# data[].attributes.body
this is secondary source about Tsar Nicholas while he was leader of Russia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities or the desire to rule Imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II. The young Nicholas could not have been less like his father: he was short, shy and softly-spoken, by all accounts a good student of above average intelligence but hardly imposing or intimidating. Those who met the young Tsarevich described him as pleasant and likeable but otherwise unremarkable - hardly the traits of a man ordained by God to rule Russia. As a youth Nicholas had joined the imperial cavalry and attained the rank of colonel. Nicholas also had the opportunity to travel widely, at one stage suffering an assault by a Japanese national while visiting Asia, leaving him with bitter feelings towards Japan.

Nicholas famously expressed reluctance about taking the throne, declaring that he "never wanted to rule". But tradition overcame his personal concerns: Nicholas later pledged to uphold the autocracy bequeathed by his father and to preserve the monarchy for his own son. Nicholas had several good qualities: he loved Russia, he had a strong sense of duty and a stilted affection for the peasantry. But he was also blindly conservative, elitist and racist. Raised in a sheltered world and kept at arm's length from the Russian population, Nicholas held a twisted view that rebellion and revolutionary ideas were the products of dark forces. In most cases, he attributed them to fractious students or, more often, Russia's five million Jews. Nicholas was at least partly responsible for the creation of the anti-Jewish hoax The Protocols of the Elders of Zion; he was willing to provide moral and financial support to reactionary and anti-Semitic groups like the Black Hundreds. Nicholas was also an imperialist who associated territorial expansion with success and glory. The ill-fated forays into Korea that triggered the Russo-Japanese wars were largely his doing, ordered against the advice of his ministers and generals.

Conventional historiography, steeped in liberal Western animosity towards communism, has tended to portray Nicholas as a pathetic figure: a victim rather than a failure. He was a politically weak and short-sighted ruler who was undermined by a domineering wife, a society in transition and a world war that fractured the pillars of tsarism. A more realistic study reveals a leader who was more responsible for his own fate than is often suggested. Nicholas was out of touch with his people but no more than other monarchs of his era. Very early in his reign, he resolved to follow his dead father in upholding and reinforcing the autocratic monarchy. Confronted with some glaring warning signs in 1905 - a humiliating military defeat, a frozen economy, political violence and an outraged people - Nicholas ignored them all, promising reform but doing so with no sincerity. When he signed the April 1906 Fundamental Laws, Nicholas might as well have signed his own death warrant.

"As tsarina, Alexandra cut an awkward figure. Her chief characteristics were her Victorian insistence on 'good works' and her religiosity. She had been schooled according to the strict, self-denying values of her grandmother [Queen Victoria]. Her attempt to introduce sewing circles among the ladies of the Russian high aristocracy underlined her eccentricity. Alexandra balanced her alien characteristics with a mania for the Russian Orthodox Church. She had the enthusiasm of the convert (in her case, from Protestantism). Her tendency to mysticism and spiritualism was not unusual for the time... St Petersburg was a magnet for religious cranks and faith healers, some of whom were taken in by high society."
Jonathan Bromley, historian

Nicholas' wife was Princess Alexandra of Hesse, like her husband a grandchild of Queen Victoria of England. The marriage between Nicholas and Alexandra was unusual for several reasons. Few wanted the pair to marry, including both Alexander III and Queen Victoria herself, who despaired when she learned that Alix (as Alexandra was known to those around her) had become engaged to the Russian crown prince. Victoria's fears turned out to be justified. Unlike most royal marriages of the 19th century, the union between Nicholas and Alexandra was based on love rather than political convenience. They wrote sincere and passionate letters and addressed each other with a list of nicknames, including "Sunny", "Lovey", "Spitsbub" or "Pussy-Mine". They preferred spending time away from the hubbub of St Petersburg, either at their palace in Tsarskoye Selo, 20 miles outside the capitol or their Crimean resort on the Black Sea coast.

