein, I found it so interesting how it mimicked the Russian Revolution on a small scale. One of the first lines of dialogue was “We must stand in front of revolution”. This line came from one of the sailors and, in my opinion, was the most defining line in the movie. It represents the crucial role the working class played in not only this movie, or even in the revolution itself, but in socialism as a whole. With this, I can completely understand why this movie goes down in history as one of the best propaganda films of all time.

The movie centered around sailors uprising against the unfair treatment by the captain and his men and the disastrous aftermath in the town of Odessa. There we see the Tsarist regime massacring the city after coming together to pay their dues to the dead soldier. It is also really interesting to me how the film represented the Tsar relinquishing power. At the end, when the enemy could’ve fired at the sailors, they did not. It’s almost as if they knew there was nothing more they could do to suppress the inevitable. Similarly, in “Abdication”, the Tsar is relinquishing his power because the people are revolting due to concerns for their own welfare and disdain for the regime. With the way the Tsar was portrayed in the film, it seems absolutely reasonable that the people are calling for a revolution and moving towards communism. Grand Duke Mikhail, who accepts power from the Tsar, explains how he will rule based on “desire of the people”. It’s intriguing to see the progression of not only the people’s want for socialism, but the leader’s eventual move towards it as the revolution grows.

The entire film is about the revolution coming from the working class. Lenin’s “What Have I Done?”, is also entirely about how the revolution will come from the working class. Several times in the film we hear things like “All for one, one for all!”, and even more appropriate, “All against one, one against all”. The movie so cleverly encompassed very important aspects of socialism.

In Dark Continent, Mazower speaks about an end to “lawlessness and social anarchy through decisive state action” (p.11) , as seen in the film. The people do not want to be prisoners of their own government. I thought the main theme was portrayed perfectly of how the bourgeoisie would be no more, and that the working population will be invested in in order to unify the nation. Mazower agrees on page 12, where he talks about how priority was now given to the masses. Socialism seemed to work in Russia, as portrayed by both Mazower and the Battleship Potemkin, because the Tsarist regime (and liberal regime) failed to work. 

An aspect of the film I found really very compelling were the subtle religious references. The first being the biblical inscription on the plate a sailor smashed, which I think may have represented socialism’s disdain for religious because it divides a nation. Perhaps it could’ve also represented the class division, since they were not fed off of those plates.  The second was a anti-semmetic comment which fits the time period. However, the crowd was outraged at the comment further insuring that there is no room for inequality.