Author Topic: 1905 Bloody Sunday  (Read 149008 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #570 on: February 23, 2007, 10:38:43 AM »
Most of it is flying over your heads which are all stuffed with modern views which has been influenced by books.

Well, not having myself been lofted above the human condition by God Almighty and freed of all human interests and frailties, as was Nicholas, I am stuck with books to chart my own views.  Of course, I do seek out books written by legitimate historians instead of racist cranks and forgers.  A matter of preference, I suppose.

Books can't give your own memories of the faces where tears flowed as they remembered the good times and the bad times.

At least I can give anyone who asks the names of the books I've read.  So far, you have been unable to give us the names and the credentials as witnesses of all these weeping acquaintances.

I for one have no idea how intelligent Nicholas II was.

It's actually not that hard to deduce a person's intelligence from what he says, writes, and does.  Case in point.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #571 on: February 23, 2007, 07:16:33 PM »
Earlier, I quoted T Roosevelt and WH Taft, because we were talking about the use of force to quell a demonstration.  Below is that quote again.  I got it from R Massie Nicholas & Alexandra

*The era was one of bitter labor strife in all industrial nations.  In the United States, for example, during the Pullman strike of 1884, Judge William Howard Taft, a future President, wrote to his wife, "It will be necessary for the military to kill some of the mob, before the trouble can be stayed.  They have killed only six as yet.  This is hardly enough to make an impression."  In the end, 30 were killed, 60 wounded and 700 arrested.  Six years later, Theodore Roosevelt campaigning for Vice President, said privately, "The sentiment now animating a large proportion of our people can only be suppressed... by taking ten or a dozen of their leaders out, standing them against the wall and shooting them dead.  I believe it will come to that.  These leaders are planning a social revolution and the subversion of the American Republic.*

I am now reading Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris.
Here is another of T Roosevelt's thoughts on using force to quell a demonstration.

"Roosevelt had been violently inclined himself in Haymarket days.  He had fantasized leading a band of riflemen against the rioters, and shooting them into submission...."

I don't know where this will fit into the discussion as it has morphed a great deal since page since page 10, but again, I use the quote and the two sources to show that the use of force to quell a demonstration or striker's march was not unusual in any country during the growing labor unrest of the 1880s to 1910s.

Some posters had said that I was being dis-respectful of our former presidents, however, as you can see, they themselves had these thoughts and said these things.

So as to Bloody Sunday.  Since, even in that bastion of freedom of speech and freedom as assembly called the United States, men who would one day be commander in chief, thought that the use of force was necessary.

We here on this thread have been "bashing" Nicholas II for the use of force on Bloody Sunday, but I believe that if the march had taken place in the US, it would have ended with the same results.

Offline grandduchessella

  • Global Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 13041
  • Getting Ready to Move to Europe :D
    • View Profile
    • Facebook page
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #572 on: February 23, 2007, 08:19:58 PM »
Dear Tsarfan and Bev ,

Is it possible that you've forgoten so quickly that Margarita is trying to give us information on the world through Nicholas II's eyes as Tsar.  Or,  aren't you reading her posts carefully.

I am trying to provide information from what I know from all the people I have known who lived in those times in Russia under the Tsars.

FA continues to provide us with great information on how it was.

Most of it is flying over your heads which are all stuffed with modern views which has been influenced by books,  or,  so it seems to me.  Books don't give you the whole picture.  Books can't give your own  memories of the faces where tears flowed as they remembered the good times and the bad times.

Also,  you continue to to drill into me and other posters that Nicholas II must have been stupid or lacked intelligence or more recently that he might have been mentaly ill.   Perhpas you believe if you say it enough everyone poster will  start believing it.