The royal couple pined for a son to ensure the longevity of the Romanov dynasty. Their concerns were eased in 1904 when after four daughters - Olga, Maria, Tatiana and Anastasia - the tsarina gave birth to the royal couple's only son Alexei. Within months, however, it was clear that the Tsarina had passed onto her son the defective gene that causes haemophilia. Several European royals endured this deadly burden. Haemophilia was carried by women but its symptoms only affected males. Haemophilia prevented blood from clotting naturally. It placed its sufferers at serious risk of a fatal haemorrhage, even the most insignificant cut, scratch or bruise. Very few haemophiliacs lived into their 30s; most died in childhood. Knowing she had given her son this fatal gift, even while suffering no ill effects from it herself, tortured Alexandra for the rest of her days.

The Tsarina is best remembered for helping to discredit the Romanov dynasty in its final war-ravaged months. Her husband's timidity and trust in Alexandra meant that he was susceptible to her suggestions and her nagging. Alexandra herself was politically strong-minded but largely ill-informed, the kind of partner that such a weak ruler didn't need. A convert to the Russian Orthodox faith, she was devout in her worship and a firm believer in her husband's divine right to rule. Alexandra's letters and nattering reinforced Nicholas' belief in the old ways, talked him out of reforms or concessions, and turned him against the few men who might offer him sensible advice. She also filled the tsar with confidence and assurance in his personal leadership which Nicholas simply didn't have. The tsarina's maternal care for her children, particularly her son, was intense - but her judgement in allowing Rasputin into the royal court, then following his advice without question, contributed to the growing revolutionary movement in Petrograd. Finally, her decision-making in the last weeks of the regime - when she dismissed riots by starving workers as a "hooligan movement" - were indicative of the misjudgements and mismanagement in her husband's reign. Though Alexandra was not the callous demon suggested in some propaganda, her actions certainly contributed to the death of her husband's dynasty.

1. Nicholas II, the last Tsar of Russia and the son of Alexander III, took the throne swearing to preserve the autocracy.

2. He was intelligent and well-travelled but lacked both the demeanour and foresight to rule at a time of unfolding change.

3. He was also religious, conservative and thought problems in his regime were the work of conspirators.

4. Nicholas' wife Alexandra was a German-speaking princess. They married against the wishes and advice of others.

5. Alexandra was devoutly religious and strong-willed: her association with Rasputin and her political advice and influence on Nicholas during times of crisis contributed to the downfall of tsarism.

© Alpha History 2018. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn, John Rae and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn et al, "Tsar Nicholas II" at Alpha History, https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/tsar-nicholas-ii/, 2018, accessed [date of last access].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nicholas II, the last tsar of Russia, had neither the qualities or the desire to rule Imperial Russia. Born in Tsarskoye Selo in 1868, Nicholas was the eldest son of Alexander III, the fearsome tsar who had reimposed autocracy and oppression on the Russian empire after the murder of Alexander II.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zyc72hv/revision/7

# data[].attributes.headline
AN AMERICAN EDITORIAL ON BLOODY SUNDAY (1905)

# data[].attributes.subject
AN AMERICAN EDITORIAL ON BLOODY SUNDAY (1905)

# data[].attributes.body
Nicholas bad dude, killed many,
is considered to have been a relatively poor leader.causing many Russians to feel oppressed.

# data[].attributes.headline
AN AMERICAN EDITORIAL ON BLOODY SUNDAY (1905)

# data[].attributes.subject
AN AMERICAN EDITORIAL ON BLOODY SUNDAY (1905)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On January 23rd 1905, the New York Times responded angrily to news of the Bloody Sunday shootings in St Petersburg:

DAY OF TERROR IN THE CZAR'S CAPITAL

Troops slay women and children with men.

Writing, on Saturday, of the coming events which were casting ominous shadows before them we remarked that it was superfluous to look beyond the morrow, for the morrow would suffice, in all probability. to throw some light upon the question of the future evolution of Russia.

Little, however, did we think what was destined to happen in St. Petersburg yesterday. That the Tsar would refuse to receive the petition of the strikers, or pledge himself to grant any of their demands, was a foregone conclusion; that the approaches to the Winter Palace would be barred by the troops was practically certain; that collisions would occur between the multitude and the military was likely enough and that blood would be shed.

