Author Topic: 1905 Bloody Sunday  (Read 149009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #585 on: February 25, 2007, 02:34:27 PM »
Indeed, we will never know.
But we can make some educated guesses. I believe Nicholas II should have had the meeting. But, I don't think it would have altered anything unless he was also prepared to make concessions to the "petition" and to institute the reforms asked for. And, from the many posts here arguing for Nicholas, it would appear he was not prepared to make any concessions or institute any reforms. Thus, the agitation and revolutionary movement would have continued. The only thing he would have escaped is the ephitet  of "Bloody Nicholas", and that would have meant something for him personally.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #586 on: February 25, 2007, 04:30:30 PM »
I agree James, I don't think it would have prevented the revolution. Nicholas's history with the Duma shows us that he was unwilling to make concessions. I do find it interesting that both his mother and his sister thought he should meet with the people. It shows that they saw things in a different light than Nicholas. Perhaps they were more in touch with what was happening in Russia at the time.
Where is Tsarfan today? I haven't seen him.
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 James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #587 on: February 25, 2007, 07:52:27 PM »
Yes, that the dowager empress and the grand duchess thought that is very interesting. I believe that the Grand Duke Paul, and also the Grand Duke Vladimir also believed he should have met with the delegation.
Several of his ministers probably thought that also, but because of the nature of the imperial government Nicholas did not see all the various opinions and options open to him. There was no cabinet government in Russia. By that I mean that the tsar appointed ministers to the council of ministers based on his own wishes rather than having a cabinet in which the prime ministers appoints the ministers. There was a Chairman of the Council of Ministers, or prime minister. In Feb. 1905 this was Witte. He was not informed of the meetings prior to the march in which measures were taken to deal with the matter, and he did not make the report to the tsar the night before. In a true cabinet government, Nicholas would have appointed the prime minister of his choice, then that person would have appointed all the ministers of state. In this way he would have a cabinet that would act in unison rather than against one another. Stolypin, for all his faults, was a good prime minister, but he complained that he spent most of his time fighting against the other ministers in the cabinet, trying to get a unified direction of policy, and it wore him out. Had there been a true cabinet government before Bloody Sunday, they would have debated, discussed, argued, but in the end settled on a unifed response to the crisis. Instead, each ministry, the military, and the city authorities all acted in independent ways and only tangentally together. Here is a part of the tragedy.

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #588 on: February 26, 2007, 04:11:07 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.

I absolutely agree, Lexi. Excuse me all if I'm going to be too philosophical -that's me....-, but I think that our life is nothing but a chain of choices and consequences -related directly or undirectly to our choices-. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we are damned if we do, sometimes we are damned if we don't.

Returning to Nicholas. Bearing in mind his upbringing and his circunstances, could he had acted in a different way? Really? I don't think so. To have done anything different we would have needed another kind of man. He tried and he failed. During my life I try and sometimes I fail. I cannot blame no one to do the same mistakes I do. Of course, my mistakes have no the same effects that Nicholas's had.

Perhaps I'm being to naive.

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #589 on: February 26, 2007, 04:20:03 AM »
But we can make some educated guesses. I believe Nicholas II should have had the meeting. But, I don't think it would have altered anything unless he was also prepared to make concessions to the "petition" and to institute the reforms asked for. And, from the many posts here arguing for Nicholas, it would appear he was not prepared to make any concessions or institute any reforms. Thus, the agitation and revolutionary movement would have continued. The only thing he would have escaped is the ephitet of "Bloody Nicholas", and that would have meant something for him personally.

I think so. He should have had the meeting, but he was not in position nor in the state of mind to do the concessions needed, as it has been said.

I wonder... had not the Bloody Sunday taken place, would the Grand-Duke Sergei Alexandrovich have been killed by an SR assassin? I mean, he was killed as the unrest did not really die, and when Nicholas II ordered the creation of a consultative assembly to to report on constitutional reform; the move is less than the revolutionaries want, but it gives them impetus. ant, but it gives them impetus.

Had Nicholas acceded to the petitions would have put and end to the troubles or would had just encouraged the revolutarion to press further? I must confess that I'm not sure about this.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #590 on: February 26, 2007, 04:48:29 AM »
Nikolai's isolation from the real world and his obvious inability to run the country was embedded in his personality. When he ascended the throne we know that he was unprepared. We also know that he accepted his role with reticence. Each of these fundamental factors had contributed to his personal facility to make constructive decisions.

