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

Turgenev may have coined the phrase Nihilism and that is certainly what the main character of 'Fathers and Sons' is. However my understanding of the book is that it is a discussion of that 'malaise' in Russian society rather than a promotion of nihilist ideals. My personal view is that nihilism is not a credible/practicable politcial viewpoint. 'Father's and Sons' is not a promotion of Nihilism any more than 'Crime and Punishmen't is simply a promotion of anti semitism. Although I'm sure many people will argue that it is.

Tolstoy's 'christian anarchy' sadly has had much more influence outside Russia than inside it. I personally have immense admiration for Tolstoy's views and beliefs and they are far closer to my own than nihilism. My point was that Tolstoy's views were not (again sadly) a reflection of what was happening within the upper classes of Russia at that time in general rather what Tolstoy wanted to be happening.

Tsarfan makes the point that via a complex set of historical socio-economic and religious factors that Russia has developed and become habituated to a unique and seemingly indelible political 'footprint'. That being that Russians do not on the whole want to take an active role in their own governance and have become incapable of being governed in any way other than despotism. I apologise if that is not a correct assessment however.

Furthermore Stalin's rise to power is given as evidence of this along with Russia's current decline and debasement.

In my opinion the French Revolution has some useful parallels in this respect. The departure of the Bourbon's left France with a chasm in its former social structures that enabled a bold and brilliant but equally dangerous and despotic Napoleon to rise to power. In my opinion in a similar way the departure of the Romanov's so completely and so speedily from Russia's political scene also created a gap, chasm, choas in the social order that allowed the equally dangerous Stalin to rise to power. Both men appeared out of nowhere and just seized the opportunity. Stalin achieved and maintained his power as I have said only with an unprecedented level of barbarity not habituated aquiescence.

Nicholas II by resisting the social changes that were being pressed upon him by revoltionary agitation made the situation more explosive and violent. The violence brought with it chaos and disorder as opposed to the social reform that was desired. However the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 are unequivocal proof that Russian's were and are capable of taking control of their own governance. As Tsarfan stated it was largely luck that enabled Lenin to win the Civil War. The Civil War is again proof positive that Russians are not incapable of taking or at least attempting to take control of their system of government. My own personal view as to why things have seemingly always been so barbaric in Russia is the sheer scale of the country. This has resulted in centralised goverment that is inherently isolated and remote from the majority of the populace. This scale has also led to extremes in order to tie the whole thing together.

I think the recent social unrest following Putin's latest 'election' also shows that there is still hope that Russia might yet one day throw off the yoke of despotism.

My personal view is that nihilism is not a credible/practicable politcial viewpoint. 'Father's and Sons' is not a promotion of Nihilism any more than 'Crime and Punishmen't is simply a promotion of anti semitism.

Actually, Vanya, I had my tongue in my cheek when I made the comment about Turgenev.  Sorry . . . I just couldn't resist.

However the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 are unequivocal proof that Russian's were and are capable of taking control of their own governance.

And Nicholas' success in eviscerating the constitutional reforms of 1906, the quick rise of Lenin and Stalin on the heels of revolution, and Putin's "managed democracy" are unequivocal proof that they are willing to hand it right back to autocrats and despots at the first opportunity.

One of the most disturbing but little-publicized facts is that three of China's most populous provinces border on a vast stretch of eastern Russia that contains some of the world's largest reserves of strategic minerals.  But that region is quickly emptying itself of Russians, having dropped in population by seven million in the past two decades.  If the current epic trend in Russia's population decline continues, even government estimates predict a drop from 144 million to 102 million by 2050 (and independent estimates put the figure as low as 77 million).  China and Russia are fast moving toward a population ratio of 10-to-1.  This is the kind of imbalance between power and command of vital resources that history often resolves with warfare.

Sounds to me that China just has to bide its time, then it could move in and grab that whole area.

Sounds to me that China just has to bide its time, then it could move in and grab that whole area.

