Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

Me too.   We would have to be pretty nifty - she slept with them beneath her bed.   I'd probably have ended up with the chamber pot.   

George V managed to pull this one off however - succeeding in having them snatched from right under the nose of her nephew.

tsaria

I have always thought that Nicholas was "betrayed" by his family.  Especially Marie Pavlovna (Sr) and her brood.  However, the line of thought that Nicholas II was betrayed in his young life by both his father and mother and in later years by his mother is a fresh and interesting new direction of thought.

Nicholas, having no inclination to "push himself" was indeed betrayed by a mother and father who treated him as a child all of his life.  His father giving him no encouragement and his mother keeping him close as her "little boy".

However, Queen Alexandra, the Empress's sister did much the same with her children.  Prince Eddy and Prince George (later George V).  The difference being Edward VII was a much different father than Alexander III.  I think much more reachable for his children.  But then there is the quote from King George V saying that "I was afraid of my father and my children will damn well be afraid of me!"

I don't think that Nicholas ever wanted his children to be afraid of him.  I actually don't think he wanted anyone to be afraid of him.  That is why he "waffled" with his ministers and staff.  He was into "avoidance of conflict" mode.

I think its' kind of mean to call Maria's family a brood.  They weren't chickens or any thing like that.  And Maria might of been a good empress because she wanted to do it but Alexandra didnt' except for being able to tell Nicky what to do all the time.  Anyway Maria had enough sense to get out of Russia because she was right about more things than Alexandra almost all of the time.

Marie P and her family were jealous of the fact that, because they were descended from a younger son of Alexander II, they were not on the throne.

Maybe Marie P would have made a better empress, but she and her offspring were always sniping and brooding and criticizing instead of helping.

Alexandra was hard and proud and insensitive, but she was still their empress and they were bound to respect and obey her and her husband.

Ego and pride kept all parties apart.  Perhaps if Marie P and her family had tried more to help instead of intrigue against Alexandra, things could have been very different.  And again, Dowager Empress Marie was no help to her son.  She intrigued and sniped and gossiped about Alexandra right along with the rest of them.

And Marie P got out of Russia to save herself, just as every other less faithful Romanov did.  Those who stayed were executed for their loyalty to their country, not just their emperor.

Maybe about loyalty but I think those that stayed all sat around in their palaces down in the Criimea for some body else who would beat the communists so they could take over again.  Nobody from the Romanovs joined the army for fighting communists as regular soldiers did they?  All they wanted to do was hang around until some body would let them run things again.

Nicholas II of Russia did not have sufficient intellectual ability to be a statesman. He had a weak will, which was combined with obstinacy when the resolution of questions involved his personal prestige. Toward the end of his reign, the solution of many issues of state were in the hands of the empress.

The beginning of Nicholas’ reign coincided with the rapid development of capitalism in Russia and with the transition in the early 20th century to the imperialist stage of capitalism. In order to preserve and strengthen the power of the nobility, whose interests the regime continued to represent, tsarism was forced to adapt itself to the bourgeois development of the country. This adaptation was manifested in tsarism’s striving rapprochement with the big bourgeoisie, in its attempt to create a social base of support among the well-to-do peasantry, and in the establishment of the State Duma.

Nicholas reigned during a time of uninterrupted growth in the revolutionary movement. His brutal regime made use of the army, the police, the courts, and measures of “police socialism” to combat this movement: to this end it fanned chauvinism, encouraged the Black Hundreds organizations, such as the Union of Michael the Archangel, and initiated an aggressive foreign policy, which led to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. For carrying out repressive measures during the course of his reign—“Bloody Sunday,” the punitive expeditions, the courts-matrial in 1905-07—Nicholas II entered history as “Nicholas the Bloody.” Forced during the most intense period of the first Russian revolution to issue the Manifesto of 17 October 1905, with its promises of a legislative Duma and bourgeois democratic freedoms, Nicholas II afterward viewed this act as a result of his weakness. Defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the Revolution of 1905-07 abruptly weakened Russia’s influence n the international arena, and tsarism was compelled to seek allies in order to carry out new plans of aggression.

A period of very close relations with the imperialist nations of the Entente began. Nicholas II wanted to command the army, but this was met with resolute protest from a number of statesmen; the tsar was forced to appoint his uncle Nikolai Nikolaevich the Younger commander in chief. Fearing the popularity of his uncle in the army and in the country, and disregarding public opinion, the tsar took over the post of commander in chief on 23 August 1915. Nicholas deserves full blame for failures at the front, huge losses, demoralization and collapse in the rear, and the Rasputin scandal that all aroused the intense dissatisfaction with the autocracy in all strata of Russian society.

Overthrown by the bourgeois democratic February Revolution of 1917, Nicholas II abdicated in favor of his brother Mikhail on March 15, 1917. Under pressure from the revolutionary forces, Mikhail did not accept the crown. On demand of the workers of Petrograd, Nicholas and his family were arrested in the Alexander Palace on March 21, 1917 and sent to Tobolsk; after the soviet October Revolution, they were moved to Ekaterinburg. In connection with the aggression of the Czechs and the White Guards and by a decree of the presidium of the Urals oblast soviet, the former tsar and members of his family were executed. 

Nicholas II of Russia did not have sufficient intellectual ability to be a statesman. He had a weak will, which was combined with obstinacy when the resolution of questions involved his personal prestige.

... Nicholas reigned during a time of uninterrupted growth in the revolutionary movement. His brutal regime made use of the army, the police, the courts, and measures of “police socialism”

... In connection with the aggression of the Czechs and the White Guards and by a decree of the presidium of the Urals oblast soviet, the former tsar and members of his family were executed. 