Please confine personal remarks to PMs. Once again, there's no need--for anybody--to directly call out other posters. And posters who are called out do not need to respond. Already Bob himself has had to come in and delete posts--I don't know when the last time I saw that was.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 08:24:51 PM by grandduchessella »
They also serve who only stand and wait--John Milton
Come visit on Pinterest--http://pinterest.com/lawrbk/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #573 on: February 23, 2007, 10:17:51 PM »
I talked to my father, he told me, TS was not closed/restricted city, but transit was limited to people, who had business inside the town. Every person in Russian Empire had to register upon arrival to some destination, and when this person was leaving, he/she should do the same - log the departure. In front of the every city, was a Gendarme next to the gate, and log of entry/departure. Btw, you could see policeman / gendarme next to the gates, in the old photos and post cards, they mostly for bureaucracy reason, than had actual function.

For example in this picture next to Egyptian Gate, white structure, right pass the Gate on the right hand - police booth.

Hi Vladm,

Thank you for your information about the township of TS. I have the same postcard and never realized that there was a gendarme booth just inside the gate.

Do you by any chance know if the log books during Nikolai's reign survived? Thanks.

Margarita
  :)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 10:41:10 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #574 on: February 23, 2007, 10:31:11 PM »
So as to Bloody Sunday.  Since, even in that bastion of freedom of speech and freedom as assembly called the United States, men who would one day be commander in chief, thought that the use of force was necessary.

We here on this thread have been "bashing" Nicholas II for the use of force on Bloody Sunday, but I believe that if the march had taken place in the US, it would have ended with the same results.

Some have prefered to "bash" Nikolai II on this thread while a few are attempting to present him in a fairer light. I do agree with your assessment that had "Bloody Sunday" occurred elsewhere, such as in the U. S., the outcome would have been similar.

Just because the tragedy happened in Imperial Russia it is more convenient to be highly critical of her Emperor without understanding Imperial Russia, her people and her customs.

Thank you  Alixz for pointing out your valid observation.

Margarita
:)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #575 on: February 23, 2007, 10:39:19 PM »
. . . . the Emperor could not just stand above all classes and its factions "but almost above the human condition itself. Not prey to nomal temptations, interests or frailties, he ruled on the basis of of a pure heart and an Orthodox Christian conscience."

Such virtues were incompatible with the mundane life experienced by the majority of Nikolai's subjects, and this imperial inheritance may go some way to explain why he failed to understand the real ramifications of Bloody Sunday, including Trepov's temporary band-aid solution.

Oh, my Lord.  I actually thought this post was meant as a joke.  Then I read the rest of the page.

Margarita, do you  believe that a Russian emperor, once he ascended the throne, became immune to normal human temptations, interests, or frailties?

Whatever else you say in answer to this question, please include a simple "yes" or "no".

Why would my response be of any importance to you?

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #576 on: February 23, 2007, 11:04:38 PM »
Belochka,

Thank you.  I have lost complete sense of where the discussion was going.  I hope that bringing up page 10 can get us back on track.

I liked Tsarfan's observation that to Nicholas and Alix - the march on Bloody Sunday was a threat to their way of life.  I don't imagine that any of us like to have our powers usurped.  No matter what that power is, whether it is a teacher's power in the class room, or a foreman's power in his factory, or the district manager's power in the board room.

And Nicholas's power was much broader and deeper that any of those powers I have just mentioned.  I believe that many who are posting here are judging Nicholas and his belief in his position as Tsar and Head of the Church and God's representative on Earth with the eyes of those who have lived all of their lives in a republic.

And while I even may not agree with everything that Nicholas said or did from a republican (note the small r) point of view or from the view of one who has enjoyed the plentiful but limited freedoms of that republic, I think I can still see why he felt the way he did.

Perhaps he should have (as I posted earlier) just looked out the palace window, hit himself on the forehead and said "It is so different out there from what I thought.", but he couldn't because that would have been as foreign to him as the US as a monarchy would have been to T Roosevelt.

We can say that what he did was morally wrong, in our view.  We can say that he didn't have the education (I believe that he did have the intelligence) or experience to be a "good" monarch, but I truly believe that we can't say that his reactions to the troubles of his reign were wrong in relation to what he was brought up to believe in.

That is why, I still maintain that we have to look at the tenor of the world wide atmosphere of not just the workers who were striking world wide, but of the other rulers with Nicholas's responsibility.  Not just the monarchs but the republican heads of state as well.