This depopulation of Russia should be a very worrying trend for the western powers for several reasons.  In the first few years after the fall of communism, there was hope across the west that Russia was finally on the threshold of coming to the table of western liberalism with her vast natural resources, her scientific talent, her diplomatic clout, and her strategic location at the geographic and cultural junctures of the west, the mid-east, and China.

But Russia has always had a love-hate relationship with the west and something of an inferiority complex regarding it, and depopulation will feed into that.  She has already lost a third of the territory she controlled at the peak of tsarism due, in part, to the inability to contain nationalist movements in the post-soviet era.  And her responses to this -- virulent nationalism, xenophobia, resurgent anti-semitism, trying to build a bridge from the current regime back to the glories of the tsarist past, and even the rehabilitation of Nicholas II -- do not auger well.

While off thread, actually in the Far East China's penetration of Russian Siberia is already a fact.  The number of Chinese businesses in Vladivostok, for example, is quite remarkable and there is much more north south trade than east west trade (other than for oil and gas) to the extent that China probably doesn't have to physically annex Siberia to get the same result.

I have just finished reading Peter Massie's biography of Catherine the Great and a leitmotif throughout the book was Catherine's realization that western theories of governance as epitomized back then in the works of Montesquieu, Diderot and Voltaire simply were inapplicable in Russia (a view hardened by the Pugachev Rebellion).  Personally, I believe a strong central government may be the only thing that works in a country which spans ten time zones with a population including over 20 different nationalities which don't espouse a "melting pot" ethos. In the past various reigns tried to address this through Russification programs (viz., NI and AIII) with mixed results. BTW, this is not an argument reserved for Russia but to a lesser extent is reflected here at home in the US, i.e., the tension between individual liberty (and/or states' rights) and the role of a powerful central government (viz., Hamilton vs. Jefferson, Jackson vs. Biddle and the National Bank, Douglas vs. Lincoln, Roosevelt vs. Henry Cabot Lodge and the Supreme Court, and in today's manifestation, witness the debate over the constitutionality of the personal mandate in Obamacare to be resolved in the next few days). So whatever one thinks of Putin (and I guess I could be regarded as a detractor if only because I think he has missed a number of golden opportunities to quell corruption and to move Russia along a more progressive path) I don't think it's wise to simply dismiss him as a wanna be autocrat and not perhaps consider him sadly as a reflection of something deeper in the people's psyche.

Petr           

While off thread, actually in the Far East China's penetration of Russian Siberia is already a fact.  The number of Chinese businesses in Vladivostok, for example, is quite remarkable and there is much more north south trade than east west trade (other than for oil and gas) to the extent that China probably doesn't have to physically annex Siberia to get the same result.

I think you are right that China does not have to annex Siberia to get the same result . . . for now.  But peaceful trade depends on peaceful relations, and Sino-Russian relations have been checkered at best.  As China becomes more dependent on Russia's strategic mineral reserves to keep its growing military engine running, it will become less able to tolerate disruptions -- or the threat of disruptions -- in the supply line.

This is probably idle worry on my part.  I certainly hope so.

Of course, if a shooting war ever did loom between Russia and China, one should take into account that both countries have nuclear weapons.  Whether they would dare use them is anyone's guess.

Russia is so damned big, it's a wonder anyone could control it.  I mean in the old days it would take weeks for a message to travel from St. Petersburg to Vladivostok.

[Robert]

Correction: Robert K. Massie, Catherine the Great  (Random House, 2011)

A very readable biography written in the typical Massie fluid style.


Petr

From what I have read here, it seems the deck was stacked against Nicholas even before he came to the throne.  He was just the guy unlucky enough to be there when it all blew up.

He was just the guy unlucky enough to be there when it all blew up.

Nicholas was far more than just the guy unlucky enough to be there.

He was the guy who clung intransigently to the unbridled power to ordain the fate of over 100 million people.

