Nicholas II
The personality of Nicholas II was unsuited to autocratic and rule and can be said to have contributed to a revolutionary situation. Despite E.M. Halliday’s description of his character as “polite, quiet, often unsure of his opinion and likely to change it abruptly under pressure” as well as having an aversion to “disagreement” and conflict, authors of Reinventing Russia identified Nicholas as a “staunch advocate of autocracy.” This “fatal paradox” birthed from Nicholas’ reverence of his imposing father (Halliday) demonstrated itself in a number of actions: his response to Bloody Sunday, 22 January 1905; relations with the dumas; and assuming control of the Russian armies on 22 August, 1915. At the beginning of the 1905 Revolution, Orlando Figes highlights the Tsar’s destructive order to use military force, resulting in massacre, as “[illustrating] … the extent to which the Tsar had lost touch with reality.” Although Nicholas had been “badly advised” it was “his job to know – and the job of his ministers to advise him” on the situation in the capital. The release of the Fundamental Laws, April 1906, annulling the potential of the First Duma, reflects Nicholas’ resistance to reform, his inability to comprehend its necessity, and disconnection from the urban worker section of the population. Finally, the “flawed” decision to take upon himself the responsibility for the outcome of the war provoked “a unique act of criticism” from Nicholas’ loyal ministers. This was the beginning of the disillusionment of the Tsar’s traditional support base, which, compounded with the Tsar’s disconnection with his people and weak and stubborn disposition, developed into a revolutionary situation.
VIVIAN
VIVIAN