Author Topic: were the romanovs actions wrong?  (Read 41813 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline writer_in_the_making

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • I'm back from a three year hiatus!
    • View Profile
were the romanovs actions wrong?
« on: June 05, 2008, 04:56:52 PM »
I am 11, so most people think someone my age's mind is unable to grasp things like this, but they are wrong. I was reading the "Crimes against Russia- Nicolas and family" and am horrified and ashamed at what some of the people put down.One person wrote:

Was it nice to kill the 'cute little kids'? NO! But then again many 'cute little kids' died on Bloody Sunday, in numerous pogroms and in various military reactions to strikes and protests -- and few people are terribly keen to discuss them.

   This person clearly can only grasp one bit of the problem at a time.Yes, Nicolas wasn't the best Emperor Russia had ever seen but he did not purposely murder people and even if he had there is always  the old saying " two wrongs don't make a right" and killing Nicolas's kids isn't okay just because during his rule some children died.
                                                                          Am I Right?
We girls, born as four but live as one,
Look curiously upon a world once familiar,

The blue sky turns to black velvet,
As the storm settles upon our Kingdom,
And with our hearts and hands united
We realize that it is as God willed.

It was our destiny to Love and say goodbye

Offline vallath

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2008, 11:09:33 AM »
I Tzar and Tzarina were not particularlly intelligent. They did not know how poor Russia really was. 90% of the population were peasants who barely had anything to eat and had no possessions. In Tzarist Russia, there was NO middle class- any teacher will tell you in order for a society to survive, there MUST be a middle class to balance out wealth and commerce. Thre were the rich, and the poor- who had no power whatsoever. The royals were so disconnected with the people's reality that they were eventually overthrown, and unfortunately, execusted. The girls, however, had nothing to do with the affairs of state- their father and mother lead to the downfall. But empires cannot last forever. A country's wealth and prosperity cannot last forever. Time changes, therefore countries evolve into something different than before. The tzar REFUSED to change his government- modernity called for monarchs to give up power because certainly, one man and one woman CANNOT RULE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Nicholas and Alexandra, of coarse, ignored thiis and refuse reform and refused to give up any power. Other countries were leaning towards democracies and began reforming laws and goveernment to appeal to the people's needs. Because of the Tzars refusal for change Russia suffered dramatically from World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution and the whole Communist regime. One always wonders how Russia would be different now if the Tzar accepted change and reform!

Offline CorisCapnSkip

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2008, 03:44:10 AM »
Killing the Tzar's children was drastic and wrong but some study of conditions in the country can help explain if not excuse it.

One does wonder (okay, I still do) how much the Tzar knew of what his men were doing.  The Cossacks were considered to be the Tzar's soldiers.  How aware was the Tzar that they were looting and burning villages and killing innocent families?

Offline writer_in_the_making

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • I'm back from a three year hiatus!
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2008, 08:26:10 AM »
CorisCapnSkip, you made a very good point.But Vallath, the Tzar may not have known what was going on completely. He had to know that there was some suffering, but he may not have known the big picture. He showed so much love and compassion to his own children and the children of other people in his life that I can't believe he would deliberately kill one child.
We girls, born as four but live as one,
Look curiously upon a world once familiar,

The blue sky turns to black velvet,
As the storm settles upon our Kingdom,
And with our hearts and hands united
We realize that it is as God willed.

It was our destiny to Love and say goodbye

Offline CorisCapnSkip

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2008, 05:41:42 AM »
CorisCapnSkip, you made a very good point.But Vallath, the Tzar may not have known what was going on completely. He had to know that there was some suffering, but he may not have known the big picture. He showed so much love and compassion to his own children and the children of other people in his life that I can't believe he would deliberately kill one child.

I know, it doesn't make sense.  Could he have been victim to bad advisors and not all that was done happened directly on his orders or was even completely known to him?  Yet the poor class of people assumed it to be on his orders as the Tzar was supposed to have absolute power?

Jebediha

  • Guest
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2008, 03:18:23 PM »
The Romanovs did noting wrong. Exespt for what they did wrong

Offline CorisCapnSkip

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2008, 04:21:11 AM »
The Romanovs did noting wrong. Exespt for what they did wrong

Too bad some of Nicholas's relatives couldn't have straightened him out as to what he should do.  He did visit other countries and must have been aware his policies were not entirely approved of there.  Of course, those other countries had different circumstances and perhaps their leaders felt unqualified to comment.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2008, 01:28:47 AM »
I think they did feel unqualified to comment. Queen Victoria though was pretty outspoken that Russia was a dangerous place- she looked down on the Romanovs in that sense. I am not sure (don't remember) whether Queen Victoria said anything about how the Romanovs ruled Russia (she might have). But she died on 1901, so  didn't see almost all of Nicholas's reign.  I think she would have been opinionated had she lived longer though on what was going on in Russia, esp as Alexandra was the Empress, and was her grand daughter. I believe Nicholas was unaware of Bloody Sunday- he didn't give the order to shoot on the crowd. Everyone thought he did though. It was certainly not right to kill Nicholas's children just because children had died in his empire, in things like Bloody Sunday, which Nicholas wasn't directly responsible for. But, it is true they refused to change the goverment, Nicholas and Alexandra, as Vallath says.

Offline Felicia

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #8 on: December 25, 2008, 12:44:49 PM »
I think if Nicholas had other character, or he listened to his relatives advice or did some changes in society - something more, than was done - his family was not murdered on 17th July! More, Russia would be still a monarchy, but not in this pseudo-democratic state!
I'm sorry for possible mistakes

Offline CorisCapnSkip

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2008, 01:57:58 AM »
The other day the news showed a report saying Stalin still has some fans who were celebrating his birthday and saying he was better than what they have now.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2008, 02:25:33 PM »
That shows you can look back at anything nostalogically that was no good in reality. I don't feel the nostalgia for Imperial Russia is completely like this however, although making anything, even Nicholas II and the last Romanovs too romanticised isn't a good idea.

