In our article about Tsar Nicholas II, the last Russian tsar, we discussed the article's title of whether he was the wrong man for the time (the original Newsweek article).Some of the class thought that Nicholas was the wrong man for the time b/c:
1. He wasn't very assertive or a strong leader without the confidence or responsibility needed of a tsar - he knew he was going to be tsar eventually, so he should have been learning how to be one even if his father didn't want to teach him;
2. He wasn't active enough during his reign (1894-1917) to stop the swirling forces of modernism nor did he make any real lasting changes for the Russian people - the Duma wasn't a true assembly;
3. Nicholas thought that the bad stuff that happened to him - battle losses, bad advice, deaths in the family, etc. - was God's will, and that we saw in our video, "The Last of the Czars," that he compared himself to Job, God's true believer who endured great suffering.
Others felt that Nicholas wasn't the wrong man for the time (and wondered if anybody could have saved the Russian empire at that time):
1. When he took over the throne in 1894 after his father's untimely death, he was unprepared (mainly b/c his father, Alexander III, thought Nicholas was too soft 2);
2. He and his family were murdered in July 1918 and could not help prevent the Bolsheviks from winning the civil war (as preposterous as it sounds, biographer Robert Massie seems to blame Nicholas for Nazism and WW2, the Cold War and its hot wars like Korea and Vietnam in the last paragraph of his Newsweek essay - see below):
After their murder, the Russian Revolution continued its brutal course. Then
came the rise of Nazism in Germany, the second world war, the subsequent
expansion of communism over half of the globe, the cold war and all its little
hot wars. In the end, it was the destruction of Nicholas, a ruler unable to cope
with modern times, that led to some of the decisive political events--and worst
horrors--of a bloody century (Robert Massie, "The Wrong Man for the Time", Newsweek, July 20, 1998).
3. Nicholas inherited an angry, divided and backwards country from his father, and he wasn't a miracle worker;
4. The tsar's empire (and maybe all empires in general) were old fashioned, and the forces of history like nationalism were tearing it apart;
5. By 1917, the Russian people were at the breaking point w/ all of the food shortages, crushed revolts and failed war effort - it was just a matter of time before a revolution occurred.
Tell me your opinion in 150 words by Monday, February 8.
Sources:
1. A review of Robert Massie's book, Nicholas and Alexandra (2000).
1. A review of Robert Massie's book, Nicholas and Alexandra (2000).
2. Link to info on Nicholas II: http://www.physicsdaily.com/physics/Nicholas_II_of_Russia
3. Link to Alexander Palace: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/index.html
4. Detailed timeline for 1917's Russian Revolution: http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/russianrev.html
32 comments:
I don’t think it really mattered who was the tsar at that time. Nicholas II was the last in a long string of rulers who were becoming less and less effective. He might have been the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. Previous tsars had relied on secret police and other enforcers to help run the government. The bureaucracy had all kinds of problems. The general public was fed up with the system. The people were struggling financially and didn’t have enough food or jobs. The whole situation made it a time for a huge change in power and philosophy. People were desperate and hungry. This made it easier for them to listen to somebody new who promised a better life, more money, more food, and a better government. So anybody could really “sell” a new system, was probably going to be seen as the solution to their problems. Nicholas II didn’t really help things because he was too sensitive. Even his wife was listening to the teachings of a peasant and wasn’t fully supportive of the tsar’s ideas.
Laura S
3rd hour
I think that Nicholas II was the wrong man for the tsar position at that time. As he got older, he should have taken responsibility to learn how to rule Russia. Even though his father died at an earlier age, he was the next person in line to take the throne. Nicholas should have been right next to his father learning. I also believe that he shouldn’t have trusted his wife as much when she was under the influence of Grigory Rasputin. Grigory Rasputin was a false Siberian holy man who scandalized Russia with his sexual antics. Another reason that Nicholas was the wrong man is that he fought against attempts to share power so that he wouldn’t have gotten all the harsh words toward him. Nicholas wasn’t strong enough when it comes to confidence, responsibility, and forcefulness. Also, Nicholas was never active enough to stop the swirling forces of modernism, and the Duma was nothing when it came to helping make decisions and such. Finally, Nicholas used the excuse of “God’s will” for anything that ever went wrong.
