What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

[Constantinople]

The Tsar used a lot of propaganda, most notably the press but also his family, which is why there were so many photographs and films of them.  The palaces and the uniforms and the formality and protocol were all forms of propoganda, as was his wealth.

[Sergei Witte]

To a certain extent, you are correct, SW.  However he did need the imprimatur of the Church, which he was technically head of. He also needed the support of the masses  to keep order in the realm.  No one wanted another Pugachev, after all. So this was a way to keep the peasantry in line. You can see Scenarios of Power  by Wortman, vol. 2. The Emperor was supposed to take the adv ice of his ministers to rule effectively and fairly. IMO  he failed at all of these tasks

I think that they didn't care about the support of the masses that much, which became fatal in the end of course. There were several rituals though, that were associated with the public giving approval of the Tsar and his power but only in a traditional way, b.e. the giving out of bread and presents when a royal child was born or the festivities that should have taken place on Khodynka field during the coronization. Or the rituals when the tsarevitch became mature etc. In a way these rituals were propagandistic in the way that they were meant to gain public approval. Nowadays propaganda is mostly associated with putting enemies in a negative daylight. So imo this is something different.

[Sergei Witte]

The Tsar used a lot of propaganda, most notably the press but also his family, which is why there were so many photographs and films of them.  The palaces and the uniforms and the formality and protocol were all forms of propoganda, as was his wealth.

As I said above to Robert, there is a difference between real propaganda for war aims, creating a negative image of your enemies, and certain rituals to gain public support.

[Alixz]

While we may see wealth as a propaganda issue, I believe that in Russia in the late 19th century and even before that, the tsar was expected to "shine" in front of his people.

Even in The Jewel Album of the Tsars  Prince Michael of Greece says that Catherine II understood this and had new coronation regalia made and also wore, in public, about a many jewels as she could fit onto her body.

We would now call this an ostentatious display of wealth, but in former times, the people expected that their sovereigns would be "eating off of gold plate and wearing beautiful clothing".  That was a world that the average person could not enter, but it was the home of the tsars (or the gods).  I know that the tsars were supposed to be anointed by God and not actually gods, but I used that as a way to show how far beyond the normal daily life the sovereign was supposed to be.

Before the general public discontent or upheavals that took place in 1905 and then in 1917, the tsars were actually seen by the average person incapable of doing wrong.  That is why the average Russian felt that if he could get to the Tsar then everything would be taken care of.

Please, I know that this is a simplistic view and that the intelligenza did not see the Imperial Family in this way.  Most attempts on the lives of the sovereign came, not from the serf class, but from the aristocratic class or from the educated class.  This is a far deeper subject than can be covered in my post, in a thread about what Nicholas II could have done to preserve the Imperial Throne.

Perhaps the simplest way would have been "to give it up" but do it long before 1917.

[TimM]

1905, when the Duma was created, would have been a good opportunity.

[Robert_Hall]

Alixz, I think the opulence you mention was more advertisement or "PR' than propaganda Although I suppose they may all be the same in some ways. Before mass media, that was pretty much the only way most people got their information  about who was ruling them. Now, you can't get Putin OFF the TV  for instance. Remember his belly rubbing episode,  and his super buffed up bare chested display ?  If I remember correctly, that was a hunting trip of some sort. I could  very well be wrong about that, but it was quite a display of his virility. In the case of the latter Romanovs, the propaganda was used to lie to the people [not that they were/are  the only ones to do that].  Now, everyone does it. use it i all the time, but we have media for wider exposure. In those days, all they had was paintings and later, post cards to  get the message accross.

[AGRBear]

Meanwhile, the revolutionaries are doing their own propaganda.

AGRBear

[Robert_Hall]

 Of course they did, Bear.  Nice allegory, BTW, thanks for posting it.
 One can go  way back to Marie Antoinette [and before] for illustrations of such derogatory pictures. Some are downright nasty, but, when most people could not even read, that was the only way to get their message  out.

[TimM]

Meanwhile, the revolutionaries are doing their own propaganda.

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, considering what kind of government they helped usher in.

[Constantinople]

SW Propaganda is not just confined to wars.  And what is the difference between PR and propaganda?  they are closely aligned.

[Robert_Hall]

 Good question, Const.  As I see it. PR is putting a shine on outright propaganda. The latter does not invite  feedback, the PR  does though  and is equipped to provide answers, in a way.  Of course, they are one sided answers. I do not know where you are based now but you have lived in Istanbul so have certainly seen the  "sell job" they do there. Not as bad as most, IMO,  As I said, everybody  uses both techniques. From celebrities to countries.
 I recently received an email advert  for a trip to Albania [?!]  I have no intention of going there anytime soon, but it was so obvious they used an advertising agency to get out their message. I also recently received a  catalogue of Russian tours.   I do not use tours usually,  but they certainly painted a different picture from   what I know, especially after 4 visits.
 In the case of the Romanovs, I think they simply did not know how to use  these  tools. As has been mentioned, they thought they need not justify their  actions. Well, that proved fatal. The  subsequent regimes were much more savvy about  it though.  I think Lenin  was a master at it,  Stalin had a whole staff of  poster people at hand to get his  message out.

[Sergei Witte]

SW Propaganda is not just confined to wars.  And what is the difference between PR and propaganda?  they are closely aligned.

Constantinople, IMO the difference lies in that PR is basically about "Look how good we are" whilst Propaganda is about "Look how bad/evil they are". I don't think the Tsars used the latter form while they certainly used the first one in their rituals like coronations etc.

I just wanted to add this nuance in the discussion.

[Constantinople]

this is a definition of propaganda:
Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.
As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda can be used as a form of political warfare.

this is a definition of PR

the practice of managing communication between an organization and its publics.[2] Public relations provides an organization or individual exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that provide a third-party endorsement[3] and do not direct payment.[4] Once common activities include speaking at conferences, working with the media, crisis communications and social media engagement[5], and employee communication.

thus PR is the process and propaganda is the content and therefore what I said fits in with these parameters.

[Sergei Witte]

Const, you are riight. It is a broad definition of propaganda and both tsarist rituals and wartime propaganda fit in it.

[AGRBear]

quote author=Katenka_Fyodorovna link=topic=14775.msg455913#msg455913 date=1281214796]

..[in part]...



BTW....if this is a modern composite made for someone over here....its on sale on ebay...
[/quote]

It was true then, as it is true today,  pretty girls who are rich and famous are copied by young girls who have dreams at night about marrying their prince, a thought put in their heads from the time they were small from hearing fairy tales about such things happening.

Also true:  How can a young russian girl  believe such a beauty is "evil" if you lived in that time and knew little of the world accept what one managed to see in magazines, with photographs like this one?