He was the guy who, instead of trying to curtail the miseries of rapid industrialization, removed protective legislation in order to speed it up further.

He was the guy who refused, despite advice and pleas, to curb the loutish excesses of Land Captains until the revolution of 1905-06 forced it upon him.

He was the guy who ordered armed troops out against unarmed civilians in 1905 and -- failing to grasp the lesson of the backlash from that -- did it again in February 1917.

He was the guy who took very calculated steps after 1906 to reverse the fledgling moves toward constitutional government.

He was the guy who inflamed anti-semitism by furtively supporting the vigilantism of the Black Hundreds and who funded vicious anti-semitic propaganda.

He was the guy who failed to support his two ablest ministers, Witte and Stolypin, and instead favored lackeys and non-entities in critical posts.

He was the guy who took over supreme command of his military against the advice of almost everyone but an unstable wife and her starets.

He was the guy who left civilian government in the hands of that unstable wife and a religious charlatan for two critical years in a major war.

He was the guy who by February 1917 had lost the support of his army, his navy, his Church, his ministers, his bureaucracy, his extended family, and his people.

Russia would have been far better off if Nicholas had just been there and let others with more intelligence and judgment run things for him.

I knew Tsarfan was going to react strongly to your last post there Tim, lol.

I happen to agree that Nicholas was unlucky but quite clearly he was a dubious character as well. His poor leadership allowed for the "luck" of his enemies such as Lenin.

I'm curious how much potential there was for Nicholas to have been a good Tsar in those early years. We always talk about the bad timing of Alexander III's death and Nicholas's lack of preparedness, which he himself admitted to, in assuming the throne. Yet even one of those able ministers you speak of, Witte, considered the younger Nicholas to have within him the skills necessary to be a perfectly capable Tsar.

All in all his family really did him no favors it would seem. Far from being unlikeable the one thing any leader ought to be able to count on are his relatives. In this instance the people who ought to have been the most supportive failed him at almost every step. His father for going almost out of his way to keep his son, and heir to the throne, ill equipped to face the eventual challenges that were certain to present themselves. His mother and her questionable council (not entirely her fault since she too was thrust into a difficult role with the untimely passing of her husband). His selfish, glib, and power hungry uncles (AKA Grand Duke's). The back stabbing Vladimirovich wing of his family conspiring against him. And then of course his emotionally unstable and inflexible wife and her shallow guidance.

With family like this who needs enemies?

All in all his family really did him no favors it would seem. Far from being unlikeable the one thing any leader ought to be able to count on are his relatives.

I agree that Nicholas' family had their own failings, including not working harder to coach Alexandra, and that Marie Pavlovna the Elder's behavior, in particular, was totally out of bounds.

But there are so many signs that Nicholas, seen at the close quarters from which his family would have seen him, was very weak raw material for a tsar who was determined single-handedly to run an enormous country fomenting with economic and social change.

When Witte suggested to Alexander III that he invite Nicholas into government councils, Alexander asked Witte whether he had ever heard the tsesarevich express a single serious thought.  After dinner on the day when Grand Duke Sergei had been blown to bits in Moscow, Nicholas and a cousin were playing at trying to push each other off a couch.  His diaries, even on days when momentous events unfolded, are full of insipid comments on the weather, who dropped by, and what he had to eat.  They reveal almost nothing of his thoughts on significant events.  Just weeks before the revolution, with the wheels falling off the cart on the military front and with his cities enduring food and fuel shortages, Nicholas' correspondence to his wife from Stavka reports hours-long walks into the countryside, wandering into empty churches to soak up the atmosphere, and his relief at not being bothered by ministers and counselors.  When he did have to endure those nettlesome meetings, Nicholas prepared himself by combing his hair with the magic comb Alexandra sent him from Rasputin.  When, in the last days of the monarchy, Grand Duke Sandro went to Tsarskoye Selo to warn the tsar of an impending collapse of the government, he ended up talking mostly to Alexandra who was propped up in bed eating crackers while Nicholas sat silently on the side.  Sandro left having no idea what the tsar was going to do or whether he was going to do anything.

