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

Chirchill is entirely appropriate.  Great quote.  Churchill was one of the few Allied leaders who had the prescience to see how disastrous communism would be and was willing to deal with it by interceding.  Unfortunately after Gallipoli, his credibility was less than it should have been.

And he had to make a deal with the Devil (Stalin) in order to defeat Hitler.  However, he never trusted Stalin, not one bit, and he was right.  His "Iron Curtain" speech is still well remembered today.

Alexander I's abdication

I see you're familiar with the legend of Alexander I faking his death and living as a hermit for decades aftewards.  It really is fascinating and has yet to be debunked.  For all we know, it might have happened.  It was easier to do things like that back then.

There's a very good relatively recent book by Alexis Troubetskoy on the legend of Fyodor Kouzmich and he had the opportunity to speak with GD Olga regarding what the family belived was the true story. 

Petr

Unfortunately if it hadn't been for Stalin and the Eastern front, Hitler probably would have won the war.  The Russians asorbed enough of the Nazi brunt that they weakened the German war machine sufficiently for the D Day landings and subsequent battles to be feasible.  If HItler hadnt attacked Russia, I can't imagine what the outcome of the war would have been.

 Unfortunately, the Allies pulled the same stunt in WWI.  Russia had huge sacrifice in that conflict as well,  diverting Axis attention from the Western Front. Then when Nicholas was in crises, they left him to the wolves.

I think they were called the Great Powers and not the Axis but I agree

Unfortunately if it hadn't been for Stalin and the Eastern front, Hitler probably would have won the war.  The Russians asorbed enough of the Nazi brunt that they weakened the German war machine sufficiently for the D Day landings and subsequent battles to be feasible.  If HItler hadnt attacked Russia, I can't imagine what the outcome of the war would have been.

Absolutely correct although "unfortunately" should probably be "fortunately" . There is a very good book called "Absolute War" about the Eastern Front, the history of which is often overlooked in the West. Just between June 1941 and December 1941 the Soviet Army took approximately 5,000,000 casualties (it had to replace almost its entire army). Of course, there are a lot of questions regarding the degree to which Stalin was responsible for the losses given his refusal to accept good intelligence about German intentions (viz., Sorge in Japan for example and right up to the invasion itself from German defectors much to Zhukov's distress). Furthermore, query whether Germany would have attacked France but for the 1939 Pact (given Hitler's insanity he probably would have done so anyway but he would have had to keep some forces in reserve on the Eastern Front just in case limiting his attacking forces on the Western Front and possibly giving the Brits and the French a better shot at defense). A historical tidbit...the invasion of Greece threw the German General Staff's timetable off by several months (they were well aware of Napoleon's problems) and even so they got to Moscow by December. Had Barbarossa started a few months earlier possibly lessening the effect of the Russian winter on the advance of German forces and the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe no telling what would have happened.    Another historical what if.     

The following by way of comparison  might interest you:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_branch_of_service:
 
 
USA Casualties:
 
The Army (230,000), Army Air Corps (88,000) and Navy (62,600) all had more KIA's than the Marine Corps (24,500).
 
The Army Air Corps and Navy both had more KIA's than wounded, testament to what happens when a plane or ship goes down.
 
The Marine Corps had the second highest KIA percentage rate for total men serving during the war, 3.67%, the Merchant Marine's 3.9% was the highest.
 
The Marine Corps had the second highest casualty percentage rate, 13.85%, the Army and Army Air Corps had a combined 7.85%
 
The Army Air Corps suffered a total of 105,479 killed and wounded out the 3,400,000 who served

The Marine Corps suffered a total of 92,718 killed and wounded out the 669,100 who served
 

The precise number of Soviet casualties is difficult to calculate because of the shear number and the record keeping was imprecise.  This may be one instance when a communist regime because of its ruthlessness and its ability to control its population may have benefited mankind. Even so, 1 to 1.5 million Russians fought with the Germans in Vlasov's army and other groups which of course raises a separate question addressed in another thread.
 

 

To me, the saddest thing, the most tragic thing about Russian history is how Russia always seems to be running out of time. It's a recurring theme, a leitmotif (even now, with the Putin-Medvedev government). The Russian people can't keep up with the West, they're struggling to the utmost to catch up with the West, and instead the West catches up with them, and deals a veritable death blow to whatever progress they've made. Marx, Kaiser Wilhelm and his generals, Hitler and his generals... the list seems to be endless. And one could extend it backwards, actually, into the Time of Troubles of the early seventeenth century.

