Tag Archives: Nikolai II

Nikolai and the Abdication

Posted on by

The language used in Nikolai II’s abdication says quite a bit about the man himself. Though he led Russia through a period of strife and turmoil, he uses clever writing and unclear statements to try to avoid being blamed for any of Russia’s issues.

Right from the start, Nikolai is trying to throw blame off of himself by saying, “We” before using his actual name. This promotes the idea that he was not solely responsible for the strife of the Russian people. Following this, in the second paragraph he says, “…it pleased God to send Russia a further painful trial.” when referring to the February Revolution and the unhappiness of the Russian people. He uses this sentence immediately after he spoke of Russia struggling against a powerful enemy in a bloody war, associating the nation of Russia struggling militarily against a hated foe with the “internal troubles” that had begun in Russia. This clearly throws the blame onto the revolution that is forcing his abdication.

Next, he states that the people must, “…conduct [the war] at all costs to a victorious end.” This subtly implies that if the people continue to do that which he began, they will be victorious, and it also implies that the losses that incurred in the war are not due to his leadership or decisions. He continues this by saying that, “The cruel enemy is making his last efforts and the moment is near when our valiant Army… will finally overthrow the enemy.” This clearly implies that Russia is not struggling in the war at all; instead, it tells the reader that the Russian military is nearing victory and that the war will be won because of the leadership of Nikolai.

These are some of the many examples of deceptive language that Nikolai uses in his abdication letter so that he may absolve himself of blame and escape from punishment by the Russian people.

The First Provisional Government

Posted on by

Russia was going through great turmoil in the year of 1917. Pressure was increasing drastically for the Russian tsar, Nikolai II. The people of the nation demanded change and Nikolai could not provide it, drastic change had risen in the years before, culturally and socially. The people of Russia felt great pressure from the way things were being handled; the war had brought economics issues as well as a drastic loss of casualties. The abdication of Nikolai II was a move forward to the future where many thought life would prosper and the First Provisional Government was a critical/crucial opportunity to move forward into the future and to push forward the change that had began to rise years before. The first provisional government was truly beneficial to the social need at the time, Although the First Provisional Government only lasted about eight months, could have it been what the nation needed if it had ran longer, was the future of Russia on the right track with this kind of authority and government. This new government did offer what the people needed; it offered the type of change and innovation to a new way of life. The first cabinet to represent the public guaranteed freedom of speech, amnesty, the removal of restrictions on class, religion, and nationality, arrangement for a Constituent Assembly, a substitution for a people’s militia, and universal and equal elections. The continuation of the First Provisional Government could’ve opened many different doors to the people of Russia as well as a new and different future.

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 Nikolai II

Posted on by

By 1917, Russia’s populace faced a combination of very severe acute food shortages caused by the unorganized and uncontrolled war effort, and social disorder subsequent of several Liberal and revolutionary groups split in their ideas and desires but all dissatisfied with the minimal (or even lack of) reform afforded to them by the Dumas. Nikolai was therefore advised to abdicate, whereupon he drew up a manifesto abdicating his position and naming his brother, Grand Duke Michael, as the next Emperor. Nikolai had not genuinely tried to make any reforms to advance the lives of the general public, with the justification that he did not fathom the outlook or everyday condition of the people and consequently resorted to the Russo-Japanese War and the publication of the October Manifesto as endeavors to maintain the people’s allegiance to him and the autocracy. From Nikolai’s contracted abdication document we are able to see that even at the culmination of the Romanov dynasty, Nikolai had an idealistically optimistic vision of the future. He wrote in his abdication letter, “We call upon all faithful sons of our native land to fulfill their sacred and patriotic duty of obeying the Tsar… and to aid them, together with the representatives of the nation, to conduct the Russian State in the way of prosperity and glory.” This primary source is further evidence that Nikolai did not have a complete awareness of what the underlying problem was and what had gone wrong – the state was not only in chaos because of World War I but a massive social revolution was breaking out. The legislative institution had broken away from the government, more revolutionary tensions and activisms were arising, and the crushed army was motivated by the peasants’ aspiration to obtain land. In a time of anarchy within his State, Nikolai was speaking of an “organized” and “victorious conclusion” of the war. Nikolai’s inability to make decisions is also reflected by carefully worded explanation for not handing his “heritage” to his son (as he had in first abdication letter favored of his hemophilic son Alexei for the “Throne of the Russian State,” over his brother).