Author Topic: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"  (Read 91262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JD

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #135 on: April 27, 2006, 10:57:00 PM »
This isn't necessarily about NicII in particular, but I've read here a couple times of both he and Alexandra complaining at various times that even the simplest change (say, the color of their socks) required a massive, painful bureaucratic effort. As a result the Tsar & Tsarina were essentially prisoners of the bureaucracy that was supposed to serve them. It's hard to believe that were this literally true, serious efforts wouldn't be made to change it - for reasons of both comfort and, even more importantly, national efficiency.  

Was this literally true, or were these idle complaints from insanely overprileged people taken out of context? I don't deny the Russian bureaucracy had its problems, but this is hard to believe. And these complaints were about banal domestic issues, I have no idea how such a lurching behemoth might effect matters of important change.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #136 on: May 01, 2006, 10:54:51 AM »
Well, I suppose that all rulers be they kings, presidents, or dictators are slaves to bureacracy, depending on the country, the era, and the amount of control they have over the goverment. As an autocrat, dealing with an inefficient goverment that was wracked by pressures, challenges, and changes, and a rather out moded system, there was obviously going to be issues with the bureacracy. I have heard this before, and I think the bureaucracy of that time in Russia was indeed like that. So I would judge the last Romanov rulers did become victims of this. If they had reorganized the system, perhaps they would not have been.

Offline imperial angel

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4608
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #137 on: May 03, 2006, 08:31:10 AM »
I thought more on this, and I realize that the system would have been rather inefficient even if they did institute change, it would have taken years before they were not slaves to the bureaucracy. And I suppose change would have led to more bureuacracy to deal with changes, and implement them.  ;)

Offline strom

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 90
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #138 on: September 03, 2006, 02:29:34 PM »
I hope someone can help me.  I am interested in the various statements the Emperor made after his abdication in which he explained what happened on the train both in the journey to Pskov and after his arrival there.  Those that I have found seem to be strangely terse and weighted.  I should like to receive a record of the various recorded statements and sources in English and/or French if possible.         

Offline Amanda_Misha

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Lost in the darkness, try to find your way home.
    • View Profile
    • George Romanov: An enigma
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #139 on: March 17, 2007, 09:48:36 PM »
Being guilty or not, it deserved a trial I publish and I joust, he didn't deserve to die in that way neither that  they murdered from a cruel way to their wife neither their girls neither to their baby that you/they didn't have anything to see with which the one made or I stop to make neither that they hurt anybody but I eat to Ella and family or their brother Michael, guilty or not, it didn't deserve this.
"And now, remembering this man, I wonder how You, Russia, will wash away his innocent blood? Will you ultimately be able to redeem the death of Michael the Last?"

www.freewebs.com/georgeromanov

Offline ilyala

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2063
  • il y a
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #140 on: March 18, 2007, 01:58:46 AM »
he was guilty of not being open to the voice of the people - it would have been heard had it been listened. he was guilty of listening only to what suited him. he was guilty of not being open to options (he just HAD to keep autocracy intact). he was guilty of letting the tragedy of his personal life influence his ruling (alexei and rasputin). he was guilty of allowing his wife to influencing in doing exactly what he was NOT supposed to do.
'loving might be a mistake, but it's worth making'
ilya


Bob_the_builder

  • Guest
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #141 on: May 18, 2007, 06:42:07 PM »
I'm sorry, but I don't think Nicholas was a good person. He was flat out cruel to the Jews in his country, and just because his father was that way dosen't mean he had to as well. Millions died under his reign because of his stupid decisions. I don't know if he should have been executed but surely he should have been punished. He may have been a good family man but politically he was not a good person. Alexandra was just as guilty in my opinion for the destruction of the empire.

However, the is no excuse for the murder of the children, who were innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

Offline Rosemary*

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #142 on: May 19, 2007, 09:36:19 AM »
Nicky reminds me of a spoilt child taking on himself the mantle of God.  I can't remember the direct quote, but he once signed his name as "Master of all the Land"  .  To me, he is like a child playing with toy soldiers and toy peasants.  He had a vague love of the people, but only as it reflected back on himself as their ruler.  Nicky was spoiled, but he wasn't bad.   

So, in my mind, he is not guilty of evil intent, but he is guilty of careless consequence. The Russian people, in my opinion, were committing a symbolic form of patricide and matricide.

These assassins are the people who, in my mind, will be held accountable.

Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2007, 09:44:04 AM by Rosemary* »

Offline Vasiliy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #143 on: May 19, 2007, 10:25:29 AM »
Millions died under his reign because of his stupid decisions.

What millions ?