Nicholas Kizy
1st Hour
Autumne Parker
1st hour
I think that Tsar Nicholas was the wrong man for the job at the time. Nicholas was quite unprepared for the job of controlling a country. He had no experience whatsoever. Also, at that time in Russia, lots of radical ideas and opinions were being proposed. Nicholas just happened to be ruler when all these ideas were coming up. The fact that he didn’t know how to handle it made the situation even worse. However, the question is, could any ruler had been able to handle the revolution at that point? I don’t believe that would have been possible. There was no turning point for Russia. In addition, no one was even agreeing to Nicholas’s ideas, so switching over the power to his wife wasn’t really all that bad of an choice. It went wrong when she started listening to the Monk. But all in all, Tsar Nicholas was the wrong ruler at that time.
My opinion is that it wasn't exactly Nicholas fault, but he was the wrong man since he decided not to do much. I say this because his father had died suddenly because of his illness and Nicholas didn't know it was coming. He had to take the throne because he was the heir to the throne. the Empire was already crumbing down little by little and there wasn't much he could do anyways. Even though it didn't seem like Nicholas did anything to try and bring it up, But everything he did try to do...it turned out bad. His faith in god was also a reason, He thought that this was what god wanted and that he could not change anything. In my opinion i think he could have at least tried to help the empire and actually try to get his act together. This is why i think Tsar Nicholas was the wrong guy for the job, although, iam pretty sure no one else could have tried to do it either since russia was already screwed up deeply.
-Jithmi
I think that Nicholas II was the wrong man to rule Russia at his time. He was too young,age 26, when he became the tsar. He was the absolute ruler of Russia and had no experience. He was governed by the people. Although he was determined and humble, he failed. He used "god's will" as a scapegoat for his incompelence and corruption. When the Duma and foreign ambassadors pleaded with Nicholas to create a more responsible governemnt, Nicholas sided with his wifes opinion which was one that raepution supported. Nicholas refused to creat this new government. Tsar Nicholas faced military defeat, huge casualties and the breakdown of food distribution, Rasputon was murdered, Nicholas abidicated, the provensial governemnt made up of Duma members and the Boshevik camp d'etat ocurred. He was not prepared to be the tsar and he even said to his cousin, " I am not ready to be the tsar". He also knew that he was going to be the tsar eventually so he should have prepared for this. For example, he didnt really assist Russia in wars and didnt really care about his peoples needs, like the famine. Also, his fathers death happened too quickly and he was probablly still in shock from it. He also was not really familiar with battle tactics either which could have been the reason Russia lost many battles.
After the revolution 1905, Nicholas has failed to solve to solve russias basic economical and social problems. The elected Duma set up after the revolution, who had no real power. The moderates pressed for a constitution and social change but Nicholas II was a weak and ineffective and he blocked attempts to limit his authority. He relied on secret police and other enforcers who to impose his will. Infact, he created the corrupt buereaucracy and a overburdened court system.
Harrison Brode
3rd hour
From what I have learned about Tsar Nicolas II he was definitely the wrong man for the time. First off from the start it seemed like his father knew that he wasn’t strong enough to rule when he was growing up. If that is true then why didn’t he start to prepare him at a younger age? Another reason why Nicolas was not set to rule was because he wouldn’t even take responsibility for anything. When he would lose a battle he would shrug it off and say it was god’s will. Was he stupid or something if your generals are constantly causing you to lose wars then it doesn’t take too much brains to fire them and get new generals! He really did not even try at all to help the people in his country. He really did nothing about it at all. Tsar Nicolas II was without a doubt the wrong man to rule at his time.
Elliott Wolf
1st hour
I feel that Tsar Nicolas II was not the right man during this time. It was pretty obvious that he wasn’t either prepared or ready for the important job. Going into this position, Tsar Nicolas did not have a clue as to what he needed to do. Once his father died, I understand that it was sudden and Tsar Nicolas didn’t know it was coming but, he should have spent his time to observe his father. All along he knew that he was next in line for this position, he should have been proactive and always known what he would do if something were to suddenly happen, such as the death of his father. Because he was not equipped and did not know what his plans were, Tsar Nicholas II shows that he was not, at the time, ready to take this big privilege into his own hands.