Nicholas had a very unfortunate combination of extreme malleability in the hands of those whose advice squared with his inclinations and extreme rigidity with those whose advice he found inconvenient.  Combined with his absolute authority over the family, it did not make him very coachable.  In fact, Nicholas' entire reign was hobbled by a repeating of mistakes and a lack of "learning moments".  

The Emancipation Act had given 85% of Russia's population expectations. Expectations and a sense of entitlement. Even if those were not met and their lives in material terms changed little after the Act the all powerful human ideals of freedom and citizenship had been 'let out of the bottle' as it were.

I agree that this was done without the sword or the gun, but as in the US, it was done without proper education or training to live in a new world order. Therefore, the result was the same. A large group of people who were now free but little changed in their lives in material terms. The reason that there was no further upheaval in the US at that time is because the civil war ended with the freedom of the slaves (within a few years of the emancipation proclamation) and did not continue or begin as it did in Russia by the emancipation of the serfs.

Also, in the US there is a change of executive at least every four to eight years (Lincoln only had 4 and a smidgen) and so there would be no long term rulers (like Nicholas II) continuing in the path that he chose 25 years ago. A path that was now out of date and very reactionary.

Alixz) Absolutely. Your second paragraph in particular makes a point worth underlining. Just the ability for the people in a democratic republic to change their leadership, if they feel it necessary, every two to four years allows for built in stability in a way an unpopular autocracy can appear hopeless to the masses. At times I feel like elections in America were the only thing that kept the peace and the wolves at bay...an exception to this quite clearly being Lincoln's victory over Buchanan in 1860.

The way Republicans have been acting the past few years I feel like their hope for an Obama loss in November is the only thing that has kept them from taking up arms against the federal government, lol. But that's just it...the system works, even if the citizens themselves often behave in a questionable manner. Conservatives aren't stuck with an Obama for (potentially) decades just as liberals weren't hitched to Bush. Divided government also allows our people to curb the power of an executive when we think they get out of hand as witnessed by Bush's midterm defeats in 2006 and Obama's thumping in 2010.

Subsequently if the liberals vote their guy in and he fails to live up to expectations (as many would suggest Obama has) they really only have themselves to blame...Autocratic rule on the otherhand is hopeless and infuriating for it's critics in a society. Perhaps the worst part being that after an extended period of time having to "deal" with a Nicholas II, instead of the hope and promise of regime change after his death you wind up getting stuck with an Alexei or Michael Romanov (just as you were stuck with Nicholas after Alexander III's reign) It's a one-party system!

Tsarfan) What you say makes sense. You could have added to your list that supposed story of Nicholas reading about a disastrous defeat for his navy in the Russo-Japanese War, crumbling up the note and then continuing in with his game of tennis! I suppose you're correct that Nicholas could have dine more to at least give the correct impression and endear himself to his family members and ministers. But while full of rather bizarre idiosyncrasies Nicholas was still a hard worker and dedicated countryman. Further, the criticisms you've posted are largely directed towards the more experiened over-30 Nicholas. Not the rather naive and green young man who inherited the throne quite suddenly. That Nicholas needed and deserved much more, in my opinion, than what he actually received from those closest to him...

Not the rather naive and green young man who inherited the throne quite suddenly.

And that, in a nutshell, is why monarchy is a hopelessly inadequate institution for running modern complex societies.

Look at it this way.  Any large, successful business that seeks to fill a senior position finds that only a small percentage of people have the intelligence, judgment, skills, and experience for the job.  Yet autocracy turned over the running of a vast nation to an eldest son without regard to whether he had any of those traits.

There is a reason that 26% of Romanov rulers (plus two heirs) were murdered . . . and that 60% of those who were murdered were murdered by or with the complicity of their own families.

Autocracy offers no means but violence to address serious inadequacies in a ruler.