How far was Tsar Nicolas II responsible for his own downfall?

In 1917, the collapse of the Tsar, along with his regime, was brought about by a number of factors. Many argue that the Tsar was not responsible for his own downfall, and that factors beyond his control were at play. However, an opposing view may be that the Tsar held a considerable amount of responsibility for his own downfall. Whilst it can be argued that other factors, such as World War One and the growing discontent amongst the social classes, contributed to the Tsar’s downfall, the weight of evidence suggests that the Tsar himself was responsible to a greater extent; as a leader, he was not the most competent.

An important contributory factor to his own downfall was the way that he ruled Russia. His autocratic style was seen by many as repressive, outdated, backwards and corrupt. Tsar Nicolas II believed that he had a divine responsibility to rule; he had been chosen by God. He also believed that he had to imperially rule his people, and that elections, democracy and parliaments would lead to the collapse of Russia. Consequently, many felt discontent and frustration; disillusionment and outrage stirred within the country. Because of this uneasiness within Russia, pressure groups such as the Bolsheviks and the Liberals, seized the opportunity to successfully exploit the discontent created by the Tsar’s inadequacy to rule his country. The Tsar’s obstinance to remain firmly autocratic eventually led to him paying the ultimate price - even more so than the emergence of uneasiness amongst the different classes.

Another crucial factor in the Tsar’s responsibility for his own downfall was his uncompromising nature, and his refusal to listen to the Dumas’ views. The Tsar refused to accept the Dumas’(a legislative body in the ruling assembly of Russia) advice and warnings, such as rejecting their approach of a ‘Progressive Bloc’, which pushed the Tsar towards constitutional monarchy. Additionally, the Dumas suggested establishing a constitutional form of government. The Tsar, true to form, ignored the request. The Tsar’s unwillingness to carry out such requests led to him losing his support from the Dumas. This meant that it was relatively difficult to control the country with no support; the Tsar had alienated the Dumas, and hence the people. Ironically, the pressure would have been removed if the Tsar had agreed to Russia becoming a constitutional monarchy, hence sparing the Tsar his fatal downfall. Therefore it can strongly be argued that the Tsar’s decision to remain inward-looking had caused his own downfall. The Tsar’s indecisiveness and dissent of the Dumas’ ideas played a weighty role in his downfall - even more so than that of the economic and social impacts of the war. 

However, some would argue that the First World War was more problematic, and a more significant factor in contributing to the Tsar’s downfall. During the war, food and goods were in short supply, prices rocketed and the number of war casualties heavily increased. This acute economic and social distress led to the Russian people further losing confidence in their Tsar. Therefore, many in the cities and the countryside, significantly the peasants and urban workers, started to become increasingly hostile towards the lavish nobility, and in particular the Tsar, who continued to live his lavish lifestyle despite the war atrocities and impoverishment of the people. In late February 1917, riots and strikes broke out everywhere. The country was out of control, and the Dumas were asked to keep order. Despite the fact that the war and its effect were certainly a factor in the downfall of the Tsar, it did not play as significant a part as the Tsar’s own lavish lifestyle and his uncompromising and blinkered attitude that had hitherto sowed the seeds of discontent.

Another factor that could be seen as responsible for the Tsar’s downfall was the increase in frustration amongst numerous different classes, particularly the growing unrest amongst the middle class. The middle class began to question the Tsar and the way he was ruling Russia, whilst also demanding power and government control. This was heightened when in 1915, the Tsar went to the Front, leaving his wife, the Tsarina, and Rasputin, a monk, in charge. Together they created chaos within the country, dismissing able ministers and replacing them with less competent ministers who were acquainted with Rasputin. As a result, the middle class became disenchanted with the Tsar’s leadership and support for him was rapidly lost. By the beginning of 1917, few were prepared to defend him. 

In conclusion, the autocratic and imperialistic way the Tsar ruled Russia, along with his disregard for the Dumas and their advice, made a far greater contribution to his downfall than the war and its impacts, which only further stirred up the outrage and discontent that had already pre-existed within Russia due to the Tsar’s own incompetency as a ruler ; it was only the final straw for the Tsar’s downfall. Overall, it can be seen that, even with the frail political and social landscape of Russia, the Tsar was ultimately responsible for his own downfall to a greater extent than any other factor.