Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - James1941

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: March 02, 2007, 03:32:33 PM »
To the Forum Admin.
1. I have not made any attempt to defend Rasputin or his behavior other than that his murder was morally reprehensible. I stand by that, and I invite any others on this thread to support me in that opinion. Rasputin's actions are his and he had as much right to indulge in them as Felix did to indulge in his. I do not condone either. Besides, this is not a thread about Rasputin, but the man who conspired to murder him.
2. I wrote he fled like screaming like a teenage girl because that is what he did. He himself made mention of it in his work on the murder. The others present also testified to his actions. It is not my opinion but the historical facts. I am not the only one who should do a little research on the events.
3. In using the words sensitive, stylish and artistic, these were words used by another poster in describing why they liked Yusupov. I just remarked that because he was this doesn't excuse him from being a murder. How is that homophobic?
4. I have no homophobic agenda here at all. I am insulted that you should even think I was being homophobic. How do you know at all what I am thinking? As I have posted almost ad naseum, Yusupov's sexual orientation is not a secret. It is a historical fact. And I believe I have the right to comment on it just as much as anyone else does to call Rasputin a debauched pedophile. Does that make you a pedohobe just because you use those words?
We are discussing a historical figure and his actions and his character. He is fair game. If I start calling other posters using "homophobic rhetoric" or insulting them for their using clearly offensive words,then you can accuse me of being a homphobe. Until then my opion of Felix is just that, my opinion of him, and has no bearing on my true opinions or beliefs. You haven't the foggiest notion of what my real beliefs and even my own orientation are. You are whistling in the wind.

2
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: March 02, 2007, 03:11:08 PM »
In answer to Johnny:
1. Derogatory adjectives are subjective to one's own interpretation as to what is drogatory or not. As I explained to Ashdean, the words cross dresser and homosexual are perfectly acceptable terms. I applied the adjectives to Felix Yusupov. Not to anyone else on this forum. If anyone finds them objectionable then so be it, but I do not apologize for my opinion of him.
2. Felix had the most common motive of all to be rid of his elder brother. Money. With his brother dead he was sole heir to the largest private fortune in Russia and the illustrious title that went with it. Very powerful motives. Why did Nicholas fight the duel? What were the circumstances that brought the fatal result to fruition? Felix was not an innocent bystander in these events. His fingerprints are everywhere. It is a matter that demands more research and exploration.
3. Whether the men who participated in the murder of Rasputin were professional, amateurs or just plain bumblers is totally immaterial. Whether Felix administered poison or not is totally immaterial. Whether Felix participated in the torture is totally immaterial. Whethr Felix fired into Rasputin as he claims he did, or whether he didn't is totally immateria.
What is material that he was present at, took part in, and conspired to bring about the murder. That makes him an accessory to murder. This is a criminal act in almost all civilized societies. There is enough evidence to hang Felix Yusupov higher than Haman (this is from the Bible).
4. Political necessity does not justify murder. That is why when the men who wanted Nicholas II out of power and a change in government began their coup d'etat they didn't kill Nicholas II or any of his ministers.
Besides, killing Rasputin led to nothing. It was a total failure if it's objective was to save the monarchy. Just a few short months after this brutal murder the monarchy was swept away in any case. Rasputin would have been swept away with it. Therefore his sadistic torture and execution were un-necessary. In fact it probably help expedite events rather than retard them. Please debate how such murder accomplished anything but the death of an man who had committed no crimes.
5. Rasputin's true involvement the politics of the last years of the Romanov dynasty and his true influence on matters are still evolving today, as new and unknown documents are being discovered. It's extent is certainly debatable. His murder is still morally reprehensible. The last time I looked "thou shall not commit murder" is still one of the ten commandments. I don't believe God put a disclaimer on it, "except if the person is engaged in political activity you don't approve of, then you can commit murder."
That Felix went around bragging about and never once indicated any doubt as to it shows his moral compass was a little off in more ways than one. This is why I don't like him.

3
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: March 02, 2007, 02:41:16 PM »
Now, to answer a few posts directed at me.
To Ashdean:
That Felix was an individual who painted his face in the female mode and wore women's clothes is not in doubt. He admitted it as much in his own memoirs. Individuals who have such proclivites are called "cross dressers." What can you object to for using the term. Is "transvestite" more acceptable?

