The character and personal qualities of Nicholas II

 

SOURCE A
“Nicholas was not an able leader. His father, Alexander III, had died unexpectedly in 1895, at the age of 48. Just two years before his death Alexander had called his son ‘still absolutely a child, with infantile judgements’. When Nicholas heard of his father’s death he asked his brother-in-law ‘What am I to do? I am not prepared to be Tsar. I know nothing of the business of ruling’. During his reign Nicholas was to be dominated by his German wife, Alexandra, who encouraged him to defend his absolute powers against any calls for reform”.
N. Kelly, Russia and the USSR, 1905-1956

 

SOURCE B
“.. a determined and dominant father had produced a shy and less assertive successor. There is a rare unanimity among historians that the new Tsar was not equal to the tasks that confronted him. He was, in the judgement of R. Charques, ‘a negative character, commonplace in mind, weak of will and fatalistic in temperament .. a man transparently immature and of patently insignificant interests’. In an attempt to achieve a fair and balanced assessment many commentators have drawn attention to his personal qualities, especially those as husband and father, but as J. N. Westwood has responded, ‘family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty’”.

T. A. Morris, European History, 1848-1945

 

SOURCE C

“The lives of Nicholas and Alexandra were tragic because both had endearing qualities and both found themselves playing roles for which they were quite unfitted. Perhaps Nicholas deserves the greatest sympathy, for he had little choice but to rule whereas Alexandra consciously chose to meddle in politics, though with the best of intentions. To be the son of Alexander III and the pupil of Pobedonostsev was a bad beginning. Nicholas had genuine charm and simplicity but was unable to overcome attitudes embodied at an early age: belief in an absolute holy autocracy, chauvinism, anti-semitism, and a touch of militarism”.

J. N. Westwood, Endurance and Endeavour, Russian History 1812-1992

 

SOURCE D

“The daily work of a ruler he found terrible boring. He could not stand listening long or seriously to ministers’ reports or reading them. He liked such ministers as could tell an amusing story and did not weary his attention too much with business”.
Taken from the memoirs of Alexander Kernesky, Russian politician and Prime Minister in 1917.

SOURCE E

“Nicholas exploited the rivalries and divisions between his different ministries. He would balance the views of one against the other in order to retain the upper hand … The result of all this was to deprive the government of effective leadership or co-ordination during the final years of the Tsarist regime. Nicholas was the source of all the problems. If there was a vacuum of power at the centre of the ruling system, then he was the empty space. In a sense, Russia gained in him the worst of both worlds: a Tsar determined to rule from the throne yet quite incapable of exercising power. This was ‘autocracy without an autocrat’”.

O. Figes, A People’s Tragedy, The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924

 

SOURCE F
“We talked for two solid hours. He shook my hand. He wished me all the luck in the world. I went home beside myself with happiness and found a written order for my dismissal lying on my desk”.
Count Witte, Russia’s first Prime Minister, was sacked by Nicholas in 1906. He describes how it happened.

 

SOURCE G
“I am informed that recently in some zemstvo assemblies, voices have made themselves heard from people carried away by senseless dreams about participation by members of the zemstvo in the affairs of internal government: let all know that I, devoting my strength to the welfare of the people, will hold up the principle of autocracy as firmly and unflinchingly as my late, unforgettable father”.
Nicholas speaking in 1895

SOURCE H

Nicholas and his family, taken around 1905. Their new son, Alexei had inherited haemophilia

 

 

“.. a determined and dominant father had produced a shy and less assertive successor. There is a rare unanimity among historians that the new Tsar was not equal to the tasks that confronted him. He was, in the judgement of R. Charques, ‘a negative character, commonplace in mind, weak of will and fatalistic in temperament .. a man transparently immature and of patently insignificant interests’. In an attempt to achieve a fair and balanced assessment many commentators have drawn attention to his personal qualities, especially those as husband and father, but as J. N. Westwood has responded, ‘family happiness has never yet saved a dynasty’”.

 

 

 

“The lives of Nicholas and Alexandra were tragic because both had endearing qualities and both found themselves playing roles for which they were quite unfitted. Perhaps Nicholas deserves the greatest sympathy, for he had little choice but to rule whereas Alexandra consciously chose to meddle in politics, though with the best of intentions. To be the son of Alexander III and the pupil of Pobedonostsev was a bad beginning. Nicholas had genuine charm and simplicity but was unable to overcome attitudes embodied at an early age: belief in an absolute holy autocracy, chauvinism, anti-semitism, and a touch of militarism”.