Hisotry 2

‘Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in 1917 because he was not a reforming leader and did not respond to changes in Russian Government and society’.

Nicholas II and his abdication can be down to a few points, his lack of performance at being a reforming leader and adapting to the social and governmental changes which were taking place in Russia at the time. But there are also points going against this, in regards to the Stolypin reforms, October manifesto and the strong influence of Rasputin. However the lack of growth and effort to change his views on the social order in Russian society and also the Russian military were his biggest drawbacks in his reign. This lead to his forced abdication after putting no effort or interest in what the previous Tsar set out to achieve with his reforms and strong changes, which ultimately lead to his abdication.

Nicholas II's forced abdication was greatly influenced by his lack of reforming, this affected the Russian government and even more so the Russian society. When Nicholas came into power he wanted to continue the autocracy but was neither trained nor ready for this strong leading role. This took a toll on his ability to lead and his decision making as a Tsar. He held all of the power and every decision was either his or went through him before a final call is made, he held absolute power. It is clear that Nicholas always wanted to stay in control and limit the amount of power that could be given to other; this is clear when the Duma was introduced in the October Manifesto of 1905. He never showed the desire to invest in any of these reforms and this strongly affected the success speed and rate of the reforms being bought to him, this is a major reason for his abdication. Nicholas was never going to be a successful Tsar when he put his personal aims ahead of the great reforms that could modernise Russia and potentially improve his kingdom, but with all of the views he possessed he was slowly reversing Russia and not...