-Nona Campbell
Malik Banks
3rd
Blog #14
I’m kind of in the middle on this subject I feel it was his fault but it wasn’t. Nicholas was handed the job at a young age because of his dad dying. I feel he wasn’t in the right state of mind when he was handed the job because of his dad he might not have been ready for that type of responsibility. He and his family were murdered so he could not prevent the Bolsheviks from winning the civil war. But on the other hand he could have been more assertive when he was the leader instead of waiting on everything to happen saying that everything that happened was god’s will. He also never really learned to be a tsar when he knew some day his time was going to come to take over and he still never tried to learn how to be strong leader, but also his father knew he was going to have to take leadership and he never taught him.
I am kind of in the middle on this topic. I don’t think he was the wrong man, but i also don’t think he was the perfect leader at that point in time. I believe Tsar Nicholas II was the right man, but at the wrong time. If he was given the same opportunities as other famous and successful leaders, I think he would do fine as a tsar. Unfortunately, I am not sure even those great successful rulers could rule Russia at this time. It is not his fault he was not a great Tsar. His father did not prepare or train him to be a leader. His father in a way failed him. Any father or mother should have faith and believe in their son. Nicholas had many things against him. Many people around him did not believe in him. People thought his own wife was a German spy (which she wasn’t), and this hurt Nicholas. You could sense regret and/or depression in his letters to his wife. He often described success and failures as G-d’s will. Sometimes, it seemed like the only people he trusted were his wife and G-d. It was without a doubt a hard time to rule in Russia.
_Brett Schwartz_
1st Hour
I think Nicholas II wasn’t right for his position. Russia was already messed up, and years behind the other western powers in modernization, and when he took the throne after his father suddenly died, he wasn’t prepared to fix everything that had built up. He could have done some things to fix the food shortages and instituted reforms, but he refused to give more power to the middle class. If he was the Tsar earlier on, he probably would have been a good one, but at the time he came to power, people were sick of the monarchy, and wanted revolution. He would explain every hardship as “God’s will”, and refused to replace generals. He was also a tool about going against his wife, who was listening to Rasputin and turning the Russian people against the monarchy. All these things show that he wasn’t the right man to be Tsar.
Larry Geist
3rd hour
Tsar Nicholas II was not right for the job of Tsar because he was unprepared and untrained. He was unprepared because his father, who was the previous Tsar, did not teach him the techniques and planning that were needed for being a ruler. His father did not teach him because he thought Nicholas was too soft for the job. Also because of being unprepared he couldn’t help Russia from the economic crisis’s. He made some reforms, but not big or strong enough to last for long. An example of a reform is the creation of the Duma society who approved laws like a national legislature. The forces of the Bolshevik revolution made Nicholas give up on trying to protect and repair Russia. Nicholas thought he was being punished by all the problems from God. The problems included Revolts by lower class people, economy drop, wide spread famine and also the failed war efforts.
-Eric Chan
I do not think Tsar Nicholas II was the wrong man for the time. I don’t think what was going on was his fault. He was unprepared to rule since his father died at a young age and he had to take over so soon. When he took over, there was an old fashioned system in place where was no parliament and no elections. Nicholas inherited the mess of a country from his father, so he didn’t even have a fresh start. I don’t think its fair to say it was the wrong man for the time when that’s a difficult position for anyone to be in. Then, he and his family were murdered so then there was no way for him to prevent the Bolsheviks from winning the war. Russia was in trouble before Nicholas became Tsar, and he was unprepared to take over. It would be a very difficult time for anyone to take over. Since he was murdered before the war was even over, you can’t blame the loss on him. At the point Nicholas came into power, I doubt anyone could of really helped Russia.
Lizzie Davidson
3rd Hour
I think that Nicholas II was the wrong man to be the tsar at that time. Because of his father's early death, Nicholas was unprepared to rule Russia and therefore, didn't rule right. Even though his father died early, Nicholas should have taken responsibility and learned how to rule by staying near his father at all times, instead of not paying attention. During his reign, he also did a poor job of ruling Russia. No decisions he made ever turned out successful and since he wasn't properly taught how to rule, he didn't act assertive or confident. Another problem with him was the trust he had in his wife. During his rule, he would always communicate with his wife, and listen to her advice and opinions. This at first, wasn't a huge threat to Russia, but when she was under the influence of Rasputin, the problems grew bigger. These were some of the issues that proved Nicholas II to be the wrong man for the position as tsar of Russia.
