1

HISTORY EXTENSION ESSAY

QUESTION:
How have interpretations of Tsar Nicholas IIs role in his own downfall changed over time?

ESSAY:

eon Trotsky viewed Nicholas II as being a charmer without aim, without will, without imagination and worse than all the tyrants of ancient and modern history

(Trotsky 1930). Throughout the last one hundred years Nicholas II has been hated and viewed as weak during his reign by well known historical figures as Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin coupled with members of his own court; namely Felix Yusopov. This legacy continued during the Soviet era, through propaganda spread by its government. However in the west there is much debate as to Nicholas' role in his own downfall. Traditionally, historians such as Alan Moorehead and W. Bruce Lincoln maintain the view of Nicholas being a weak man prone to domination by his wife, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and her advisor, Rasputin. As stated by Russian Prime Minster during Provincial Government "Without Rasputin, there could be no Lenin" (Kerensky). However in more recent years contemporary historians such as Dominic Lieven, Robert Massie and Edvard Radzinsky show Nicholas in a more sympathetic light, as being merely a victim of the irreversible circumstances at a time when revolution was inevitable. "By the beginning of the 20th century, St Petersburg was restless place of unsettled aspirations, and immense wealth.alongside grinding poverty and despair, this view is arguably backed up by Trotsky who stated " Nicholas II inherited from his ancestors not only a giant empire, but also a revolution" (1930). Coming out of the Russian Revolution into the early 20th Century, a critical view of Nicholas has been championed by prominent historians as Alan Moorehead and W. Bruce Lincoln.

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

Their critique focus mainly on the last Tsars decisions, weak will and susceptibility to be dominated by other figures in his life, namely, the Tsarina Alexandra, Rasputin, his ministers and mother, the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna. Moorehead argues that Nicholas was a weak manand there was no strength in him for compromise. Lincoln backs these view up saying that Nicholas II had an inability to make firm decisions which cause him to be overwhelmed by the statesmen further stating that it was his indecisiveness that lead to his eventual downfall. Other major critiques include his decisions concerning the events surrounding the Khodynka Tragedy where 1,300 people died immediately following Nicholas' II coronation as a result of a human stampede. Nicholas was persuaded by his Uncles to continue with the French Embassy ball planned for the night of the tragedy much to the disgust of his people. Nicholas' weak will is a matter of much debate amongst historians, especially surrounding the events of the Russo-Japanese War. "An investigation of the role of Nicholas in the Russo-Japanese War points up this problem, for what emerges is a complex, enigmatic personality". In the earlier half of the 20th Century, many of the traditional historians viewed Nicholas as being indecisive and dominated by his various ministers. However upon deeper investigation, Raymond Esthus highlights that Nicholas' actions in the war reflected a "stubborn resolve to defend the honor and worth of Russia" in a time where "a country's strength was measured in her ability to hold colonies". It was Nicholas' view that by engaging Japan in a war, he was pushing Russia's influence into the far East or a "crusade for civilization". Many of Nicholas' ministers and even his own mother pressed for Nicholas to stop the campaign, however he refused. In the words of Sir Richard Pares "The idea that he [Nicholas II] was weak must itself be qualified. We find him to refuse to oblige even his mother....he defends himself firmly against some of her criticisms of his policy". Nicholas' resolve to continue the campaign against Japan goes directly against the "weak" trait often attributed to his character. Russia's loss to Japan in the war however turned the tide of the

