• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Russian Best

Russian Life & People Digest

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Questions and Answers
    • History and Politics
    • Culture and Science
    • People and Language
    • Lifestyle and Attributes
    • Russian Sports
    • Food and Drinks
    • Traveling Russia
    • Economy and Geography
    • Russian Military
    • Books & Movies
Browse: Home / History and Politics

To what extent was Nicholas II responsible for the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty?

Question by Cass: To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty?
Details on events and such would be helpful too.
🙂

Answers and Views:

Answer by Spellbound
Nicholas was responsible for many reasons:
The October Manifesto and State Duma had legitimised political parties in the country. But, because of the previous ban and the harsh conditions during Russia’s first push towards industrialisation, the extremist parties had become enormously popular. Notably, the Socialist Revolutionaries and the Menshevik wing of the Russian Social and Democratic Labour Party Centrist parties – like the Kadets, were popular among the middle classes, but the extremist parties had huge support. Closing the first Duma and emasculating it only pushed more people towards the extremes. This, coupled with the spontaneous formation of soviets (councils) across the country eroded the Tsar’s political legitimacy.
The industrialisation policies, begun in the 1880s, had led to millions living and working in huge factories and mines – often sleeping in dormitories, earning very poor wages – they were ripe for extreme politics. The conditions got worse under the second phase of industrialisation begun at the start of WWI. And most of Russia’s drive for industrialisation had happened for state reasons – to manufacture arms and railways, to manufacture textiles for military uniforms and the mines to fuel this industrialisation wee, if not state owned, then state controlled.
The Emancipation of 1861 had not freed the serfs, they had to buy their freedom. This left millions indebted at the start of WWI, Nicholas could’ve freed them all from this debt – he did not.
Nicholas taking personal charge of the army just as they suffered a series of losses caused by his poor decisions made people question his rule, and the purpose of the monarchy.
Finally Nicholas’s inept management of the countries wartime economy meant that when he returned to Petrograd from the front, his support had evaporated, even his most loyal troops, the cossacks, had sided with the revolution.
See:
Roy Medvedev – The October Revolution – this contains a brilliant analysis of the February Revolution.
Mary McCauley – Soviet Politics 1917-1991
http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917february&Year=1917

Read all the answers in the comments.

Give your own answer to this question!

See other posts in History and Politics

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Popular Posts

Pushkin's Tatiana writing a letter to Onegin

Onegin’s Tatiana Was Only Thirteen?

Russian shashlik

My Favorite Russian Food

Dacha – Home Away From Home

Subway Dog

Subway Dogs of Moscow

Cape Cod on the Rocks

What is a cocktail with vodka and cranberry juice called?

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Pat on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • Ted on Where can i send free SMS messages to Russian mobiles?
  • PutinPow on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • bigdogg on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • HAMISH A McDONALD on What Russia would be like today if Nicholas II had not been executed?

Copyright RussianBest.com © 2025 · About · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer: RussianBest.com is an informational website, and its content does not constitute professional advice of any kind.