Emily Honet
1st hour
Alesha Lewis
Saying Nicholas II was the wrong man at the wrong time is correct. Some people would probably say he isn’t because they feel sorry for him. He wasn’t assertive enough, his father died when Nicholas was 26, he lost a lot of battles, there were a lot of deaths in his family, and he also was given advice from his wife who was given advice from the freaky priest, also he didn’t make the bad stuff happening, it came to him. Truthfully any man that would inherit that country would be “the wrong man for the wrong time”. But Nicholas should have been under his father wing because he knew he would one day have to take his spot. I also think if he would have done that he wouldn’t have been so weak-minded. He always knew he wouldn’t be able to a good Tsar before it was time for him to become a Tsar, so maybe he siked himself out. Its like before trying out for something and you tell yourself your not good enough, without even thinking about what you could be good at and how you can benefit the team, then you don’t make it. Maybe Nicholas would have made the team if the he tried to have confidence, and at least TRIED to
get advice from the head coach.
I believe that Tsar Nicholas II was not a
good leader. He was too concerned with his personal problems then he was about his fragile, collapsing country. Nicholas let his love and trust of his wife get in the way of his duties. Even though he had alot going on with his family, a leader with that much power needs to learn to balance what they do. It was a very needy time for Russia and Nicholas' excuses about God's will wasn't going to cut it. He relied too much on his personal life to rule his empire and that was exactly what Russia didn't need. Also, he knew someday he'd have to rule and he shouldve been taking note on what his father did. The condition that Russia was in called for the strong leader, and he wasn't that guy.
Maddie Perfitt
1st hr
Nicholas was not right for his position. Nicholas was not prepared for the job of a tsar, which calls for a powerful, stricter, more hands on kind of person. Nicholas was very passive and left everything up to God. God will not make things happen for you and he did not realize that. He was unable to stand up for himself and make actual improvements for Russia. Russia was going through a tough time and when you are going through something like that you need a person who is going to direct you. Nicholas was more of the person who could be directed. Since Nicholas’ father died, and he said he was not planning to give the job to Nicholas, he had no idea what to do. He created the Duma, which had no purpose. It made no changes to Russia, and if it did anything for him it was just stalling time. Nicholas was not a bad person; just a bad tsar.
Caileigh Papp
3rd Period
Tsar Nicholas II was completely the wrong man for the time. None of the reasons given for him being the right man actually do anything to prove he was the right man. In fact, those reasons actually help prove that he was the wrong man for the time. Nicholas II being unprepared, and admitting that he was unprepared, would mean that he was the wrong man. He and his family would not have been murdered if Nicholas II was the right man. Even though Nicholas II inherited an angry, divided, and backwards country form his father, he still didn’t do much. The “right” man may have been able to get somewhere. In 1917, there were food shortages and failed war effort. 1917 was the end of Nicholas II’s reign. If he wasn’t the wrong man, these problems at least would not have been has bad, and he wouldn’t have let these things happen. In the end, there are absolutely no reasons for Nicholas II not being the wrong man for the time.
Austin Lessnau
1st hour
Andrea Kelly
3rd hour
I think that some things were his fault and others were not. One thing that was not his fault was the young age at which he became king. He had not been properly prepared or educated to become king and his impromptu succession came at a time when Russia was angry and divided. Nationalism was separating the country and old fashioned empires could not keep up. At the same time, Nicolas needed to take responsibility for his actions and mistakes. Instead of making up for battle losses, Nicolas would pass them off as God's will. Nicolas wasn't an assertive person to begin with but he knew that some day he would become tsar and therefore should have beeen learning how to lead even if his father wasn't really educating him. It was a mixture of bad timing and poor preparation that left Nicolas with a broken country and crumbling empire.
Emily A.
1st Period
I think that fall of the Tsar was Tsar Nicholas II’s fault. Though his father Alexander III had left his son with an empire in a difficult state to rule, and had not prepared him well for the position, Nicholas still was a poor leader and did not handle the responsibility well. A strategically thinking leader, who can gain the support of the people behind his ideas, really could have changed the course that Russia was on. There have been a lot of leaders throughout history who have taken different situations and have succeeded in making them better. Had the Tsar really implemented the Duma the way that it was originally intended, then the people might have felt much differently about their situation in life. If the Russian people had felt more empowered, they may not have resorted to the demonstrations that eventually lead to Tsar Nicholas’ death.
