Tsar

To what extent was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall?

In 1917 Tsar Nicholas II abdicated power. This was due to a number of long and short-term factors. When Nicholas came to power he was faced by a number of problems such as a poor industry, a large diverse population and repression of the peasantry. Nicholas believed in the autocracy, but had very few leadership qualities; also increasing western ideology gave a growing left wing opposition hope and right wing opposition due to the failures of war made Nicholas abdicate.  

Nicholas was a very poor Tsar as he lacked leadership and strength in his rule; this meant that many problems were not dealt with efficiently.
  * Did not trust ministers
  * Suspicious of change
  * Continued repressive policies- growing, organised opposition
  * Russification- alienated minority groups
Nicholas’s traditional values and poor leadership meant there was little social change to Russia and growing western ideology in Russia meant that left wing opposition was starting to form against the Tsar, however Russification meant that the majority of peasants still supported the Tsar.

The autocratic system in Russia meant that the Tsar had complete power and could not be challenged as long as the Tsar had his army to enforce his actions.
  * Tsar had final say, no distribution of power
  * Terror, repression
  * His duty, sent by god- Russification
The autocratic system meant that as long as Nicholas was in power there would be no real democracy, which meant that ideas from all parts of the political spectrum especially the left would have to be forced upon the Tsar by revolution.  

Count Witte became finance minister for Russia in 1992; at this time the Russian economy was very poor, with large-scale unemployment and poor transport.
  * Built railways and Tran Siberian railway- links with west- trade, more investment, brought democracy- western ideology.
  * More foreign investment-...