Was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

by hobomobo7345

I've posted about a similar topic before and you're all really helpful, so I figured I'd ask your opinion of this.

Can he be seen as responsible for his own downfall, or can we attribute this to other factors, eg the cunning of the Bolsheviks or social conditions that existed in Russia before he became Tsar?

Also, do you know of any historians who argue that he was responsible for his own downfall? I can't seem to find any :(

Cfx99

I actually had this question, in a slightly different form, on my Russian History final. The question there was: Did the Romanovs, Rasputin or historical forces lead to the collapse of the Tsarist regime. I will try to answer this as best as I can remember from that test (would be awesome if I had kept the test booklet...) Essentially what I stated was that not one single aspect led to the downfall of Nicholas II and the entire Tsarist regime, but if Nicholas wasn't Tsar, no revolution in 1917. Revolution eventually if no change, but not in 1917. So in that Regard, yes.

Nicholas certainly was no help to himself, abandoning St. Petersburg for the front lines (when he was told that was a terrible idea), allowing Rasputin to saddle up next to the Royal family and exert influence on policy thus alienating the Court, and simply not adjusting to the needs of the country. His reign saw the disastrous loss in the Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday and the 1905 Revolt. On paper concessions were made such as the 1906 Constitution, but they were bandaids holding together everything.

There were long term issues that were never fixed, just crushed and buried. The Decembrist Revolt in 1825 practically marks the beginning of the fall of the Romanovs. That was followed by the January Uprising. Alexander II abolished the reforms he instituted under pressure, and Alexandrer III's reign all led to simmering problems between the people and the Government, but not nearly enough on their own to turn the tides. Two attempts at stirring up revolts failed.

That's all I can really remember (with some help from Senior Google), but like I said, Nicholas is truly only repsonsible for his own failures. That they compounded against other problems and led to revolution is another detailed manner. Lenin himself was cunning and led to his Bolsheviks taking over the Menshoviks and the Petrograd Soviet that stepped in during the February Revolution when Nicholas and Alexi (the heir) abdicated. So another point to remember, is that it didn't go Tsar-Bolsheviks/Soviet, there was a Civil War that was fought between February and October in between.