It would be wrong to doubt his patriotism and ignore his personal charm and dedication to those he cared about, but we can today judge him by his policies and the political sphere in which he revolved.

Because his prime concern was to preserve his inherited rights, for him to accept public demands in the form of an ultimatum was inconceivable

Russia had banned demonstrations and when Bloody Sunday erupted, no one knew how to effectively handle the situation.

It is wrong to suggest that all the people had lost faith in their Emperor after that fateful day. The announcement of WWI is evidence of the people's collective loyalty and dedication to their sovereign and to their nation.

Margarita 
  :)
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 05:05:41 AM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #591 on: February 26, 2007, 09:18:32 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.

I absolutely agree, Lexi. Excuse me all if I'm going to be too philosophical -that's me....-, but I think that our life is nothing but a chain of choices and consequences -related directly or undirectly to our choices-. Sometimes we are right, sometimes we are wrong. Sometimes we are damned if we do, sometimes we are damned if we don't.

Returning to Nicholas. Bearing in mind his upbringing and his circunstances, could he had acted in a different way? Really? I don't think so. To have done anything different we would have needed another kind of man. He tried and he failed. During my life I try and sometimes I fail. I cannot blame no one to do the same mistakes I do. Of course, my mistakes have no the same effects that Nicholas's had.

Perhaps I'm being to naive.

I agree.

I don't think you are being naive,  I think you are being aware that Nicholas II tried the best he knew how, the only way he knew how, but failed in preserving the autocrat's power, and when he realized his failures   abdicated, therefore, he  open the door for his  brother and others,  including the other members of  his family, the generals and the Duma who believed they could create something better for Russia's future."  The uncrown Tsar Michael, Kerensky and those who followed  were no different than Nicholas II.  They tried and failed.   

Kurt:
>>...life is nothing but a chain of choices and consequences -related directly or undirectly to our choices<<

The Russians lost their Tsars and gained dictators,  which was the consequence of direct or undirect choices made by all Russians.

Everyone (Nicholas II, Gapon and the children siting in the trees to watch the march) involvued with  Bloody Sunday made choices that day.

It has been intersting to see how the posters felt about the various people who were directly invovled.

AGRBear



"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #592 on: February 26, 2007, 09:32:36 AM »
Kurt,

I am not sure how much effect Bloody Sunday had on the murder of Grand Duke Serge Alexandrovich.  He was pretty thoroughly hated as Governor General of Moscow even before that day.

Remember the Khodynka debacle after the coronation.

I am sure there is a thread about this some where on the forum, but even though Serge was on his way to resigning his position as Governor General of Moscow, the terrorists just wanted him gone.

About choices.  Nicholas made his, but so did everyone else who was involved that day.  We here on the forum have been accusing Nicholas of making the wrong choices that day, but what about everyone else who was there.  If we think they were able and educated enough to make the decision to be a part of the march, then they were equally able to take the responsibility for their choice to do so.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 09:39:06 AM by Alixz »

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #593 on: February 26, 2007, 11:04:12 AM »
The people did take responsibility for their choices that day. They rose up in anger and hatred and came very close to toppling Nicholas from his throne. It would never again be the sinecure that the Romanovs thought it was. And, when Nicholas continued to make some bad choices the people rose up again, and this time they toppled him from his throne.
Supporters of Nicholas can't have it both ways. Either he was autocrat and thus responsible for what happens under his watch, even for those who failed him, OR he was a bad autocrat and couldn't do his job and deserved the contempt people came to hold for him.
And, yes Michael, Lvov, Kerensky did fail, but they failed to large extent because they were trying desperately to build on the sand that the imperial system had left them. And, as the Bible says, a house built on sand will fall. The Soviet that was born directly out of Bloody Sunday was to be a primary reason for their failure. And the Soviet was made up the men whom Nicholas II had refused to compromise with in the aftermath of that day. Yes, consequences have a habit of catching up with us.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #594 on: February 26, 2007, 05:08:28 PM »
Indeed, we will never know.
But we can make some educated guesses. I believe Nicholas II should have had the meeting. But, I don't think it would have altered anything unless he was also prepared to make concessions to the "petition" and to institute the reforms asked for. And, from the many posts here arguing for Nicholas, it would appear he was not prepared to make any concessions or institute any reforms. Thus, the agitation and revolutionary movement would have continued. The only thing he would have escaped is the ephitet  of "Bloody Nicholas", and that would have meant something for him personally.