It is so easy to condemn Nicholas because of what happened during his reign and after with the rise of the Soviets.  But worse things happened during the reigns of other Romanovs, too.  And some of those we have labeled as "Great".


Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #577 on: February 24, 2007, 12:10:59 AM »
I'll play this game:
1. Feb. 1905, Washington, D. C. A large crowd of citizens, 120,000 strong, composed of members of the labor organizations, party politicians, writers, women, children, and just on-lookers out to see the fun, begin marching on the Capitol bldg. Pres. Roosevelt has stationed infantry and cavalry units along the boulevards and avenues, with order to prevent the marchers from congregating in front of the capitol. The crowd is waving American flags, pictures of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, and singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic and God Bless America. Police officers stand in front of the various groups and order them to disperse, the crowd opens their coats to show they are unarmed, the people behind press forward. The army units fire into the air but the crowd keeps coming, so the army lowers their rifles and fires into the crowd, then the cavalry charges into the fleeing and confused ranks slashing with their sabres. One army units turns and fires into the trees along Pennyslvania Ave. and shoot boys who had climbed up into them.  Between 130 and 200 are killed outright or die later of their wounds, and maybe 300 to 600 are wounded.
Do you honestly think that the Congress would have shrugged this off and said, oh well, they were warned and this was an illegal march, and it was full of revolutionaries so the army had every right to shoot them to maintain order. They should have put their petition in the correct form and presented it thorugh channels.
2. Feb. 1905, London, Great Britain, same scenario, except the marchers are trying to reach Buckingham Palace and they sing God Save the King and wave Union Jacks. A unit of Grenadier Guards fires into the trees in St. James' Park and shoots young boys out who had climbed them to get a better view. Do you honestly think that Parliament would have voted that the marchers were disturbing the public peace and were a danger to the public order so the army had to shoot them down to prevent them from tearing down the railing around the palace.
3. Feb. 1905: Paris, France. Etc. Etc. "The Marseillaise and pictures of Joan of Arc and the tricolor. Do you honestly think the Chamber of Deputies would have sat there and debated and then announced that since the marchers didn't have a permit and they might have been a danger in such large numbers to themselves the army had to shoot them down to prevent this so the marchers brought it on themselves and should ask the government for forgiveness for being so naughty.
4. Feb. 1905 Berlin, German Empire. The crowd marches toward the Lustgarten to present a petition to the Kaiser. The carry his portrait, wave the red-white-black flag, and sing Deutschland Uber Alles and Heir Dir Im Siegerkranz. At the Brandenburg Gate, within sight of the Reichstag, the guards regiments line up and fire into the marchers. Then the Hussar charge down the allee sabering the scattering, screaming marchers. Do you honestly think the Landstag and the Reichstag would have said that the Kaiser wasn't in Berlin but in Potsdam so the marchers should have known this and disperesed, besides they were marching on the grass in the median and this was illegal. The Kaiser then orders a delegation of workers brought to the Stadt Schloss to ask his pardon for being so troublesome and questioning his divine right.
I could go on and on, but I think the picture is clear.



« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 12:23:54 AM by James1941 »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #578 on: February 24, 2007, 08:18:52 AM »
OK,

I'll play, too.

In all of the cases you mention and suppose, every country has an elected government behind the monarch or ruler.

Russia did not.

And, I said that the marchers would be fired on.  Nothing more and nothing concerning what would happen after.

Since the words of Roosevelt, now confirmed by two sources are continually ignored, why is so hard for others to understand?

This was the mind set of the day.  The use of force to disburse strikers and marchers was not only expected, it was condoned by at least one (and I'm sure Roosevelt couldn't have been alone) of the leading figures of his day.

And, James, I hope that you let those who aren't as familiar with world history as we are know that your examples are fictional?

