AQA-Style Question 2b

How far was the personality of Nicholas II responsible for the instability of Russia in 1904?

Nicholas’s personality played a large role in the instability of this period. However, the blame for the instability can not be laid completely at his feet.

At his inauguration, Nicholas promised to ‘reassert the principles of autocracy’ and during this period he continued, if not heightened, the counter-reformist policies of his father, Alexander III. Wishing to both quell growing unrest and counter the influence of western influences on reform, he ruthlessly quelled unrest using the army and police. That said, however, Nicholas III was a particularly inept autocrat and his rule has been characterised as ‘autocracy without the autocrat’. He seemed unable to make decisions and sacked those ministers who showed initiative, fearing that they would undermine him. He limited the powers of the Zemstva and centered power on himself, while all the while being unable to wield it effectively. This power vacuum was shown in stark contrast through the Governments bungling response to the Great Famine of 1891-2; particularly as local Zemstava had to step in to offer relief.

However, while Nicholas was an ineffective ruler, he did not create the situation that Russia found herself in during this period. The growing rural and urban unrest were a consequence of both the failed agricultural policies of his grandfather and his father’s mortgaging of the Russian workers against industrial growth and increasing emphasis on autocracy and repressive measures. Nicholas could arguably have responded in a different way to the situation, but there can be no denying that the situation that he inherited - leaving aside the growing industrialization - was not an ideal one.

To sum up, the personality of Nicholas II - his emphasis on autocracy without the ability to actually be an autocrat - played a large role in the instability of Russia in this period. However, in many ways he can be seen to have simply exacerbated existing problems through his ineptness rather than being the sole cause.