Offline Massine

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
    • Ballet West
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2009, 04:22:32 PM »
I think it's hard for us to get ourselves into the mindset of those of 100 years ago.
I don't think the murder of the Tsar's children was civilized behaviour nor acceptable.  But drastic measures were being taken.
Nicholas II did not even have a trial!
But Nicholas also truly believed he was responsible for the entire land of Russia and he believed that God's will would be followed.
In his responsibilty to the people of Russia, he was a failure.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 04:33:42 PM by Massine »

Offline romanov1918

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #12 on: January 10, 2009, 03:46:07 PM »
I Tzar and Tzarina were not particularlly intelligent. They did not know how poor Russia really was. 90% of the population were peasants who barely had anything to eat and had no possessions. In Tzarist Russia, there was NO middle class- any teacher will tell you in order for a society to survive, there MUST be a middle class to balance out wealth and commerce. Thre were the rich, and the poor- who had no power whatsoever. The royals were so disconnected with the people's reality that they were eventually overthrown, and unfortunately, execusted. The girls, however, had nothing to do with the affairs of state- their father and mother lead to the downfall. But empires cannot last forever. A country's wealth and prosperity cannot last forever. Time changes, therefore countries evolve into something different than before. The tzar REFUSED to change his government- modernity called for monarchs to give up power because certainly, one man and one woman CANNOT RULE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Nicholas and Alexandra, of coarse, ignored thiis and refuse reform and refused to give up any power. Other countries were leaning towards democracies and began reforming laws and goveernment to appeal to the people's needs. Because of the Tzars refusal for change Russia suffered dramatically from World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution and the whole Communist regime. One always wonders how Russia would be different now if the Tzar accepted change and reform!

Your comment that the Tsar and Tsarina were "not particularly intelligent are incorrect.  Nicholas II, while by no means a genius, was given the finest education as first a Grand Duke, then Tsarevitch.  Alexandra, while just a Princess, was highly intelligent and was also given the education a girl of her status was always given.  They knew exactly how poor some of the population was, and felt closer to the peasant population since they felt this was the heart of the Father/Tsar reverence.  There was a middle class in Russia, I do not know where you get that information from, you are wrong.  The reason Nicholas II abdicated was a result of many things.  First, the sickness of Alexei drove them to seek help from Rasputin.  As we all know, his morals were not upstanding and this lead to disgust and jealousy of his closeness to the Imperial Family.  Second, while Nicholas was Commander-in-chief, he left many decisions to Alexandra who along with Rasputin made bad changes in the ministers.  When the public loses confidence in their rulers, downfall is inevitable.  WWI caused shortages of heat and bread, causing hungry, tired people to protest.  One man and woman can rule the largest country in the world, one man, Peter the Great, and one woman, Catherine the Great, managed to do so for many years and made excellent changes for Russia.  As for Nicholas giving up his power, what ruler do you know has ever done that?  A Duma was created in 1905 after the revolution, but Nicholas felt it was his god-given right to rule alone, and the Duma went against everything he vowed in his coronation.  Possibly if the House of Romanov was a constitutional government as Alexander II was considering at the moment of his assassination, things might be different today and we would still have Tsardom in Russia.  But this was not to be. The leaders of the 1917/1918 revolution crowed about changes that the people at the time thought were going to make their lives wonderful, but made them even harder.


Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #13 on: January 10, 2009, 05:55:34 PM »
I agree World War I and the actions taken during World War I, like Nicholas becoming commander in chief of the army, and leaving the goverment to Alexandra and Rasputin defintely contributed to the fall of the dynasty. Had World War I not happened, chances are the Romanov dynasty would not have fallen in 1917. World War I toppled many dynasties.

RomanovsFan4Ever

  • Guest
Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2009, 03:31:53 PM »

Your comment that the Tsar and Tsarina were "not particularly intelligent are incorrect.  Nicholas II, while by no means a genius, was given the finest education as first a Grand Duke, then Tsarevitch.  Alexandra, while just a Princess, was highly intelligent and was also given the education a girl of her status was always given.  They knew exactly how poor some of the population was, and felt closer to the peasant population since they felt this was the heart of the Father/Tsar reverence.  There was a middle class in Russia, I do not know where you get that information from, you are wrong.  The reason Nicholas II abdicated was a result of many things.  First, the sickness of Alexei drove them to seek help from Rasputin.  As we all know, his morals were not upstanding and this lead to disgust and jealousy of his closeness to the Imperial Family.  Second, while Nicholas was Commander-in-chief, he left many decisions to Alexandra who along with Rasputin made bad changes in the ministers.  When the public loses confidence in their rulers, downfall is inevitable.  WWI caused shortages of heat and bread, causing hungry, tired people to protest.  One man and woman can rule the largest country in the world, one man, Peter the Great, and one woman, Catherine the Great, managed to do so for many years and made excellent changes for Russia.  As for Nicholas giving up his power, what ruler do you know has ever done that?  A Duma was created in 1905 after the revolution, but Nicholas felt it was his god-given right to rule alone, and the Duma went against everything he vowed in his coronation.  Possibly if the House of Romanov was a constitutional government as Alexander II was considering at the moment of his assassination, things might be different today and we would still have Tsardom in Russia.  But this was not to be. The leaders of the 1917/1918 revolution crowed about changes that the people at the time thought were going to make their lives wonderful, but made them even harder.



Romanov1918
Well said, what you have said is true.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2009, 03:36:29 PM by RomanovsFan4Ever »