His sexual orientation was probably homosexual, perhaps bi-sexual, although his later life indicated it was probably the former. What objection to that word do you have? What other word or words would you like me to use? I made no moral judgement. In fact, I replied that his private life was his own business. I make no moral judgement on his sexual activities. I have no right to do so. But, they do impinge on his actions as a historical figure and therefore are legitimate areas to discuss.

As to not discussing his life, then why have this thread? He is a historical figure. He has been written about, he has written his own books, and so on. Therefore he is a legitimate figure for discussion, no matter how long ago he died. Which, by the way, is not so long ago. He was alive in my lifetime, so I think I have some rights to discuss him
. I am sorry if my opinion of his character does not conform to your opinion of it, but that is my right. I find it just as objectionable on this thread for others to call him a hero. Will that objection be registered and such posts subject to being chided?

4
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: March 02, 2007, 02:23:28 PM »
With all due respect to the Forum Admin, I am afraid I DO NOT know which posts have been complained about, and I DO NOT know who they are. Could you be less cryptic? If accusations are going to be made, please make them openly. This only fair to all who have participated in this thread.

Just what language and epithets are being used that have no place in a historical discussion? Name them so that those using them can know what is unacceptable and not use such language again. Were are not children to be chided.

Again, one side may use derogatory remarks but should someone step in and take an opposing view, their remarks become subject to vague accusations and then suspension without being told why.

As one poster wrote above this is a place where we all come to learn and to discuss issues and ideas and personalities. That is what makes it so informative and interesting. Sometimes the facts can be obtrusive and abrasive. Does this mean we cannot explore them? The word FORUM, which this site purports to be, means a place where ideas and opinions can be openly discussed and debated, even if they might not conform to our own. If that can't be done here, then perhaps that rule might be made perfectly clear.

5
Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: March 01, 2007, 05:35:33 PM »
It did indeed work perfectly. I have saved a copy to read at my leisure. Thank you for your very kind assistance. I look forward to reading his work. I am grateful.

6
This is not so strange if we accept the several accounts the shooters have left us. All, of course, depends on this acceptance. Did they tell the truth? That is and has been debated. It would seem, that although each shooter had been assigned a specific target to aim at and shoot first, when the shooting began almost all of them wanted the "honor?" of being the first to shoot and kill the hated tsar and tsarina. Therefore all the shooters aim their pistols at the face of Nicholas and Alexandra, who died almost immediately. Thus, in most accounts, all the others in the room were either not hit at first or were only slightly wounded. Thus the shooters had to go around and try to kill them. In the light of this it is not so strange that Alexis wasn't killed immediately and had to be "dispatched" later.

And I agree with Alixz about Alexei's height. Since Nicholas II was only about 5ft 7in tall it wouldn't have taken the boy long to match his father in height. In fact I think that he had grown as tall as Nicholas was mentioned in one of the letters or diaries of the family in Tobolsk. There is a picture of the tsar and the heir sawing wood in the courtyard and Alexis is pretty equal to his father's height.

7
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: March 01, 2007, 09:44:53 AM »
I don't wish to defend Rasputin. I won't begin to get into my opinion of him. And I don't condemn Felix for his lifestyle despite my rather lurid use of epithets in my post above. That was his own business. I just don't think he and his fellow conspirators are or were heroes when they committed this execution.
If you look at all the assassinations from the past which are regarded as patriotic or political acts--Caesar's, Alexander II's, Lincoln's, Franz Ferdinand's,etc.--they were all conducted in the light of day, in public before all the world to see, even at the sacrifice of the assassin. This murder was conducted in stealth, darkness and deceit, and sadistically.
Let us put such a scenario in a modern context, say Britain today. The Queen, or Prince Phillip, have a special friend. This friend is a working class man, or woman, who has a shady past and who gives the royal couple rather dubious political advice. While having committed no criminal or civil offense this friend has caused the monarchy very bad press and diminished its prestige. So, a rich duke, married to one of the queen's nieces, hooks up with one of the queen's younger cousins (a minor royal), and a Member of Parliament. They lure this special friend to the home of the duke (one of London's most elegant and exclusive addresses) where he is tortured, then shot in the courtyard. When a passing policeman tries to investigate the sound of shots the duke lies to him and tells him a drunken guest has shot a dog. Then the whole plot unravels and the duke, the minor royal and the MP are arrested on suspiscion of committing a murder. What would the modern reprecussions of this be? How would the public view the whole lot of the monarchy in the light of this, despite the unpopularity of the queen's friend. How would the world press handle such a scenario?
Dimitri came to realize that what they thought were actions to save the monarchy turned out to be just the opposite, and probably helped accelerate the downfall of the dynasty. He at least had the grace to be ashamed of what they had done. Had Felix shown even the tiniest bit of remorse for his actions I would have a higher opinion of him, for whatever my opinion of a historical figure is worth.