But we do not suppose that the most pessimistic of prophets or the most sensational of scribes seriously believed that a general massacre of the people would be ordered and carried out. and that, so far as is known without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. We need not enlarge upon the awful scenes which were enacted, and which, according to the latest telegrams, are still being enacted in the capital of Russia. It is enough to say that the victims were numbered by thousands - 2,000 killed and 5,000 wounded seems to be the most generally accepted total - and that these consisted of men, women, and children - even babes in arms.

The troops (doubtless carefully selected) did their butcher's work, for the most part, without reluctance at first: and, when once the blood gets into men's eyes, appetite grows with what it feeds on so that obedience seems to have developed into alacrity. The scene was admirably adapted for the bloody drama. St. Petersburg is a city of vast spaces and of wide, straight streets - an ideal city for huge crowds to gather in - and also for large bodies of troops to work their will upon them. The Cossacks can charge down the broad thoroughfares, or the guns can sweep them, with perfect ease...

That being so, St. Petersburg is the easiest city in the world to suppress a popular rising in; there are no narrow, tortuous streets in which every separate house is a fortress, in which resistance can be obstinate and prolonged. St. Petersburg can never be a city of barricades. albeit they say that the strikers are endeavouring to erect them. No: now that the crucial question of the obedience of the troops to orders has been answered in the affirmative, there can scarcely be any doubt as to the triumph of authority -'for the time being. The victory has. virtually, been won: the cause of reform in Russia has been, for the moment, drowned in the blood of the reformers.

It remains, however, to be seen whether the defeat of reform may not be only the prelude to the victory of revolution. Who is the victorious general? To whom does autocracy owe its sanguinary triumph? To the Grand Duke Vladimir, uncle of the Tsar, who was charged with the responsibility for dealing with the people of the capital yesterday. He has long been known as an austere man, with no sympathy for the people or their wants, and a convinced believer in the policy of main force in all its brutal simplicity.

The Grand Duke has not belied his reputation: he has won for himself in a single day, a place in history, a notable niche in the temple of eternal infamy. Like all the rest of the House of Romanov (save one stripling who took, they say, his harem with him to Manchuria and was ordered home in disgrace) the Grand Duke Vladimir has deemed discretion the better part of valour. Unlike the Japanese Imperial House - which has sent seven of its members, we believe, to fight on land or sea for their country the Romanov have stayed at home, to mismanage the campaign in which the common herd have fought and died.

And now the crown and coping-stone of completeness have been set upon a record which, inglorious before, has now become infamous. And what shall we say of their Chief, of the Head of a great military monarchy, the "Gospodar Imperator" himself? Where was the Tsar yesterday? His children had come to seek him - him, the Father of his people - to tell him their wrongs and to crave his paternal help. They believed in their Tsar, did these simple folk; they believed him to be a good, kindly man. with a wife and babes of his own. They thought, in their simplicity, that, if they could only pierce the cordon of officialdom, and speak to their Father face to face, they would not speak in vain.

They were mistaken - woefully, terribly mistaken. The Tsar was - where was he? Nobody seems to know for certain. Most probably he was not in his capital at all, but at his palace of Tsarskoe Selo, having given the supreme command to the one man who he must have known, would make short work of petitions and petitioners.

For days past it has been the care of the authorities to conceal the whereabouts of the Tsar, to announce that he was in one palace when, in fact, he was in another. At all events, no one knows where the unhappy Sovereign was, or what he was doing, while his uncle was butchering his helpless people. It is the self-effacement of Nicholas II that is the most shameful feature of the most shameful day in the history of Russia.

On such a day, if ever, it was the duty of the Russian Autocrat to prove himself a man and a Monarch - every inch a King. Nicholas II has not done that, and by his failure he has dealt a more serious blow to the principle of Tsardom than all the revolutionaries in Russia have yet dealt it. For by his conduct yesterday, the Tsar has destroyed forever the popular conception of himself as the Father of his people. Never again will he be regarded as the fount of justice and mercy, the righteous Sovereign, perhaps misled by evil counsellors, but longing to do the right thing, if he only knew where the right lay. What will be the outcome of the day of blood which St. Petersburg has just gone through there is no man may dare to say. But this at least is certain, that among the dying people there died a great idea - the people's idea of their Tsar. That sacred image has been broken by the fire of Vladimir's savage soldiery. The Tsar has shattered his own icon."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An American editorial on Bloody Sunday (1905)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On January 23rd 1905, the New York Times responded angrily to news of the Bloody Sunday shootings in St Petersburg: DAY OF TERROR IN THE CZAR'S CAPITAL Troops slay women and children with men.