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

Tsar's popularity. Although evidence shows he had the strength and will enough to stand up to his ministers and continue fighting , the results of his stubbornness however, resulted in a Tsarist regime with declining popularity. Leon Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution present an early soviet view of the Tsarist regime, as well as the political climate of Russia at the time of the revolution. The aspect that is of most interest in this extensive record is his view of the Russian Tsar and Tsarina. Trotsky asserts that Nicholas II did not possess "one quality which would have made him capable of governing an empire or even a province or a county." Trotsky presents an account of the Tsar that focused heavily on his weak will and hopelessness in his office of Emperor. He used excerpts of his diary to illustrate his point of the Tsar being completely naive to the dire situation July 7. Friday. Very busy morning. Half hour late to breakfast with the officers ... Trotsky also focused heavily on the Tsarina and her dominance over the tsar. Trotsky uses accounts given by other people to back his own view of the unpopular Tsarina Moral restlessness, a chronic sadness, infinite longing, intermittent ups and downs of strength, anguishing thoughts of the invisible other world, superstitions was the view of the French ambassador to Russia. The early communist approach was to see Nicholas as a weak, pathetic man incapable of ruling the vast Russian Empire, as opposed to the cruel tyrant that his image mutated into under the Stalinist rule. However when we look at the Tsar's own accounts of the events of his reign, we see a different perspective. The Bloody Sunday massacre of 1905 occurred following a peaceful demonstration for a constitutional government in which between 100 and 3000 people were shot dead (according to conflicting sources). Following the massacre (of which the Tsar was not responsible), Nicholas recorded in his diary "A painful day. There have been serious disorders in St Petersburg because workmen wanted to come up to the Winter Palace. Troops had to open fire in several places in the city; there were many killed and wounded. God, how painful and sad". This response

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

to the events show the Tsar as sympathetic and not the bloodthirsty tyrant as the soviets viewed him. Access to the Tsars personal diaries was only made publically available after the collapse of the soviet union, giving rise to a more sympathetic approach to the Tsars reign. However more contemporary and recent views portray the Tsar in a more sympathetic light stating that Nicholas II was merely a victim of circumstance, ruling an restless population at a time when revolution was inevitable "Revolutionary talk....was a tradition in Russia from the Decembrist uprising of 1825". Historians including Robert Massie, Edvard Radzinsky,

Raymond Esthus, Dominic Lieven and Meriel Buchanan support this view. Historian, Christopher Read from the University of Glasgow states that One of the positive consequences of the growing debate was that it laid the foundations for a more complex interpretation than that of the wicked tsarism and a heroic, near-faultless opposition. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been a shift in the views of Nicholas II. This is due to the decreased censorship of political material in Russia and wider acceptance of varied opinions. Many historians have begun to take into account the political climate in which Nicholas the II was born into and how there were mass problems beyond his control. Lieven notes that "The basic dilemma facing Nicholas II was that it was impossible to ignore the demands either of the external military security or of internal political stability and that these demands pulled hard in opposite directions" . Like his predecessor, Alexander III, Carolly Erickson states that Nicholas II had been taught that "he was the immortal Tsar of Russia who should repress all liberalization" however she also notes that his "personality did lend itself to being willing to adapt to the social, cultural and political changes taking place in Russia" although in the eyes of his ministers this was viewed as "weak from a political standpoint". It was this weakness that was perceived in Nicholas that caused shifts in the political standpoint, and support away from the Tsar in favour of liberalisation.

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

In regards to western perceptions, the media has taken a much more superficial approach and focused heavily on the more romanticised accounts. This was especially true during the mid 20th Century following the accounts given by pretenders to being Anastasia, the 'long-lost' Grand Duchess and daughter of the Tsar. The most notable of these was Anna Anderson. Anderson was a German women with a history of mental illness. Her claims, although refuted by some, were also accepted by many who claimed close acquaintance with the Grand Duchess, such as Cecilie of Prussia, although Cecilie's family later stated that she was suffering from Dementia at the time. The claims made by Anderson sparked a reinterest in the last Tsar. This is seen through the various media depictions such as Nicholas and Alexandra (1971) and Anastasia (1997). These highly inaccurate and heavily romanticised accounts resulted from the uncertainty surrounding the fate of the Romanovs and a belief that some possible descendants of the Imperial Family might still be alive. After the Tsar and his family were murdered, the bodies appeared to have vanished. There was a great number of theories to suggest that at least one member of the Tsars family had survived. However since the fall of the Soviet Union, the discovery of the Romanov remains in 1991 and the DNA evidence that proves that all members of Tsar Nicholas family were murdered, interest in a nonfactual account of the Romanovs fate declined. As a result of this shift, historians have begun to take a more factual approach to Tsar Nicholas reign, free from any political or social bias (such as Soviet censorship and western hopes of a Romanov survivor). This means that historians are now able to formulate their own opinion of whether or not Tsar Nicholas was an effective ruler and the role that he played in his own downfall. An example of the shifting views and ideologies of the post Soviet Era on Nicholas II is shown by Edvard Radzinsky, as he presents a more sympathetic view of the rule of Tsar Nicholas II. This view focus' heavily on his personal life and love for his wife and family. The reason that Radzinsky was able to write in detail like this was due to the recent collapse