And Tim, I have to say this, I don't think it's any great shakes that we spend so much time remembering and commemorating Nicholas II and his family. If only we could spend as much time paying tribute in some way to the millions of individual citizens of the Russian and Soviet empires (and their satellites) who died during the twentieth century as a result of political persecution at the hands of the state. But of course that's impossible. Which is probably why many of us here tend to fixate on individual victims like the imperial family, just as ordinary people who mourn the Holocaust but have no personal connection to it tend to fixate on Anne Frank and her family. This is an all too human and completely understandable impulse of compassion. But it's nothing to celebrate, exactly, when we're discussing historical figures who -- unlike the very ordinary Frank family and their friends -- had an incalculable impact on the course of world history.

I agree but you know if you read the Apocalypse salvation is supposed to come from the East. Stalin was credited with this line "The death of a child is tragic, the death of a million children is a statistic." (Just shows you what his mindset was.)

Unfortunately if it hadn't been for Stalin and the Eastern front, Hitler probably would have won the war.  The Russians asorbed enough of the Nazi brunt that they weakened the German war machine sufficiently for the D Day landings and subsequent battles to be feasible.  If HItler hadnt attacked Russia, I can't imagine what the outcome of the war would have been.

Absolutely correct although "unfortunately" should probably be "fortunately" . There is a very good book called "Absolute War" about the Eastern Front, the history of which is often overlooked in the West. Just between June 1941 and December 1941 the Soviet Army took approximately 5,000,000 casualties (it had to replace almost its entire army). Of course, there are a lot of questions regarding the degree to which Stalin was responsible for the losses given his refusal to accept good intelligence about German intentions (viz., Sorge in Japan for example and right up to the invasion itself from German defectors much to Zhukov's distress). Furthermore, query whether Germany would have attacked France but for the 1939 Pact (given Hitler's insanity he probably would have done so anyway but he would have had to keep some forces in reserve on the Eastern Front just in case limiting his attacking forces on the Western Front and possibly giving the Brits and the French a better shot at defense).

I do think it's a legitimate question, whether World War II would ever have got off the ground in Europe if it had not been for the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I kind of doubt it would have. Hitler was certifiable in many (most) regards but for that very reason he might also have been a very nervous, nervy leader -- who would have backed off fighting a two-front war. Even in the wake of stupendous victory -- e.g., after conquering France, Hitler suddenly decided to stop the advance of his Panzers and thereby let the bulk of the British forces escape from Dunkirk, a serious mistake. Why did he do this? Historians can't agree, but it could be that Hitler, always the gambler, and having experienced an unforgettable winning streak (Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, France, etc., etc.) became suddenly anxious that it was all too good to be true and his luck would suddenly run out.

I think it's possible that if Stalin had not done a deal with Hitler in carving up Poland and the Baltic States, World War II might never have happened. Hitler would have continued his aggressive demands, no doubt about that, but they would have been more easily contained.

There's one theory that Stalin actually admired Hitler a great deal (as Hitler, judging from his Table Talk, admired Stalin, for not having those terrible "bourgeois" inhibitions that he, himself, Hitler, suffered from, and which so often, he said, held him back!!!). According to this theory Stalin couldn't believe the intelligence he was getting from his secret service and spies like Viktor Sorge, because he honestly believed that Hitler was his "friend" (as such friends in the international political mafia go) and would not invade the Soviet Union for at least another year. All that's sure is that Stalin made a major blunder in June 1941 which cost the Soviet Union literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers (taken prisoner by the Wehrmacht) and tons of war materiel.

And the fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been for Lend Lease, American assistance, the Soviet Union would not have been able to recover as quickly as it did from Operation Barbarossa. In fact, if it hadn't been for the United States I doubt very much Stalin's troops could have rolled into Berlin when they did - it would have taken many more years, maybe a decade, maybe even decades, of incredible loss and hardship. Robert Harris has a wonderful "counterfactual" novel, Fatherland, set in the 1960s, about what would have happened if the USA had stayed out of World War II and Britain had signed a separate peace with Nazi Germany.

I think they were called the Great Powers

Actually it was the Central Powers.

USA Casualties:
 
The Army (230,000), Army Air Corps (88,000) and Navy (62,600) all had more KIA's than the Marine Corps (24,500).
 