# data[].attributes.headline
THE BOLSHEVIK MILREVCOM SAYS IT HAS SEIZED POWER (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
THE BOLSHEVIK MILREVCOM SAYS IT HAS SEIZED POWER (1917)

# data[].attributes.body
'Peace, bread & Power'
Telling people they got power

# data[].attributes.headline
THE BOLSHEVIK MILREVCOM SAYS IT HAS SEIZED POWER (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
THE BOLSHEVIK MILREVCOM SAYS IT HAS SEIZED POWER (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following proclamation was issued by the Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Committee (Milrevcom) on October 25th 1917. It was later read to Soviets, gatherings of workers and military battalions:

"We have deposed the government of Kerensky, which rose against the revolution and the people. The change which resulted in the deposition of the Provisional Government was accomplished without bloodshed.

The Petrograd Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates sincerely welcomes the change and proclaims the authority of the Military Revolutionary Committee until the creation of a government by the Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates.

Announcing this to the army at the front, the Revolutionary Committee calls upon the revolutionary soldiers to closely watch the conduct of those in command. Officers who do not join the accomplished revolution immediately and openly must be arrested at once as enemies.

The Petrograd Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates considers this to be the program of the new authority:

First, the offer of immediate democratic peace.

Second, the immediate handing over of privately owned land holdings to the peasants.

Third, the transmission of all authority to the Council of Workmen's and Soldiers' Delegates.

Fourth, the honest convocation of a Constitutional Assembly.

The national revolutionary army must not permit uncertain military detachments to leave the front for Petrograd. They should use persuasion, but where this fails they must oppose any such action on the part of these detachments by force without mercy.

The present order must be read immediately to all military detachments in all arms. The suppression of this order from the rank and file by army organisations is equivalent to a great crime against the revolution and will be punished by all the strength of the revolutionary law.

Soldiers! For peace, for bread, for land, and for the power of the people!"

Signed,
The Military Revolutionary Committee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Bolshevik Milrevcom announces it has seized power (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The following proclamation was issued by the Bolshevik Military Revolutionary Committee (Milrevcom) on October 25th 1917. It was later read to Soviets, gatherings of workers and military battalions: "We have deposed the government of Kerensky, which rose against the revolution and the people.

# data[].attributes.headline
BOLSHEVIK DEMANDS ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
BOLSHEVIK DEMANDS ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.body
this is a primary source of the day that the Bolsheviks prepare for the overthrow of the provisional government. The leader of the Bolsheviks Lenin Vladimir issues a series of demands from he Bolsheviks.

# data[].attributes.headline
BOLSHEVIK DEMANDS ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
BOLSHEVIK DEMANDS ON THE EVE OF REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On October 24th 1917, as the Bolsheviks organised and prepared for the overthrow of the Provisional Government, Lenin issued a series of Bolshevik demands:

"The Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates must at once take every practicable and feasible step for the realisation of a socialist program.

The Bolsheviks demand a republic of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates; abolition of the standing army and the police, substituting for them an armed people; officials to be not only elected but also subject to recall and their pay not to exceed that of a good worker.

Sole authority must be in the hands of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates. There must be no dual authority. No support should be given to the Provisional Government. The whole of the people must be prepared for the complete and sole authority of the Councils of the Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates.

A constituent assembly should be called as soon as possible, but it is necessary to increase the members and strengthen the power of the Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates by organising and arming the masses.

A police force of the conventional type and a standing army are absolutely unnecessary. Immediately and unconditionally a universal army of the people should be introduced, so that they and the militia and the army shall be an integral whole. Capitalists must pay the workers for their days of service in the militia.

Officers must not only be elected, but every step of every officer and General must be subject to control by special soldiers' committees. The arbitrary removal by the soldiers of their superior officers is in every respect indispensable. The soldiers will obey only the powers of their own choice; they can respect no others.