I for one am not arguing for Nicholas II, because I don't believe in being ruled by one, what I and some other posters are trying to do is understand why  Nicholas II and Gapon made the choices they did which caused Bloody Sunday.



AGRBear
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 05:31:18 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline James1941

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #595 on: February 26, 2007, 05:39:45 PM »
Five days after Bloody Sunday the empress wrote a letter to her sister, Pricness Victoria of Battenburg. In it she wrote: "Petersburg is a rotten town, not one atom Russian." As she stood on the balcony of the Winter Palace that day on August 2, 1914, and looked out over that sea of faces as they cheered so loud and long that the emperor could not make himself heard, then saw them fall to their knees to sing the imperial anthem if she remembered this. Hopefully she revised her opinion that day of patriotic union between people and ruler.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #596 on: February 26, 2007, 09:05:23 PM »
Sort of the pot calling the kettle beige was it not? Just how much authority did this woman have to decide just who/whom was  "Russian"?
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #597 on: February 26, 2007, 09:39:52 PM »
James, you said

"The people did take responsibility for their choices that day. They rose up in anger and hatred and came very close to toppling Nicholas from his throne. It would never again be the sinecure that the Romanovs thought it was. And, when Nicholas continued to make some bad choices the people rose up again, and this time they toppled him from his throne"

It would seem from your observation that the people took responsibility for Nicholas's choices that day.  I don't see any where that they took responsibility for their own actions and/or choices made that put them in Palace Square that day.  We keep saying that Nicholas should have done this or should not have done that, but what about the crowd?  Perhaps they should have stayed home, especially since striking was illegal during the Russo/Japanese War and Gapon was denied a permit to march.  Their choice was to go and the consequence was that some of them died.

And Robert,  I never thought of it that way before, but Alexandra was "not one atom Russian" herself, and certainly was not the arbitrator of all things Russian.  Only all those things she perceived as Russian.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #598 on: February 27, 2007, 12:01:25 AM »
Five days after Bloody Sunday the empress wrote a letter to her sister, Pricness Victoria of Battenburg. In it she wrote: "Petersburg is a rotten town, not one atom Russian." As she stood on the balcony of the Winter Palace that day on August 2, 1914, and looked out over that sea of faces as they cheered so loud and long that the emperor could not make himself heard, then saw them fall to their knees to sing the imperial anthem if she remembered this. Hopefully she revised her opinion that day of patriotic union between people and ruler.

Hopefully she might have understood the significant intensity of the moment.

Sort of the pot calling the kettle beige was it not? Just how much authority did this woman have to decide just who/whom was  "Russian"?

The Russian capital was built on part of the Finnish swamp and has a German name. However had Princess Victoria of Battenburg looked beyond the trees she might have been fortunate to see some Russians trading in Alexandrovskii Rinok (Bazaar) which played a large part of the commercial life of ordinary Russians, paying for merchandise with their hard earned kopeks.

Luigi Villari visited Petersburg in 1904, and walking along the streets he noted that the although the city was not purely Russian it did contain the sights and sounds that "were thoroughly Russian ... as anything within the Tzar's dominions."

Margarita
:)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: 1905 Bloody Sunday
« Reply #599 on: February 27, 2007, 04:03:16 AM »
Kurt,

I am not sure how much effect Bloody Sunday had on the murder of Grand Duke Serge Alexandrovich.  He was pretty thoroughly hated as Governor General of Moscow even before that day.

Remember the Khodynka debacle after the coronation.

I am sure there is a thread about this some where on the forum, but even though Serge was on his way to resigning his position as Governor General of Moscow, the terrorists just wanted him gone.

Hi Alixz,

Thank you very much! I forgot that he wasn't a popular chap, so to speak. Perhaps the Bloody Sunday was the excuse to get rid of him.

I'll look for that thread right now.

About choices.  Nicholas made his, but so did everyone else who was involved that day.  We here on the forum have been accusing Nicholas of making the wrong choices that day, but what about everyone else who was there.  If we think they were able and educated enough to make the decision to be a part of the march, then they were equally able to take the responsibility for their choice to do so.

You're right, again. History, in the end, is made by choices and its results. We all remember the tragic consequences of the Bloody Sunday of 1905, but I wonder if anyone remembers the Massacre at St Peter's Fields -or Peterloo- on 16 August 1819 -ok, it's almost a century earlier that the moment we are discussing, but, in the end, it's no so different.