« Last Edit: February 24, 2007, 08:25:16 AM by Alixz »

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #579 on: February 24, 2007, 08:56:23 AM »
Yes, the scenarios I advanced are fictional.
The point was that in every case if it had happened governments would have fallen and thrones would have been shaken. Roosevelt would have probably been impeached in the U.S. and in Britain and France the government of the day would have fallen and there would have been commission after commission to investigate why it happened. In Germany the Reichstag would have been in an uproar and probably the chancellor would have been dismissed if for no other reason than to try and save face.
 And, in the real case, Russia, it happened. Bloody Sunday wasn't accepted passively by the people. It led to the Revolution of 1905 that shook the very autocracy of Nicholas II out of its tree and smashed it. For the first time the Russian autocrat had to agree to share his powers, however grudgingly. He had two choices, as he himself wrote: appoint a military dictator and put the revolution down by bloody force or agree to a manifesto granting concessions. Either way he lost his autocratic powers. Regardless of what Roosevelt wrote, regardless of Wilhelm II's assertion his guards would have to shoot workers down, regardless of Nicholas II's mindset, this kind of act would have detonated a bomb with bloody consequences. Regardless of the excuses made or the legal nitpicking, a governmemy just does not shoot down peaceful citizens in the steets of its own capital and get away with it.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #580 on: February 24, 2007, 09:14:23 AM »
James,

I have never said that they "would get away with it".

I only said that understanding the "mind set" of the time, renders an explanation of why it could have happened.

I never said that is was morally or politically correct.

I only said that it was not an unexpected result or an action deviating from what others during that time would have expected and/or condoned.

'nuff said.   

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #581 on: February 24, 2007, 12:10:35 PM »
Here is what the Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna said about Bloody Sundy in the book The Last Grand Duchess, Vorres.
"Nicky had the police report a few days before. That Saturday he telephoned my mother at the Anitchkov and said that she and I were to leave for gatchina at once. He and Alicky went to Tsarskoe Selo. Insofar as I remember, my Uncles Vladimir and Nicholas were theo nly memebrs of the family left in St. Petersburg but there may have been others. I felt at the time that all those arrangements  were hideoulsy wrong. Nicky's ministers and the chief of police had it all their way. My mother and I wanted him to stain in St. Petersburg and to face the crowd. I am positive that, for all the ugly mood of some of the workmen, Nicky's appearance would have calmed them. They would have presented their petition and gone back to their hoomes. But that wretched Epiphany inciden had left all senior offices in a state of panic. They kept telling Nicky that he had no right to run such a risk, that he owed it to the country to leave the capital, that even the utmost precautions taken there might always be some loophole left. My mother and I did all we could tp persuade him that his ministers' advice was wrong, but Nicky preferred to follow it, and he was repent when he hear of the tragic outcome..."

So it appears Nicholas did have a choice. Both his mother and sister apparently tried to convince him to face the crowd.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #582 on: February 25, 2007, 04:37:45 AM »
Indeed, he had a choice, but, as even the GD Olga Alexandrova admits:

"but that wretched Epiphany inciden had left all senior offices in a state of panic. They kept telling Nicky that he had no right to run such a risk, that he owed it to the country to leave the capital, that even the utmost precautions taken there might always be some loophole left."

There was panic in the government, so they pressured Nicholas to run away, and he did. He was under pressure and took the wrong decision. But he was not the only one who was wrong those fateful days. His advisers weren't quite inspired, either.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #583 on: February 25, 2007, 09:35:42 AM »
Kurt,

The choices we all make in life!  I like your, " But he was not the only one who was wrong those fateful days. His advisers weren't quite inspired, either."

Of course he was responsible for the choosing those advisers.

But the other side, the marchers, made some bad choices, too.

Earlier on this thread, someone posted that there was enough blame to go around on all sides that day.  Enough blame and then some!
So much that to this day, historians (and those of us on this thread) can not agree on who should take the biggest share of the blame.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #584 on: February 25, 2007, 11:06:17 AM »
Kurt,
Maybe that is the problem...trying to figure out where to place the blame. Maybe there is no blame, just poor choices with consequences. There are always consequences. I wonder how things would have evolved had Nicholas took the advice of his mother and sister. We'll never know that.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"