Author Topic: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?  (Read 272737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #570 on: February 15, 2007, 11:59:22 AM »
Simon,

I am not going to make it easier for you by narrowing the definition of what is meant for people to have "betrayed"  Nicholas II before his abdication.

People are in error when they think that  small unimportant betrayals do NOT affect many people, because betrayls  touch everyone to some degree.  In this case small and large betrayals to the Tsar caused two things which are very important to understand.  Nicholas II was raised to think as an autocract.  Those who betrayed Nicholas II took not only his crown they tried to change the entire system of govt. without preparation and in a middle of a war which left the avenue open for  men like Lenin and Stalin to rise into power over the Russians.

Sometimes I think it's true,  the roads to heaven and hell are paved with good intentions.

AGRBear






 
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 12:02:52 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #571 on: February 15, 2007, 12:18:52 PM »
Thank you Elisabeth.

Bear, I understand your desperation at this point, but please do not quote me in support of your bizarre ideas. If I can see Nicholas II as a suffering human being, who was in the throes of some kind of nervous collapse in March 1917, that doesn't mean I support your thesis that he had this nervous collapse because he felt betrayed by everybody in his immediate proximity (wife, ministers, Duma deputies, generals, - I'm surprised you haven't included his children as well!). On the contrary, I think his nervous collapse was a direct response to the recent defeats of the Russian army and the atrocious casualty figures pouring in from the front... how many dead and wounded? Look it up. Nicholas II was on the brink of a breakdown precisely because he was not a pathological monster, like Hitler or Stalin, but because he knew and felt that he was directly responsible for the thousands upon thousands of deaths that were occurring daily in his name, not only as Tsar, but also as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army.

Look at Bush, look how much he's aged in the last six months alone. You know, I despise Bush and all his works, but you can see the man is suffering to some extent. He honestly does not understand where he went wrong. Thousands of Americans have gone to their deaths in the last several years, Iraq is still not secure, and yet he still doesn't "get it." Leaders, even bad and incompetent leaders (I'm not talking about truly evil leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam), have some sense of their responsibility to the dead and their families, some sense that they are acting like gods in dispensing death for the sake of a higher cause. This is an awesome responsibility for anyone, but especially for men as limited in their abilities as Nicholas II and for that matter Bush - thoroughly ordinary men, who in any other situation would no doubt be regarded as upright, conscientious pillars of the community. Instead they're saddled with these moral burdens of truly biblical proportions - and as ordinary men, of course, they cannot meet the challenge. They fail. They have nervous breakdowns. Or they give incoherent press conferences. Etc. None of this means they're "betrayed" if their country starts looking around for better, more competent, and saner leadership... it just means they took on a job they couldn't handle and they now deserve to be replaced. In the United States, we have a constitutional, legal means of achieving this; whereas in the Russia of Nicholas II they did not, unfortunately.
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #572 on: February 15, 2007, 01:40:25 PM »
If Nicholas had abdicated because of poor health, would that not indicate that he did not take his oath to be binding unto death?

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #573 on: February 15, 2007, 01:49:39 PM »
Sure would. 

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #574 on: February 15, 2007, 02:05:00 PM »
Thank you Elisabeth.

Bear, I understand your desperation at this point, but please do not quote me in support of your bizarre ideas. If I can see Nicholas II as a suffering human being, who was in the throes of some kind of nervous collapse in March 1917, that doesn't mean I support your thesis that he had this nervous collapse because he felt betrayed by everybody in his immediate proximity (wife, ministers, Duma deputies, generals, - I'm surprised you haven't included his children as well!). On the contrary, I think his nervous collapse was a direct response to the recent defeats of the Russian army and the atrocious casualty figures pouring in from the front... how many dead and wounded? Look it up. Nicholas II was on the brink of a breakdown precisely because he was not a pathological monster, like Hitler or Stalin, but because he knew and felt that he was directly responsible for the thousands upon thousands of deaths that were occurring daily in his name, not only as Tsar, but also as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian army.

There is no need for me to be desperate when discussing historical events.

If you cannot understand why Nicholas II felt betrayed then you cannot understand. 

And,  here is where we really part the ways.  Sometimes a leader, be the person a Emp. or a Pres.  see the broader picture of what is occuring around them and in the world, and,  having made commitments are forced into war.  Nicholas II had commitments and declared war.  All of Petrograd cheered and thought the war was going to be quick.  For some reason the masses always seem to think a war is going to be quick. Sometimes I wonder if it's a self deception to fool themselves because they should know  wars are rarely short and rarely without spilling the blood of good men, women and children.

Unlike some who think that Nicholas II was not prepared,  there are stats which show that in materials such as guns, weapons, boots ect.  that Russia was on, almost, equal footing as Germany.  The big difference was that Russia didn't have their Krupp Co. who was well aware that the war wasn't going to be short and churned out weapons like "Big Berthas".   