The Bolsheviks are absolutely opposed to all imperialist wars and to all bourgeois Governments which make them, among them our own Provisional Government. The Bolsheviks are absolutely opposed to "revolutionary defence" in Russia. The Bolsheviks are against the predatory international treaties concluded between the tsar and England, France, etc., for the strangling of Persia, the division of China, Turkey, Austria, etc.

The Bolsheviks are against annexations. Any promise of a capitalist Government to renounce annexations is a huge fraud. To expose it is very simple, by demanding that each nation be freed from the yoke of its own capitalists... The Bolsheviks refuse to leave to capitalist Governments the task of expressing the desire of the nations for peace.

All monarchies must be abolished. Revolutions do not proceed in fixed order. Only genuine revolutionaries may be trusted.

The peasants must at once take all the land from the landholders. Order must be strictly maintained by the Councils of Peasants' Delegates. The production of bread and meat must be increased and the soldiers better fed. Destruction of cattle, of tools, etc., is not permissible...

The fraternisation between soldiers of the warring countries, at the front, must be encouraged; it is good and indispensable."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bolshevik demands on the eve of revolution (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On October 24th 1917, as the Bolsheviks organised and prepared for the overthrow of the Provisional Government, Lenin issued a series of Bolshevik demands: "The Councils of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Delegates must at once take every practicable and feasible step for the realisation of a socialist program.

# data[].attributes.headline
LENIN CALLS FOR AN OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
LENIN CALLS FOR AN OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.body
This is a primary source which was written by Vladimir Lenin a week prior to the October revolution. Lenin wrote this to several of his other Bolshevik comrades. The purpose of this source was to convince them of the advancement of overthrowing the Provisional Government.
This is seen when he says...
I will use this source to ...

# data[].attributes.headline
LENIN CALLS FOR AN OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.subject
LENIN CALLS FOR AN OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A week before the October Revolution, Lenin wrote to several other high ranking Bolshevik comrades, advancing the cause for overthrowing the Provisional Government:

"[Critics of an immediate revolution say] 'We have no majority among the people, and without this condition the uprising is hopeless'... Men capable of saying this are either distorters of the truth or pedants who... wish to secure an advance guarantee that the Bolshevik Party has ....one-half of the votes plus one. History never makes these guarantees, particularly not in a revolution. To advance such a demand is to mock one's audience, and is nothing but a cover to hide one's own distance from reality.

For reality shows us that after the July days, the majority of the people quickly went over to the side of the Bolsheviks. This was demonstrated first by the September 2nd elections in Petrograd - even before the Kornilov affair, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 20 to 33 per cent in the city, not including the suburbs. And also by the elections to the borough councils in Moscow in September, when the Bolshevik vote rose from 11 to 49 per cent... It was proven by the fact that a majority of the peasant Soviets... has expressed itself against the coalition. To be against the coalition means in practice to follow the Bolsheviks...

The most outstanding fact in the present situation is the revolt of the peasantry. Here there is an objective passing over of the people to the side of the Bolsheviks, shown not by words but by deeds. Notwithstanding the lies of the bourgeois press and its miserable henchmen... and their wails about pogroms and anarchy, the fact is there. The movement of the peasants in Tambov province was an uprising, both in the material and political sense, an uprising that has yielded such splendid political results... And what has the Kornilov affair proven? It has proven that the Soviets are a real power.

And now, after this has been proven by experience, by facts, we shall repudiate Bolshevism, to deny ourselves and say: we are not strong enough. Are these not shameful vacillations?...
[They say] "We are becoming stronger every day. We can enter the Constituent Assembly as a strong opposition; why should we stake everything?" This is the argument of a philistine who has "read" that the Constituent Assembly is being called, and who confidently acquiesces in the most legal, most loyal, most constitutional course. [But] by waiting for the Constituent Assembly, one can solve neither the question of famine nor the question of surrendering Petrograd. This is forgotten by the naive or the confused or those who have allowed themselves to be frightened.
The famine will not wait. The peasant uprising did not wait. The war will not wait..."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lenin calls for an October Revolution (1917)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A week before the October Revolution, Lenin wrote to several other high ranking Bolshevik comrades, advancing the cause for overthrowing the Provisional Government: "[Critics of an immediate revolution say] 'We have no majority among the people, and without this condition the uprising is hopeless'...