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

of the Soviet Union and opening of nearly all the Romanov records for use by the general public. This opening has enabled Radzinsky to access the private communications between the Tsar and his wife, as well as photos and documents pertaining to the private life of the family and those close to the family. Radzinsky grew up in the Soviet Union and was thus exposed to the growing discontent amongst the population toward its governance in the later part of the 20th Century. Most importantly it presents the Tsar in a sympathetic light, contrary to most of the views in Soviet Russia, using primary sources and original views of the Tsar as opposed to politically or motivated intention, to either villainise or romanticise him. Media perceptions of Tsar Nicholas derive mainly from the romanticised view of their fall from power and the controversy surrounding their death. It is due to these accounts that the west viewed Tsar Nicholas II in a sympathetic light. However another contributing factor that drove this sentiment was the distrust of the Soviet Union by the west during the Cold War period. In the case of the film Nicholas and Alexandra (1971), western media depicted Nicholas II as, despite being an incompetent ruler, a man who loved his wife and family. The movie focused heavily on his relationship with his wife, whilst relatively ignoring his poverty-stricken surroundings, opting instead for a more epic luxurious depiction of St Petersburg at the time. Another contributing factor to the extensive historical inaccuracies arises from the director looking for dramatic effect as opposed to fact. Historian, Robert Massie wrote Nicholas and Alexandra (The book on which the movie was based) without a lot of the firsthand accounts of the tsarist regime that was kept under censorship by the soviet government of the time. However Massie did have access to a lot of documents in the west pertaining to the Imperial Family, as well as eye-witness into the families private affairs. An example being Pierre Gilliard, who was the Tutor of Tsarevich Alexei. In the eyes of Gilliard it was Alexeis haemophilia that was the main cause of the Tsars downfall stating that The

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT

illness of the Tsarevich cast its shadow over the whole of the concluding period of Tsar Nicholas IIs reign, and alone can explain it. This idea is backed up by fellow western historian, and author of The Fall of the Russian Monarchy, Sir Bernard Pares, who declared that On August 12, 1904...took place the event which more than anything else determined the whole later course of Russian history. The book provided the west with an account of Nicholas IIs reign that was purely from a non-Russian perspective, yet at the same time provides valuable insights into various views of the Tsar from different parts of tsarist society. Both historians claim the main reason for the fall of the Tsar be attributed to his sons Haemophilia This tragic view of Nicholas, by Massie stems from his reasons for writing the book. These reasons predominately arise from Massies own son being born with Haemophilia. Massie however states that historians admit Nicholas was a good man, but they argue that personal factors are irrelevant and what matters is that Nicholas II was a bad Tsar. The source as a whole shows that despite Nicholas being a bad Tsar, there is strong evidence of personal charm, gentleness, love of family, deeply religious faith and strong Russian Patriotism. It is these qualities that ensure the admiration and view of Nicholas as merely being a tragic figure of circumstance by recent historians.

*Conclusion* - and I haven't authored/dated all quotes yet

Daniel Hickinbotham

History Extension

AJT