Lauren Johnson 1st hour
Looking back on all the leaders that have lead Russia Nicholas II was most defiantly the wrong man at the wrong time. Some of the main reasons were that he was a coward, he was unable to make military decisions that would benefit his country, and he just wasn’t ready. I was like sending in a child in to do an adult’s job; it just doesn’t make sense. One of his main signs of cowardliness was the notes that he sent to his wife. He wrote “from your weak hubbey” he admitted his disability to lead the country himself. His own father didn’t even bother to train him because he knew he was to weak and not assertive enough to do the job. Russia needed someone who knew how to give the right military commands, and in the movie we watched it said that he would have been better off not making any military decisions at all. That is why I think Nicholas the II was the wrong man for the wrong time.
I think that Tsar Nicholas II was not only the wrong man for the time but also simply the wrong man. He was not confident, responsible, active, and refused to accept anything as his fault and said it was all God's will that everything bad that happened was because God wanted it to happen. Even though he was 26 or so when he was given the place of Tsar, I don’t think that was a contributing factor. Many of the Egyptian pharaohs were 18 or younger when they were rulers. Nicholas just would never be a good ruler, he didn’t have it in him, and thought too highly of himself. He didn’t know how to rule a country or listen to the people's thoughts. All in all I think that he was not the right ruler for the time and would never be a good ruler at that.
-Eli Jensen
I think that he was he wrong man for the time. He did not take action to learn how to rule when he knew that he was going to be the next tsar. His father probably never prepared him because he did not expect to die young and Nicholas could have taken initiative and gone to learn. Nicholas also blamed all of his errors on that it was god's wish. He could have learned from his mistakes and acted on improving them but he let it fly and this caused his empire to drive deeper into the hole. He should have also acted with an iron fist. Controlling his people and making good decisions with help from other people. All around, he was not prepared and this was partly his fault and he did not try to become more prepared and ready afterwards. Thus making him the wrong man for the job.-David Bellefleur
Jacob Seid
I think that Tsar Nicholas II was the wrong man for the job because he was thrown into the position ill prepared. I do not on the other hand think that it was entirely his fault for his failings. Even though he had the right ideas about guiding people, the mistakes of the people before him set him back. The downfall of the society did make it appear that it was his fault. I think people disliked him not only for his failings, I think they disliked him because he was a weak leader. He was very into gods will but it seemed he had trouble understanding when god told him to get out of his position. Because of this, Russia did not benefit (things like the Duma). It seemed his shortcomings were a waste of time. Tsar Nicholas II was not a bad person, just the wrong person for the job because like they say, nice guys do finish last.
I think Tsar Nicholas II was the wrong man for the job at the wrong time. Even though he was much too young when his father died, and he was forced to take the thrown, he should have trained more for it; he knew one day he would have to take over. Also, everything that was happening to him, all the bad things and hardships he had to go through, he thought it was ‘Gods Will’ and that it all happened because he would get a sort of ‘pay off’ later in life. This is not a good way to lead, because whenever he had a setback, he probably thought to his self “Oh well that was meant to happen” and didn’t look back on it, or try and learn from his mistakes. He was not strong enough for the job, and even though he would be disgracing his family, he should have turned down the thrown for his country.
Kelly G.
I think Nicholas was not ready to be king, and even admitted it. I think it was his fault because it’s like he did not even try to rule. Nicholas kept saying its gods will to rule. But I think that’s just an excuse for him when things go wrong. Nicholas even knew he was going to be tsar eventually, so he should have been learning how to be one even if his father didn't want to teach him. He wasn't active enough while he was ruling to stop the enemies and he didn’t make any real lasting changes for the Russian people. Even though he had to worry about his five children, his wife, and his son’s hemophilia, he could have still taken care of that, and ruled as king. I also think he did not want to rule over Russia, and that probably explains why he didn’t learn from his father. So that is why I think Nicholas was the wrong man for the wrong time to rule over Russia.
Kris C.