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #144 on: June 25, 2007, 12:50:46 AM »
I think he was guilty of creating the conditions that allowed the revolution to occur. In wiser hands it could have been prevented. He never learned from his mistakes. I do think it was appalling what happened to him and his family. None of us should though forget the millions of deaths he caused by his policies. What about feeling sorry for those people as well? Sadly he did nothing to prevent the death of his family. How much did he really feel sorry for the victims of the Russo-Japanese war who he sent off to slaughter and the many russians he sent off to die in world war one? He couldn't even arrange sufficient food in St.Petersburg. He was warned of the consequences but he chose not to listen. Witte got him out of the mess with the Japanese. Why on earth did he mobilise the Russian forces to threaten Germany? No sane ruler would have done that. The killing of an heir to a great empire was something he should have deplored. Instead he threatens that empire and her stronger ally to defend an insignificant country like Serbia. How foolish was that? He also makes himself commander-in-chief in 1915 so that all the losses are directly blamed on him and leaves his capital undefended in the hands of a woman his people hated who went from crisis to crisis. Sorry I can see so many good things about Nicholas II but in the end you have to see the chaos he caused as Tsar due to his foolishness. His children deserved much better and so did the Russian people. He is not greatly loved in Russia. They prefer other Tsars. Perhaps it is not surprising that they have a strong Tsar today in power in everything but name. If you get the chance visit Russia and many things become clear. When I first started reading about Nicholas and Alexandra I saw the family and felt sorry but when you do intensive research you find out far more and move away from the fairy tale and see the awful reality. Remember until 1905 the Tsar was the government in Russia. After then he still had considerable power. Even a few weeks before the revolution he was warned how to stop it and chose to ignore all the advice. That is why the Provisional government was formed. It was out of sheer desperation. The fact that the provisional government did not succeed is another matter. Staying in power is what counts and Nicholas and Alexandra went from crisis to crisis appointing the wrong and most incompetent men to run their government. It is therefore no surprise that it all collapsed. I just wish the Romanovs had toppled Nicholas II and put in one of their own. That is how they had survived in the past. The weak went and the strong came in to rescue things. Elizabeth, Catherine II, Alexander I and Nicholas I are examples of this. It is interesting to read Maria Feodorovna. She knew Russia could not afford war. Of course she was not listened to like so many others. It was a terrible and great shame. You have to really wonder why Nicholas II has been made a Saint compared to great Tsars like Peter the Great who actually achieved something useful.   

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #145 on: October 05, 2007, 07:43:17 AM »
I wonder whether Nicholas II ever truly wondered about the consequences of abdication? I really wonder whether he really gave this any thought at all. He signed everything away so easily and even signed away his son's rights claiming bad health would be a problem. Did he ever think that perhaps Alexis could have been the bridge that allowed a transition to a different regime? Didn't he realise Maria Feodorovna has said that Michael would never be able to be relied on in an emergency? Where was this man's head? Given that he was going back to St. Petersburg and could not get through and decided to go to Pskov instead where he eventually abdicated, perhaps he never gave himself any alternative to launch a counter offensive. He just signed everything away without any form of resistance. What do others think?

Offline Mazukov

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 121
  • Time it was, what a time it was.
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #146 on: October 05, 2007, 01:09:57 PM »
I think he simply gave up. All he wanted to do at that point was go home, anyway he could. No he didn't think about what would come out of it in the ling run. I don't think he could think past what he wanted to do at that time. that was to go home.

Offline mr_harrison75

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #147 on: October 05, 2007, 08:43:28 PM »
I agree with Mazukov.

We know that Nikolaļ didn't want to be tsar in the first place, but he tried to do his job by sense of duty, but his heart wasn't really into it, although he deeply loved Russia.

I think that he simply had enough after 20 years of troubles, riots and malcontentment. One thing that really precipitated his decision I think was his discussion about Aleksei with Professor Federov, asking how long Aliosha had to live; perhaps he simply decided that he wanted to enjoy his son's last few years with the rest of the family, and in peace!

I'm sure he knew that he was unpopular at the time, and perhaps he thought that since the people didn't want him anymore despite his efforts, he could indulge to abdicate...

I know that later, he regretted, when seeing what Russia was becoming, but it was too late...

Offline Victor

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 130
    • View Profile
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #148 on: October 06, 2007, 03:46:55 AM »
I don't think he concidered the consequences of the abdication.I think the Tsar couldn't think straight at the time.He was overtired and had no support and no one advising him well,no one behind him,backing him up,no one to turn to.He said in his diary"all around me I see cowardice and decite".If only one of his uncles had been on hand.Even if their advice had not been the best,they would have strongly led him through the difficult time.Nicholas perhaps thought Russia could run along nicely as a republic like France,still fondly allowing for deposed royals and suporting an aristocracy and his family would still have conciderable wealth.Bad idea.Or maybe he thought the country would rally around Michael?Obviously he didn't see the upheaval his decision would cause,the end of everything he had ever known.
'The world breaks all of us but some of us are stronger in the broken places.'Ernest Hemingway.

Offline Amanda_Misha

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Lost in the darkness, try to find your way home.
    • View Profile
    • George Romanov: An enigma
Re: "Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"
« Reply #149 on: October 06, 2007, 09:18:26 PM »
Perhaps Nicholas thought that with its abdication the country would calm or perhaps that Michael could control better the situation. But it was not thus :(
 
"And now, remembering this man, I wonder how You, Russia, will wash away his innocent blood? Will you ultimately be able to redeem the death of Michael the Last?"

www.freewebs.com/georgeromanov