Nicholas II was Unprepared to Rule. Why?

[mcdnab]

Your absolutely right about that. However one point you should not include George V in that - he was not educated to rule because as King Emperor he merely reigned rather than govern unlike his more absolutist cousins.

[PAVLOV]

There were so many "rulers' were unfit to rule in the 20th century. Perhaps that is why so many things went wrong.

Nicholas II ( Incompetent) Roosevelt ( Depressive) Churchill ( Depressive) Lenin ( Monster Lunatic ) Stalin ( Serial killer, megalomaniac and seriously unstable) and Hitler, well what do we say about him ? The worst monster in the history of the universe ?

The scary thing is, they all lived at the same time and were in positions of power almost at the same time as well.

 

[Petrushka]

There were so many "rulers' were unfit to rule in the 20th century. Perhaps that is why so many things went wrong.

Nicholas II ( Incompetent) Roosevelt ( Depressive) Churchill ( Depressive) Lenin ( Monster Lunatic ) Stalin ( Serial killer, megalomaniac and seriously unstable) and Hitler, well what do we say about him ? The worst monster in the history of the universe ?

The scary thing is, they all lived at the same time and were in positions of power almost at the same time as well.

 

Pavlov - no offence meant but Roosevelt and Churchill were democratically elected and so its entirely different.  More to the point Churchill was absolutely the right and best person to be leading Britain at that time - were in not for him, there is little doubt Britain would have followed the rest of Europe and come under German occupation - he alone ensured that Britain maintained its freedom and facilitated the Allies push on D-Day.  Sorry to sound so defensive but to include him in that summary is laughable.  Almost every single leader in history had his/her weakness/issues from Alexander to Bush - but they were men/women of their time and they shaped the world we live in - in Churchills case that was undoubtedly positive. Consider yourself told off!!!! :  )

[Nicola De Valeron]

PAVLOV, interesting list of leaders and discussion! But I agree only about Nicholas II in the case of unprepared and unfit rulership. I agree with previous post, that all these men, you've mentioned (excluding Mr Lenin and Stalin) were elected on free elections in the free/liberal and what's more important democratic countries, where educated by Lincoln and Adam Smith population, commonly elect their Presidents/Pr. Ministers! So, it will be better to say that not Mr Roosevelt or Churchill and others were unprepared or unfit to rule, but American/British population and political elites at that time were unable to elect someone another "prepared" and with brains. Btw, I think that today's sad example with intelligent and unprepared man (without names and countries!) is also shows us "left" and sad utopian mood in this free and great country. God bless the next elections!

As to the Stalin, I must say, that he was unprepared/unfit so much, that he ruled the country for about 30 years and even today Russians (those who live in Russia) are studying History by his own made/falsified history textbooks, thinking as he commonly thought and moreover he is universal figure for ordinary people (who didn't studied other non-Stalin History): biggest communist, biggest Russian nationalist, biggest monarchist, including all of the Romanovs and so on. All these qualities are in one man! This would be an impossible dream for Hitler, whose ideas are officially banned in the most modern countries, while communism and other "left" utopian ideas, which permanently lead to human blood as an any ultra-right, are not officially banned today in Europe. So, you can just go out to the street in Mr Stalin or USSR red shirt, and people around who don't know about Gulag would be saying you all the way: "Cool red colours!". Concluding, man doesn't exist already for about 50 years, but his ideas fully passed (with the help of penultimate Russian president) to the millions of Russians and even some Europeans! (happily they are in minority). I think that in that case term "unfit" is very unsuitable. Of course he was an evil or great evil, but not the man, who was unfit or even unprepared for the rulership. Just sober opinion.

[Alixz]

However, we are discussing Nicholas II and his contemporaries and the first World War not the second.

I think that Roosevelt and those who were in power during the Second World War should be discussed in a different thread.  These rulers were the result of what the victors did to Europe during the first war and then the result of the Treaty of Versailles.

I am currently reading the biography of Clementine Churchill by her daughter Mary Soames.  I thought it might give me a different outlook on Winston than most biographies that deal with him as the main character.

But lets get back to Nicholas II.

[PAVLOV]

One can say the same of Wilhelm, who ruled for decades, but dragged the world into World War I. How prepared was he to rule if things ended up the way they did ? At what stage do we determine if they were unprepared to rule ? Before, or after ? Someone may be prepared to rule, and screw up, or the opposite.

I personally think that anyone who drags their country into a war is unprepared to rule. Nicholas is a perfect example, he had a choice, but because he mostly acted on bad advice, Russia was dragged into the war.

One can argue endlessly whether Churchill or Roosevelt were really that prepared to rule, but as you so rightly say, we are busy with Nicholas II.     

[Petrushka]

But I don't think Nicholas had a choice and I certainly don't think he entered into war lightly.  It is farcical to say that anyone who takes their country to war is unprepared to rule - rightly or wrongly, war has defined the world we live in.  Should a country under attack meekly surrender?  should a way of life under threat just give up?