The Army Air Corps and Navy both had more KIA's than wounded, testament to what happens when a plane or ship goes down.
 
The Marine Corps had the second highest KIA percentage rate for total men serving during the war, 3.67%, the Merchant Marine's 3.9% was the highest.
 
The Marine Corps had the second highest casualty percentage rate, 13.85%, the Army and Army Air Corps had a combined 7.85%
 
The Army Air Corps suffered a total of 105,479 killed and wounded out the 3,400,000 who served

The Marine Corps suffered a total of 92,718 killed and wounded out the 669,100 who served

Interesting fact about World War II.  Although the U.S. suffered casualties, the U.S. itself was the least touched of the Four Powers.  With the exception of Pearl Harbour, no U.S. city was bombed.  Washington D.C. was not pounded nightly by bombs (like London was), directly occupied (like Paris was) or threatened with attack (like Moscow was).   They lost soldiers like everyone did, but the country itself was never touched the way the other three of the Allied powers were.

Ah, once again, we're WAY off topic.  Funny how that keeps happening!

What difference does it make what they were called We all know who we are talking about.  Anything else is just being pedantic.

Whatever...

Getting back to Nicky and his family, Wikipedia can really piss me off.  Why do they insist on calling it an execution when it was, in fact, a murder.  Execution implies some kind of due process was followed, and it clearly wasn't.  Nicky and his family were MURDERED, period.

Of course, some call the St. Valentine's Day Massecre an execution too, when it was a murder. 

Murder is murder, no matter if it was Lenin or Al Capone that gave the orders.

What difference does it make what they were called We all know who we are talking about.  Anything else is just being pedantic.

It maybe be "pedantic",  my guess is that it was just a simple correction with nothing else intended.  

Many young people, who don't have the knowledge of history,  read these threads so it helps that the correct labels are used so they can find more on the subject when they use google.  

AGRBear

Elisabeth and Petr, thanks for the excellent posts here on this thread. I couldn't have said it better. Fully agree with you both.

WWI was devastating fot Tsarist Russia. It brutalized the masses, consider how many Vietnam veterans were traumatized, and then consider that in WWI the numbers were much and much larger. It brought violence of the front right into the backland. Also consider the giga inflation, people waiting 8 hours for a loaf of bread etc. etc.

Also I agree, and am happy to read from you that you also assume that Alexander III could have made a big difference. Because an important factor which troubled relations between countries was Pan Slavism and the Russian need to bother themselves with the Balkan. Pan Slavism sentiments were growing after the Russo Japanese war, as the Balkan became important as a means of diverting attention of interal unrest. My guess with Alexander III would be that he would ignore the Pan Slavist sentiments. He was standing "with his back to Europe" while Nicholas had a European outlook and was under influence of these forces. Alexander would probably have dealt with Revolutionary activity internally, without looking for a way out, as Plehve said "to look for a short and victorious war to appease the public". In my opinion Alexander III is very underestimated even if there is a rivival of interest in Russian media. In Western countries he is still very much unknown and as best known as "the man between" (the son of a famous Tsar and the father of the most tragic Tsar) and that his politics had the effect of leading the country directly into revolution and misery. I agree that his reactionary politics were bad for the Russian people but he did not invent them himself. In the beginning of his reign he was very much under influence of the conservative opinionmakers, like Pobedonostsev. And there are indications that, in the end he freed himself of this influence.

Alexander III is also much judged on his supposedly low intelligence. While he was not an intelligent man on the rational way, he certainly was intelligent on the human side (EQ instead of IQ). Finally he didn't like adventurism and vanity.

All qualities which could have been vital in the period just before WWI, as opposed to the mental delusions which prevailed in so many state Leaders at that time.

My guess would be that the European politics of the era leading to WWI were a very delicate task, a task of balancing interests, as politics always are, and some of the polticians, unfortunately the most important ones, like Wilhelm and like Edward Grey by example, led themselves carry away with nationalist and revanchist sentiments. I personally don't think WWI was unavoidable. Usually Wilhelm is blamed for adventurous politics. But they were all to blame.

Elisabeth and Petr, thanks for the excellent posts here on this thread.

Hey, what about me, Robert, Constantinople, and Bear?  We're contributing here too

I'm having a blast posting in this thread.  Debating can be fun.