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
