Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

A PEOPLE'S TRAGEDY, THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION  1891-1924 by Orlando Figes p.  288:

"..it was a question of whether the revolution would start from below or above.  The idea of a 'palace coup' had been circulating for some time."

So where do we start?  Why not at the top?  So   who were these conspirators at the top?

Here is one:

p. 288 "Guhkov was at the center of one such conspiracy."  It aimed to seize the imperial train en route from Stavka to Tsarskoe Selo and to force the Tsar to abdicae in favor of his son, with the Grand Duke Mikhail, Nicholas's brother, serving as Regents."  

Reason given was:
"In this way the conspirtators hoped to forestall the social reovlution by apppointing a new government of confidence."

When:
It was to have  been set into motion in March of 1917.

Who was Alexander Ivanovic Guchkov (1862-1936)?  Leader of the moderate liberals in Russia between 1905-17.  Founder of the Octobrists (q.v.) party and president of the thrid state duma.  In WW I , Guchkov was chairman of the duma committee on military and naval affairs.... He was a critic of Nicolas II and was part of the Duma group who went to Pskov to secure the abdication of Niohcolas II.  After the Red October Revolution, Guchkov fled to Paris.

There is a section which deals with the Romanov Conpiracies:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=revolution;action=display;num=1102887162

AGRBear

Did anyone really betray the Emperor? Nicholas II was an Autocrat who failed Russia over many years as Sovereign by making repeated bad judgements in most every management area. These many bad choices on the Emperor's behalf include the Russo-Japanese War, the 1905 Revolution, backtracking on the Constitutional Monarchy, participation in WWI and the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917. If anyone was betrayed, it was the Russian people, millions of whom paid for the poor judgement of Nicholas II with their lives.

It is unfortunate that none of the competent Grand Dukes, Vladimir Aleksandrovich for one,  could convince him to abdicate or if all else failed, had the forethought to arrange a coup d'etat. It had happened before with problematic or inept Autocrats (Peter II, Peter III and Paul I).

DAP

David, you asked a very good question,  however,  there are other threads about Nicholas II and his inability to serve as a strong Tsar.  And, it really doesn't matter what you or I think about Nicholas II or other monarchs in this thread.   This thread is about "Who betrayed Nicholas II?"  while he was the Emperor.

Thank you in advance for respecting this thread as it was intented.

AGRBear

Who betrayed him?
    Well, I think that he did it himself - as Tsar he refused again and again to listen to advice from his councilors, his ministers and from his own relatives regarding his inability to deal with the profound problems of his reign! Maybe he couldn't help himself - maybe only a Peter or a Catherine would have been able to manage such a difficult situation.

Or are you simply looking for a 'scapegoat'?

I agree w/ Rskkiya. Nicholas betrayed himself. Most of if not all of his people were living in poverty, barely getting enough to eat while he and his family ate delicacies off China plates. And when the people asked for his help, he ignored them and they were killed (Bloody Sunday).

Romanov Fan, First of all your "analysis" is not true. Please read Professor Pipes on the Russian Peasant status before 1917:
"they [Russian Peasants] owned, either outright or communally, nine-tenths of the country's agricultural land and the same proportion of livestock. Poor by Western European or American standards, he was better off than his father, and freer than his grandfather, who more likely than not had been a serf. Cultivating allotments assigned to him by fellow peasants, he certainly enjoyed greater security than the tenant farmer of Ireland, Spain or Italy."

Further, the Russian peasant was not "starving" at all. In fact, they were as well fed as most in Europe, and the poorest classes in Russia pre-1917 were BETTER OFF than their counterparts in England, France, Italy or even New York City during the same period.

The same social class divisions were found in Western Eurpose and the US for that matter during the same period.  To say that "Nicholas betrayed himself" for eating well while the peasants starved it to ignore the truth and repeat Bolshevik propoganda, not to mention accuse Nicholas of the same behavior as the rulers of every other Western Nation and the millionaire robber barons of the US of the same time.

Nicholas WAS betrayed by his own family, the Grand Dukes, and the major aristocratic families.  When he needed their support, they were not there. There are MANY references from just after the Revolution from them all, basically saying, "If we had only realized what would happen we would have supported the Tsar"...

I too have read those references Rob, the ones where the GD's after the revolution talk about what they could have done to support Nicholas, "if they had only known" what would happen....to their own estates and lives I am sure.

I have a picture in my mind of  GD Kirill leading his men, with red armbands on....  The very first GD to defect. The red flag on his house.  This is why I do not think GD Marie V. should be head of the Romanov's, her family does not deserve it. They failed N&A for sure.

..A

Figes continued on p. 288:

"...A second conspiracy was meanwhle being hatched by Prince Lvov with the help of the Chief of Staff, Geneal Alexeev.  They planned to arrest the Tsarina and compel Nicholas to hand over the authority to the Grand Duke Nikolai.  Lvov would be appointed as Premier of a new government of confidence. Several liberal politicians and general support the plan, including Brusilov, who told the Grand Duke:  'If I must choose between the Emperor and Russia, then I march for Russia.'  But this plot was also scotched -- by the Grand Duke's reluctance to become involved."

So, according to Figes, Grand Duke Nilolali was not to be a part of this conspiracy.

AGRBear

What happened to the other grand dukes living in the Saint Petersburg area? All executed except for GD Kyril. What GD Kyril did with the Revolutionaries bought time for him and his family to escape. I actually wish that more grand dukes had the foresight to change with the situation, a larger number of surviving grand dukes would have been better for the cause of the restoration of the monarchy and the fight against the Bolsheviks.