And so it seems that the Red Star has returned.

The brutality of the soviets was unsurpassed. Thank God the Russian people finally stood up for their long lost rights and regained their freedom from the bloodied tentacles of their enforced paradise.

Today the Russians people are learning how the brutal terrorist bolshevik minority and their misguided sympathizers largely composed of thugs had shamefully betrayed the Emperor, their own nation and the Church, destroying all the ideals which Imperial Russia had symbolized.

The brutality of the soviets was unsurpassed.

The present Government of Finland on coming into power executed in cold blood within a few days’ time 16,700 members of the old Socialist Republic, and imprisoned in starvation camps 70,000 more. Meanwhile the total executions in Russia for the year ended November 1, 1918, were officially stated to have been 3,800, including many corrupt Soviet of officials as well as counter-revolutionists. The Finnish Government was infinitely more terroristic than the Russian.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/sep/20.htm

Finland, at the time, had a population of 400,000 people eligible to vote. The territory administered by Russia in September 1918 had a population of 60 million. In the single province of Ekaterinburg, Kolchak's forces shot 25,000 people. http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/063/073.htm

Thank God the Russian people finally stood up for their long lost rights and regained their freedom from the bloodied tentacles of their enforced paradise.

The Russian people had nothing to do with the end of soviet rule. Rather, the Soviet Union ended when Yeltsin and his cronies unleashed a coup and proceeded to illegally dissolve the union contrary to the will of the Russian people reflected in the March 1991 referendum. Even the so-called "Duma" of Russia passed a resolution in 1996 declaring the dissolution of the USSR to be illegal. And if its bloodshed you want to talk about, more people have been murdered in the genocide against Chechnya than in the forty-fives years of the post-war USSR.

Today the Russians people are learning how the brutal terrorist bolshevik minority and their misguided sympathizers largely composed of thugs had shamefully betrayed the Emperor, their own nation and the Church, destroying all the ideals which Imperial Russia had symbolized.

Your argument is flawed in that "Nicolai Romanov" and his wife were not even Russians. Nicolai was the son of a Danish princess. His father was the son of a German princess. And his paternal grandfather was the son of a Prussian princess. The first Nicolai was the son of a German princess. And on and on.

I think this has the makings of an excellent discussion.

However, it is not pertinent to the topic. Belochka and Zvezda, I will enjoy hearing what you have to say about Nicholas and the Bolsheviks - feel free to start a new topic.

And, I may join in myself - just don't do it on this thread, ladies, please.

...Your argument is flawed in that "Nicolai Romanov" and his wife were not even Russians. Nicolai was even the cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm and King George V.

It your fundamental lack of basic knowledge that is flawed. Nikolai the II was born in Russia. That gave him the legitimate right to identify himself as Russian.

Zvezda:  You also forget that Peter III had a German pedegree: 

1728-1762 EMPEROR OF ALL RUSSIA 1761-1762. Son of Karl Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Gotorb, and Anna Petrovna, Peter the Great's daughter.

And his wife Sophie (Catherine the Great) was also German.  There is no proof that Catherine's son Paul was even the child of Peter III, so that lack of Russian blood goes a long way back.

But as Belochka pointed out - Nicholas II was born in Russia and was the grandson of a ruling tsar at the time of his birth.  No matter what blood ran in his veins, he was Russian.  Just as no matter what blood runs in my veins, I am American.

I still believe that the Imperial Family betrayed Nicholas.  From the first days of his reign, they coveted the power for themselves and looked for ways to influence him and shape him to their liking.  Perhaps had he had better support from his uncles and mother, he would not have been so suspicious and unbending in his later years.

"The present Government of Finland on coming into power executed in cold blood within a few days’ time 16,700 members of the old Socialist Republic, and imprisoned in starvation camps 70,000 more. Meanwhile the total executions in Russia for the year ended November 1, 1918, were officially stated to have been 3,800, including many corrupt Soviet of officials as well as counter-revolutionists. The Finnish Government was infinitely more terroristic than the Russian.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/sep/20.htm

Finland, at the time, had a population of 400,000 people eligible to vote. The territory administered by Russia in September 1918 had a population of 60 million. In the single province of Ekaterinburg, Kolchak's forces shot 25,000 people. http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/063/073.htm"

This is a bit of the topic but the above is lyes, lyes...

Totally bolshevik propaganda...please find more...   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election%2C_1917  and  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War

A final warning: I will delete any further OT posts.

Daniel,  I noticed that you don't accept PM and don't have an e-mail listed.  Could you do me a favor and emial me at
BrGldBlue@aol.com

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks

AGRBear

...Your argument is flawed in that "Nicolai Romanov" and his wife were not even Russians. Nicolai was even the cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm and King George V.

It your fundamental lack of basic knowledge that is flawed. Nikolai the II was born in Russia. That gave him the legitimate right to identify himself as Russian.

Zvezda is correct if she is talking about bloodlines.  Nicholas II was not Slavic.  He was German accept through his mother's father's line who were considered Dannish but that is twittled down starting with his paternal grandmother who was a German of Hesse-Cassel.

The only drop of Slavic blood may have been from Catherine II "the Great's" lover Serge Saltikov, whom many believed was Paul I's natural father.

Since Nicholas II was the Tsar of Russia,   he was a Russia countryman, but, only by title and place not by bloodlines.

When George I, King of England, ruled Great Britian,  he was not English.  He was an Hanovarian,  a German.  Known by his subjects as
"The Farmer".   The roots of the House of Windsor is German, not English.  A name they took up to give the appearance they had lost their German association.  But a name doesn't erase their German roots.

So,  both Zvezda and Belochka are correct.

AGRBear