Nicholas was poorly advised, but war in Europe was an inevitability.  Nicholas had a commitment as protector of the Slavic nations.  Had he failed to mobalise the military, then disaster may well have struck far earlier than it did.  At that point in time Germany had adopted an extremely aggressive, imperialist mentality that could only collide with other European powers.  I think that Nicholas' actions in that respect were honourable and entirely appropriate.  The weaknesses in the military structure, supply lines and strategy were the areas that he has to share culpability - but again that was the result of decades of failure to modernise.

The decisions made after the war had started were the real disasters and illustrated Nicholas' naivety and inability to take good advice - the move to take command at Stavka and therefore be the entire focus of negativity was in many ways the final straw - and that is without even mentioning the way in which he allowed others to make politicall decisions back in Petrograd.

[Sergei Witte]

I found this recently:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9403E7D71131E033A25751C0A9679D94659ED7CF

Reading the article, it seems that there was more to the reluctancy of Nicholas to follow his father as Tsar. Did anybody know this? What eventually did Nicholas decide that he would be next Tsar anyway?

[Alixz]

Of course Vladimir was "ready to be regent" he wanted to be tsar.

Interesting story, though.  I wonder who was the Times correspondent who sent in that story and where he got his information?  Could it be from Vladimir and Marie Pavlovna?  I wonder...

And Empress Marie didn't need her family to back her up or "buck up" Nicholas.  Alexandra was there and there was no chance that she would have let Nicholas step down.

[Clemence]

could there be any other responsible for nicholas other than his father? in my opinion it was he who was unfit to prepare a future emperor in the best possible way!

[Selencia]

I personally can believe that Nicholas entered into war lightly. I don't recall which countries soldiers it was, but somewhere it was popular to say that the war would be over in 4 months time. Clearly these countries were not thinking clearly when they got into somebody else's war. I recall a scene in the Nicholas and Alexandra movie where Nicholas and his ministers are talking about going to war and it reminded me much of America's idiotic buildup to the war in Iraq and the refusal to listen to reason.  Nicholas' country had just gotten beat by those "heathen, unsophisticated" Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War; now they wanted to go to war with half of Europe.
As for Nicholas' unpreparedness, I blame his father as probably do most people. Alexander operated like he was going to live and reign for 40yrs and as a result didn't bother to teach his son the reigns. The man saw how his father was killed in the blink of an eye; but he still operated like he was invincible and as a result he left Russia with a 26yr old Emperor who was more like a 14yr old.
I don't know much about Wilhelm so I won't comment on his fitness to rule.

[LondonGirl]

Most democratic politicinas are also unfit to govern - lol. How much better is democracy? People complain constantly now as much as they did then, and in countries far removed from absolute monarchy. I hink power just shifts from those with some class to those with less, without anything better being achieved.

[Alixz]

In most democratic countries the elections and the resulting leaders are usually the "lesser of all evils" instead of the best we have to offer.

I just heard a news bite where Michelle Bachmann who wants to be president of the US attacked her opponent Herman Cain's proposal for a 9% corporate tax and a 9% income tax and a 9% national sales tax by saying, "I think if you turn 999 (as the proposal is called) over you will find that the Devil is in the details."

Bachmann is not known for her knowledge of history or just about anything else, for that matter. but she was trying to be cute and cute is not what voters are looking for. But if she is chosen to represent her party, she will certainly not be the best we have to offer.

When I was in school I asked why democratic countries feel that changing their leader every four to six years is a good thing.  That countries with monarchs have more continuity and less change of policy.  However I was young (about 11 when I asked that) and I hadn't studied autocracies like Russia had when I was that young. 

I now see that no form of government is proof against getting a bad leader who makes bad decisions.

Nicholas II was in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But there he was and there he would stay as he felt his oaths at coronation put him in charge and in the hands of the Lord.  I am truly surprised that he did abdicate as that went against all that he had ever believed and/or stood for.  But he did think that his abdication would help the Russian people and that was one of the deciding factors.

[Elisabeth]

I found this recently:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9403E7D71131E033A25751C0A9679D94659ED7CF

Reading the article, it seems that there was more to the reluctancy of Nicholas to follow his father as Tsar. Did anybody know this? What eventually did Nicholas decide that he would be next Tsar anyway?

Okay, let's take for granted for a moment that this 1894 New York Times story is true, and that Nicholas was indeed desperate to give up his rights to the throne to his uncle Grand Duke Vladimir. What does that tell us about Nicholas II's later, obstinate defense of his autocratic rights? Why, if he was so eager to abdicate as tsar before he'd even truly started his reign, was he so stuck in later years on being an absolute ruler? To the detriment of his dynasty, his government, and most of all his country?

[Alixz]

His little Wifey "who wore trousers unseen"?