DAP

Nicholas WAS betrayed by his own family, the Grand Dukes, and the major aristocratic families.  When he needed their support, they were not there.

The Russian people failed to understand the benevolence of their Emperor. It was they who betrayed their Emperor. It was the noble aristocracy, it was his family, the Army Generals, the intellectuals and the Duma; extending down to the ordinary citizen on the street whom the Duma purported to represent.

Words were many but action and foresight was lacking.

In the final moments it was the Russian people who were ultimately responsible.

I actually wish that more grand dukes had the foresight to change with the situation, a larger number of surviving grand dukes would have been better for the cause of the restoration of the monarchy and the fight against the Bolsheviks.

DAP

I agree with you David_Pritchard.

Had the Grand Dukes demonstrated solidarity for the Crown and what it represented, they could have bought time to establish a Constitutional monarchy.

Kiril being the first to flee at the nearest opportunity across the border, failed to support his country and her citizens.

Nikolai Mikhailovich failed to support his Emperor, at the time when patriotism would have been essential to ensure victory for the war.

The uncrowned Mikhail Alexandrovich severed the Romanov dynasty, rather than ensure its continuation at all cost.

The ordinary citizen only wanted bread not a political upheaval.

Had any of them had any intuition - these dissenting Grand Dukes might have realized that they were destroying themselves as well.

The Russian people failed to understand the benevolence of their Emperor. It was they who betrayed their Emperor. It was the noble aristocracy, it was his family, the Army Generals, the intellectuals and the Duma; extending down to the ordinary citizen on the street whom the Duma purported to represent.

Words were many but action and foresight was lacking.

In the final moments it was the Russian people who were ultimately responsible.

I feel as if I've gone through the looking glass in Alice in Wonderland.

After dragging his country unprepared into an unnecessary war in 1904 and losing both his land army and fleet to a second-class military power -- thereby proving to the world that Russia was a paper tiger -- Nicholas responded to demands for a constitutional monarchy by grudingly granting a Duma that he then immediately began to undermine by setting up a State Council.

He isolated himself with his family at Tsarskoye Selo, at one point going more than a year without a single public appearance.

He undermined Witte, the most progressive Russian minister of the era.  His wife hated Stolypin, the most competent Russian minister of the era, because Stolypin dared to challenge her beloved Rasputin in an attempt to preserve the public reputation of the imperial family . . . and Nicholas revoked Stolypin's order banishing Rasputin.

In 1915 he left for Stavka and had his ministers in St. Petersburg make their reports to his wife, knowing that almost everyone in responsible government circles had no confidence in her judgment or ability.

Then, as the military situation unwound and food and fuel shortages reached crisis proportions in the cities, the people betrayed their "benevolent tsar."

Just how much more were they supposed to endure his ill-conceived and ill-executed policies?  Why would the very classes who were most dependent on a strong monarchy for their own power and wealth almost universally throw the towel in on Nicholas?

Please.  He was lucky he wasn't hung from a lampost in the streets in March 1917.

Well, I'm in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with both Belochka and Tsarfan. True, Nicholas made disastrous decisions and helped drive his country to the brink of disaster. On the other hand... the peasants chose to appropriate the land. The Soviets of workers and soldiers chose to contribute to this ever-widening spread of anarchy and chaos at the local levels of government. The idea that any one single man was responsible for the eventual horrors of the October Revolution is simply not credible. People all across Russia, ordinary people, made choices, no matter how circumscribed their lives. They contributed to the ultimate fate of their country. Otherwise, how are we supposed to view them? As the tsars did? As, in other words, irresponsible children, incapable of directing their own destinies?  

The idea that any one single man was responsible for the eventual horrors of the October Revolution is simply not credible.

Actually, I referred to the March Revolution, which was more a political coup than a full-blown social revolution such as occurred in October.

There's a wonderful line in the movie La nuit de Varennes.  In response to someone's horror that King Louis' escape attempt had been foiled at Varennes, a cynical observer responds that, "a king who is arrested by a postmaster has already ceased to be a king".

I think the generals, Duma, and grand dukes were not betraying Nicholas.  They were simply dealing with the reality that he had already abandoned any serious attempts to hold Russia together . . . and they were trying to salvage the monarchy as best they could.  

On that train in March, Nicholas was arrested by his postmasters.

[chaos]

True, Nicholas made disastrous decisions and helped drive his country to the brink of disaster. On the other hand... the peasants chose to appropriate the land. The Soviets of workers and soldiers chose to contribute to this ever-widening spread of anarchy and chaos at the local levels of government. The idea that any one single man was responsible for the eventual horrors of the October Revolution is simply not credible. People all across Russia, ordinary people, made choices, no matter how circumscribed their lives. They contributed to the ultimate fate of their country. Otherwise, how are we supposed to view them? As the tsars did? As, in other words, irresponsible children, incapable of directing their own destinies?  

Well chaos is rather a part of most revolutions. The peasants naturally felt that as they worked the land, they ought to own it so they took what they percieved as righly theirs - I don't think that economical theories troubled them too much... I also doubt that the soldiers conciously thought "Here I go spreading anarchy and chaos on the local levels of the government..."
They behaved as anyone might in such a situation - some were altruistic and some were selfish. All were human.

Thus alas I cannot agree with Bella Bellochka - charming as she often is ...  
rskkiya