Why was Czar Nicholas II a poor leader?

Answer 1

Nicholas' father was disappointed with his heir, and did not prepare him for Tsardom. Nicholas had no idea how to run the country, and worse, he did not like change. Likewise, his wife, Alexandra, was raised by her grandmother, Queen Victoria, who was also very old fashioned. When his people cried for improvement, he dug in his heels, fearful of losing his power and disappointing his deceased father even more. He was deaf to the pleas from his people, and only made minor changes when he felt he had no other choice, but did so with a grimace plastered to his face. During the Great War (WWI) he left to fight on the battle front leaving his incompetent wife in charge of the largest nation on the earth. Nicholas also had poor military skills, and after a humiliating defeat by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese war, the whispers of revolt began to spread.

Answer 2

He was weak because he was unable to assume strong leadership at a time of extreme inequality within Russian society, nor was he able to effectively meet the desperate needs of the starving, desperate population whilst holding in check the resistance to change of the rich and powerful. Russia before the Revolution was a country of extreme contrasts- the majority of it's population (the landless peasants and workers) were living in desperate poverty and deprivation. Serfdom had been abolished in the late 19th Century, but the peasants still had no effective rights to speak of, had no vote and no political representation. Millions died in a series of terrible famines during the early years of the 20th Century, and many more as a result of epidemics, malnutrition or overwork, toiling in sodden fields to rear failing crops and produce. At the other end of society were the mega-wealthy; the aristocrats, top industrialists and big landowners, many of whom were worth hundreds of millions of dollars by today's standards, owned vast tracts of land equivalent to whole English shires or American states, and who effectively controlled the nation's infrastructure. This included Russia's political establishment, which through corruption and inside influence the landed elite had modelled to suit their own interests. A strong Head of State would have been outraged at the sheer injustice and unfairness of this situation, and taken measures to put things right. But Czar Nicholas II was unable to do this- he feared standing up to the powerful landed elite, not wishing to alienate them, and whilst in private he disliked the extreme inequality of his people, he was hesitant in bringing in any real meaningful reforms. This more or less meant that the wealthy and influential sectors of society were left to be the REAL power in the land, bribing or coercing corrupt Government ministers and regional authorities to retain the status quo and relegating the Czar to the effective status of a puppet leader. Matters came to a head with the near Revolution of 1904 / 05, when an upsurge of proletarian unrest and uprising against the regime resulted in a wave of strikes, demonstrations and rioting across the nation, and culminated in the horrific 'Bloody Sunday' massacre, when armed troops shot dead over a thousand peaceful demonstrators led by priest Father Joseph Gapon who had assembled outside Moscow's Winter Palace. A huge surge of popular anger followed, not just in Russia but around the world- Lenin (in exile in London) warned the Romanoff regime that the people of Russia would not tolerate the tyranny much longer, and enraged civilians continued a wave of resistance and street battles with armed police units throughout Russian cities. Bolshevik guerrilla units carried out bombings and assassinations- the official reprisals were equally harsh, with tens of thousands executed and thousands more imprisoned without charge or trial. In all of this, the Czar failed to take a firm hand with his Government, his ministers or the ruling classes- he could have been decisive and sacked all corrupt officials, arrested those in power who resisted change, and ruled by martial law whilst a new, egalitarian system of Government was built up. In fact, he introduced only token moves, permitting some Russian male peasants the vote, allowing Bolshevik politicians to sit in the Duma, and giving token pieces of land over to peasant ownership. None of these measures served to address the rotten core of the system, which was finally swept away in the October Revolution of 1917- the Czar paid with his life and those of his family for his vacillation.

Answer 3

he wanted to keep russia the way it was