8
Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: March 01, 2007, 09:26:34 AM »
I don't want to sound xenophobic but I would like to read the article also. To my regret my Russian is non-existent. Is this article available in English so that those of us who love Russian history can look it over? Or is it possible to translate the page somehow? I know certain sites can be translated. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

9
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: February 28, 2007, 10:02:20 PM »
He was frank about his actions only after he was safe from any retribution or punishment, and he knew it.
At the time of the sadistic murder he did everything he could to deny his participation, hiding behind the GD Dimitri's immunity and writing to the empress that he was innocent. And trying to cover up his 'patriotic" act from the police. It was only when he knew he was safe that he became so loquacious about his deeds, most of which he inflated all out of porportion to his actual involvement. Like a bad actor in a melodrama he began to chew up the scenery, painted and powdered like one also.

10
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: February 28, 2007, 06:25:22 PM »
Beaten so badly that his right eye had fallen out, his right ear torn practically off his head, his body and face showing numerous blows by a blunt, flexible weapon, his genitals crushed by blunt force, his back showing a gaping wound caused by a sharp object, his nose squashed and deformed, the Cyrillic letter G scatched into his right jaw by a sword or knife, all these little details of systematic torture were details left out of his funny little book by our painted little cross dresser and homosexual hero.
Then after subjecting the man to long torture our patriotic heroes left him lying there without benefit of aid or a priest while they go off and toast their success with rounds of drinking. Then they return and and cold bloodedly execute him in gangland style by shooting in the forehead at close range. Then in true Mafia style they try to dispose of his body by throwing it into the river.
These are not the actions of heores but assassins.
Rasputin had committed no crimes. He was guilty of breaking no laws. To say he deserved to be tortured then executed without defense or hearing is not only a sin it is also morally reprehensible. And Felix bragged about his actions without any show of remorse or Christian conscience. Of course, since you see such observations as moralistic trash I assume you find nothing wrong in cold blooded murder.
Don't be too sure little Felix wasn't intimately involved in the machinations that led to the fatal duel of his brother. Suggest you do some research on that.
And yes, only  a cuthroat would invite a man in to his home with the intent to murder him, no matter what century he was living in. Being sensitive, stylish and artistic doesn't excuse his bad manners and his bloody intent.
And while hundreds of thousands of young Russian men were being forcibly drafted to fight and die in this war, or being shot for desertion simply because they wanted to go home to visit their family, our gilded lily was draft-dodging his miltary service and living his hedonistic life in Petrograd. And his wife was taking the cure in the Crimea while thousands of women not so fortunate were working long and hard hours in the war factories and then enduring more long hours standing in line to get food for their family. How many ill or weary mothers and children in the cities got to go take a rest cure in the warm Crimea after desperately trying to stay warm without sufficient fuel. No wonder the Russian people sent these parasites running.
And, yes Felix milked his story for all it was worth. It is a well known fact that he lured Rasputin to his death by enticement of a meeting with Irina. But when a movie barely hinting at this came out Irina and Felix,
on the verge of bankruptcy and desperately sinking into abject poverty saw their chance and sued for "libel"- --and not once but twice. Thus they were able to live off the settlement.
Without his connection to the murder Yusupov would have faded into deserved obscurity like most of the other exiles.

11
The Yussupovs / Re: Felix Yusupov and the murder of Rasputin
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:43:40 PM »
I have a question for Mr. Cullen, who I believe has as intimate knowledge of the matter as any one. Please don't take this as a contradiction. But, you say that the report on Koralli and the two Romanov brothers in not in the GARF files nor was there ever a police report on this incident.
Is it possible that such a report has not survived; that it was removed or lost from the police files on the Rasputin incident? Is Stopford's report the only one which mentions others in the Yusupov palace that night?
Is his report the only source that others have used to name the people in question here?
It is an interesting subject and I hope more light can be shed on it. Thanks for any response.