In Russia,  war became tangled with revolutionaries.  The Germans were happy to help the revolutionaries and sent Lenin back to Russia with a train load of gold to help pay for guns which were secretly purchased by Radek from Krupp's  man.

There are so many twists and turns of history that it's difficult to follow all the trails of betrayals between the different groups.

When Nicholas II asked his general not to send mounted troops toward the German lines that held machine guns,  they told Nicholas II that he knew nothing about war and they, the generals,  should be left with the business of war.

How many of you know why Nicholas II took over the command when he did? And,  why he sent his cousin Nikolai to another area?

Quote
Look at Bush, look how much he's aged in the last six months alone. You know, I despise Bush and all his works, but you can see the man is suffering to some extent. He honestly does not understand where he went wrong. Thousands of Americans have gone to their deaths in the last several years, Iraq is still not secure, and yet he still doesn't "get it." Leaders, even bad and incompetent leaders (I'm not talking about truly evil leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam), have some sense of their responsibility to the dead and their families, some sense that they are acting like gods in dispensing death for the sake of a higher cause. This is an awesome responsibility for anyone, but especially for men as limited in their abilities as Nicholas II and for that matter Bush - thoroughly ordinary men, who in any other situation would no doubt be regarded as upright, conscientious pillars of the community. Instead they're saddled with these moral burdens of truly biblical proportions - and as ordinary men, of course, they cannot meet the challenge. They fail. They have nervous breakdowns. Or they give incoherent press conferences. Etc. None of this means they're "betrayed" if their country starts looking around for better, more competent, and saner leadership... it just means they took on a job they couldn't handle and they now deserve to be replaced. In the United States, we have a constitutional, legal means of achieving this; whereas in the Russia of Nicholas II they did not, unfortunately.

I am not going to discuss Bush's politics in general,  nor am I going to voice  my opinion on the war in Iraq on this thread.

 I support the rights of the individuals whom I believe were and are created equal, untill their actions prove they are unworthy of that status.

Sometimes,  people have to make a stand somewhere, sometime and some place to stop terrorists or to change a govt. and it's leaders.  And, yes,  they will have to betray these leaders, and, yes, if they had given an oath of alligence,  they will have to break from the oath. If they do NOT then men like Hitler, Stalin and other dictators can terrorize country's without the slighest worry of having to face any kind of reprisal for their actions.  However, this is not the topic of this thread.  This about how Nicholas II felt betrayed.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 02:17:12 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #575 on: February 15, 2007, 02:32:26 PM »
From the Accession Manifesto, October 20, 1894:

"We take the sacred vow before the all high to have as our constant goal the peaceful success, might and glory of dear Russia, and the organization of the happiness of all our loyal subjects."

Offline Louis_Charles

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #576 on: February 15, 2007, 02:57:25 PM »
Bear,

You are behaving like an obstreperous child. No one is saying that you cannot cling to your understanding of the word "betrayal", even though the rest of us don't share it (which is not to say that we don't understand it. I think I do, but it would be needlessly hurtful if I published what I think is really going on when you post, and not really useful.) 

That being said, please stop informing us that we do not share your deep knowledge of and empathy with Nicholas II. We're doing fine, thanks.

Simon

And while I recognize that different levels of knowledge are to be expected on a forum like this, my patience with the Little Golden Book School of History is running out. And I know I speak for others when I request that you (1) either get a dictionary or (2) exercise some minimal attention to detail before you post. Typos are one thing, the incoherence of these particular posts far more.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:02:04 PM by Louis_Charles »
"Simon --- Classy AND Compassionate!"
   
"The road to enlightenment is long and difficult, so take snacks and a magazine."

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #577 on: February 15, 2007, 03:21:28 PM »
It's interesting to me what the actual Orthodox religious tradition was, concerning the nature of autocracy and autocratic rule. According to this article I recently discovered, by a scholar of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the power of the autocrat was never unlimited, and even his hold over his subjects was subject to certain built-in restrictions:

"The [Byzantine] empire, despite all its rhetoric of the divine election of the supreme autocrat, never substantially endorsed anything like a rule of imperial succession. The emperor was emperor by virtue of being able to fulfill the proper function. If he transgressed too far on the many real limits to his theoretical autocracy, he was not long for this world...The limits to imperial power were manifold and strong even in late antiquity."

See John A. McGuckin, "The Legacy of the 13th Apostle: Origins of the East Christian Conceptions of Church and State Relations," in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 47, nos. 3-4,  pp. 286-287.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 03:24:16 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #578 on: February 15, 2007, 04:45:27 PM »
It's interesting to me what the actual Orthodox religious tradition was, concerning the nature of autocracy and autocratic rule. According to this article I recently discovered, by a scholar of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the power of the autocrat was never unlimited, and even his hold over his subjects was subject to certain built-in restrictions:

"The [Byzantine] empire, despite all its rhetoric of the divine election of the supreme autocrat, never substantially endorsed anything like a rule of imperial succession. The emperor was emperor by virtue of being able to fulfill the proper function. If he transgressed too far on the many real limits to his theoretical autocracy, he was not long for this world...The limits to imperial power were manifold and strong even in late antiquity."