I think Tsar Nicholas II was the wrong man for the time in Russia, for many reasons (like the ones we thought of in class). I think this because when the tsar (his father) died, Nicholas was forced to take the throne when he had no experience whatsoever and when he knew he wasn’t ready. He hadn’t been fully trained yet, and he hadn’t been expecting his father to die so suddenly. And, while he knew he probably wasn’t yet ready to take the throne, he didn’t really have the option of not taking it. But, I don’t think it’s only his fault catastrophe occurred when he was tsar. When he came in, everything was already running badly in Russia. So, being that he didn’t have much knowledge in ruling an empire, and the fact that the empire he was running was already being torn apart, he didn’t have much of a chance in succeeding in ruling in the situation he was in.
~Reanna Kathawa, 3rd hour*
Karen De la Rosa
3rd hour
I think that Tsar Nicholas II was just not at the right time because it was when Russia was trying to modernize and his father died to early or at a Young age to teach Nicholas anything about how to rule a country. Nicolas wasn’t a great leader either because he was to weak and was alone to make all the decisions for a very big empire that his ancestors had created. That why he tried to create the Duma, to help him make decisions and even thought I didn't really work because they wouldn’t agree and he still had to make the decisions he at least still tried to make something for the country. I think that it wasn’t his fault that the country started to fall when he was at the frontier, because he left his wife to look after and tell him everything that would happen, but she would rather listen to the things that Rasputin would tell her, and his bad choices cause the country to lose hope and the tsar´s family and the monarchy.
I think that Nicholas was just the wrong man at the wrong time fore the tsar position. I think he should have taken the position when he was a little bit older and more mature he was given the job at a real young age because he thought that his father would live longer. His father didn’t even raise him to be a tsar because he was too soft for the job to rule a country, The empire was already falling down and him being the leader just made it worse because he didn’t help the matters at all and what little that he did try just made things even worse. He could have at least tried a little bit harder to make the country a better place but he was only 26 years old.
~sierra barnes~
Blog#14) Was Nichols the wrong man for the time.
In my view of things no one could have saved the Russian from starting a revolution. His dad did not teach Nichols how to the tsar not because he was too soft but that he knew it was impossible to save Russia and stop the revolutions. He wanted his son to have fun as a kid and not have to worry about his teaching because not matter how much his dad could of taught him nothing was going to help. He is not to blame for what happened if anything they should have blamed his dad for not modernizing Russia.
Dylon Tyldesley
I believe that Nicholas II was the wrong man at the time period. When he was sentenced to be Tsar, you could say that he was at a young age. When you are young you don’t have the mind set as an adult does and you can’t really make up your mind on what you have to do to take control over your country. Right now if I found out I was needed to be the queen of my country, or the new women emperor ( most likely not to happen ) I would turn the job down, because I know that I could not handle the responsibility. When Nicholas II became Tsar he was probably thinking that it was not going to be as hard as it had turned out to be. And I think that once he had started it there was no turning back and he was stuck with it. I don’t think that people should hate him for it because it isn’t his fault that he was made into tsar it was just he was in at the wrong moment in time and I bet that he regrets taking the place of being Tsar.
Rachel S.
I think that Nicholas II was the wrong man for the tsar position at that time because despite his age, he never really learned to rule Russia well. The only reason he took the throne was because his father died at a young age, so the throne was passed down to Nicholas II. He in least should have learned some good skills from him father throughout his life before being the tsar. Also when his wife was under the influence of Grigory Rasputin, I don’t think he should have trusted her. Nicholas also fought against attempts to share power so he wouldn’t be criticized, so he wasn’t very confidant. He was never involved enough to stop the forces of modernism and the Duma was nothing when it came to making any decisions. In my opinion one of the worst acts of leadership was when Nicholas blamed gods will for anything that ever went wrong under his power.
Andrew
War Tsar Nicolas II the wrong man for the time?
I belive that Tsar Nicolas the II was the wrong man. Instead of being strict and being confident he thought that he souldent even be the Tsar.
He didnt give his give down his throne (basscily give somone else to be that tsar) to someone else because he thought that everyone would think he was a coward. I personally think he sould of let someone else be the tsar because when he stuck with being the tsar he dug a deeeeeep hole for russia
~Anthony Lossia~
Post a Comment