12
The Yussupovs / Re: Your personal opinion on Felix Yusupov
« on: February 27, 2007, 08:35:52 PM »
He is the epitome of the corruption of the last years of the Romanovs. He probably had something quite sinister to do with the death of his older brother. He does nothing with his wealth except to lead a hedonistic existence in the demi-underworld of the time. He marries without love. And he then violates the laws of hospitality by inviting a man into his home with the intent to murder him. If we can believe his story, which is a big IF, then he then becomes a cowardly assassin by shooting the man in the back. When he bends to examine the man's body and it shows signs of life, he flees in terror, screaming like a teenage girl as far as he can. Then, he does nothing with his life but live off the story which he embelishes and re-invents on each occassion. He breaks his promise to his fellow conspirators. He spends the rest of his life feeding off this one moment in time.
If he hadn't been involved in the Rasputin murder none of us today would probably have ever heard of him or know who he was. He had his 15 minutes of fame and then made the most of it by milking it for all he could get.

13
Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 27, 2007, 07:19:46 PM »
All the major powers in World War I were undergoing change in governments in late 1916-early 1917 due to the fact that the war wasn't going very well for either side.
In Germany, in Aug. 1916 Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg became Chief of the General Staff, and his partner, General Erick Luddendorf became Quarter Master General. The two became virtual dictators of Germany. In July, 1917 they finally got German Chancellor Bethman-Hollweg to resgin to be replaced by several unknowns.
In Austria, in Nov. 1916, Franz Josef dies and Karl become Emperor-King. He begins to replace generals and ministers and begin attempts to end the war.
In Britain, in Dec. 1916, Herbert Asquith is replaced as Prime Minister by David Lloyd-George and a coalition cabinet.
In Italy, there are three prime minister Salandra until June, 1916: Boselli from June to Oct. 1917, then Orlando.
In France, there is a constant change of prime minister and commander in chiefs.
Aristide Briand (Oct. 1915-Mar. 1917) Alexandre Ribot (Mar-Sept 1917) Paul Panleve (Sept-Nov. 1917) and Georges Clemenceau. Joffre is dismissed as Army commander in 1916, replaced by Robert Nivelle, who is then replaced by Philippe Petain.
It would only make sense then that it would also happen in Russia. Notice, however, that in all the cases above the head of state was not changed. In Russia since Nicholas II was regarded as army commander and head of the government he was replaced. (I know he wasn't technically head of government but he functioned that way under the "limited autocracy" in place.)
 A putsch is probably a good description of what happened in Feb. 1917. It turned into a revolution later.

14
Imperial Russian History / Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« on: February 27, 2007, 12:33:27 PM »
Kurt is quite right about the Peterloo Masacre of 1819. History does teach valuable lessons. The Tory government congratulated the Manchester magistrates whose actions led to the the massacre. It then passed restrictive laws--the Six Acts--or the Gagging Laws--which tried to limit demands for reform. This led to the alienation of the Tory party, to the rise of the Chartists, and the fall of the conservative party. Just eleven years after the massacre the Tories were swept from power and in 1832 the Reform Acts were passed. The monarchy was not held to blame, although both George IV and William IV were highly unpopular, and very partisan. The century between the Glorious Revolution and then had seen the dimuition of the power of the monarchy and the rise of shared responsibility and shielded the throne from direct involvement in the controversy. Thus the myth that the sovereign was above the politics could be maintained and public anger directed at the party politicians. Since no such situtation existed in Russia, mainly because of the monarchy's enforcement of its own myths, the throne got the blame and the anger.

15
French Royals / Re: Philippe Egalite and Orleans
« on: February 27, 2007, 11:54:51 AM »
When Charles X abdicated and his son Angouleme also abdicated, and left the tiny Henri as king, Louis Philippe, Duc d'Orleans was appointed Lieutenant General of the Realm. It was unlikely that the country was going to accept the Bourbons any longer. So Orleans faced a choice. I am sure his personal ambitions were at work here. He would have been an unworldly figure if they hadn't been, but he was also faced with a political decision----France with a king or France with no king. So he chose to accept the throne as King of the French. Which would you prefer Dimitry? A Bourbon-Orleans on the throne of a constitutional monarchy, or a republic? The elder line of the Bourbons was out of the running so there is no way they were going to continue, legitimate or not. And, there was a strong Bonapartist party waiting in the wings to snatch advantage from the confusion. L'Aiglon was still alive in Vienna at that point.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27