See John A. McGuckin, "The Legacy of the 13th Apostle: Origins of the East Christian Conceptions of Church and State Relations," in St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, vol. 47, nos. 3-4,  pp. 286-287.


Let me see if I have this right?  You are saying that "despite all its rhetoric of the divine  election of the supreme autocract",  they never  'endorsed anything like a rule of imperial sucession".

According to this so-called rhetoric, which was repeated to Nicholas II,  his father, his father's father and other rulers before them,  the Emp. and Tsar of Russia sat at the right hand of God.

 I find it interesting that you use the term "rhetoric".

I will agree, religious leaders often do have a marvelous grasp of the language in order to be persuasive on the subject of God, Jesus, Jews, Mohammed, etc. etc. etc..

I think they were very persuasaive about these various subjects with Nicholas II as a child, a boy, young man and into his years as Tsar. and Emp..

Since this thread is about people who betrayed Nicholas II, are you asking me if these religious leaders betrayed Nicholas II?

Or are you telling me,  that the church elders made sure there was a loop- hole in their teachings which allowed them to claim that it was just rhetoric and therefore if an autocract believes in this rhetoric that it's not really their fault that he believed the rhetoric since it was Not actually part of the church's paperwork???

AGRBear

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Elisabeth

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2131
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #579 on: February 15, 2007, 04:54:15 PM »
Bear, as usual you've got everything precisely backwards.

The "rhetoric" the theological scholar is speaking of is that which would support the idea of an all-powerful autocrat divinely appointed by the Lord. The reality is that even in the Byzantine empire (and please note, the Muscovite tsars took the Byzantines as their example) the emperor was always beholden in a larger sense to his subjects, including the Church. And if he crossed that line, whereby they no longer regarded him as a good autocrat, then it was... well, goodbye, emperor, forever.

So actually Nicholas II got off rather easily. The generals and Duma deputies didn't feel the need to assassinate him, in fact he survived another sixteen or seventeen months after his abdication. From what I can gather, that's pretty good, by Byzantine standards.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 04:56:02 PM by Elisabeth »
... I love my poor earth
because I have seen no other

-- Osip Mandelshtam

Offline Bev

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #580 on: February 15, 2007, 05:31:57 PM »
By Byzantine standards, it's a record.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #581 on: February 15, 2007, 06:55:45 PM »
Bear, as usual you've got everything precisely backwards.

The "rhetoric" the theological scholar is speaking of is that which would support the idea of an all-powerful autocrat divinely appointed by the Lord. The reality is that even in the Byzantine empire (and please note, the Muscovite tsars took the Byzantines as their example) the emperor was always beholden in a larger sense to his subjects, including the Church. And if he crossed that line, whereby they no longer regarded him as a good autocrat, then it was... well, goodbye, emperor, forever.

So actually Nicholas II got off rather easily. The generals and Duma deputies didn't feel the need to assassinate him, in fact he survived another sixteen or seventeen months after his abdication. From what I can gather, that's pretty good, by Byzantine standards.

As long as Nicholas II was  "good boy" and didn't go against the church,  then he was a "good autocrat".

I don't know the answer because I know absolutely nothing about the church of Russia:   Did the presents of Rasputin shaken the church elders and if this occured,  did  they lose faith in their autocrat and  was it time to say "goodbye"?  Or,  did the church elders  continue to support Nicholas II up to the point of his abdication?  [I'm sure there were many priests who never stop being loyal to the Tsar and others like Gapon felt changes were needed.]

It's late.

Gotta go do some work and run the dogs.....

AGRBear
« Last Edit: February 15, 2007, 07:01:27 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #582 on: February 15, 2007, 07:07:17 PM »
... The generals and Duma deputies didn't feel the need to assassinate him, in fact he survived another sixteen or seventeen months after his abdication. From what I can gather, that's pretty good, by Byzantine standards.

It could only be that the generals did not want to soil their military uniforms with imperial blood.


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Tsarfan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1848
  • Miss the kings, but not the kingdoms
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #583 on: February 15, 2007, 07:54:45 PM »
Hmmm . . . is imperial blood harder to wash out?

Well, in any case, I guess Nicholas was lucky none of them had a change of clothes handy on Abdication Day.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Who Betrayed Nicholas II?
« Reply #584 on: February 15, 2007, 08:32:52 PM »
Hmmm . . . is imperial blood harder to wash out?

Well, in any case, I guess Nicholas was lucky none of them had a change of clothes handy on Abdication Day.

The traces would have remained no matter how hard one tries to hide the evidence.


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/