Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

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.

Most historians do not believe that Paul I was the son Peter III, however, if he was,  as Alixz posted,  you'd have to dig into his lineage.  I believe I read a number somehwhere that Nicholas II would have had something like 1/96 of any kind of Slavic blood running in his veins.

AGRBear

Although both Nicholas II and Alexandra bloodlines were German,  one doesn't find the political cartoons making Nicholas II look German, it was Alexandra,  who was twisted into a German, and,  was labeled all to often as a "German Spy".

Does anyone have a copy of any of these old posters?

AGRBear

[European Royal History Journal]

I think that there is plenty of blame to go around...however et us not whitewash the ineptitude of the Tsar, who ultimately was responsible for the dynasty's fortunes and the well-being of the monarchy in Russia.

Arturo

And once again, a reminder to stay on topic.

Nicholas' ethnicity = off topic, do not discuss on this thread
Nicholas' intelligence, ability as a ruler = off topic, see above
Imperial Family betrayed Nicholas = on topic
Criminal Capitalism betrayed Nicholas = on topic

Is this clear? Nicholas II has his own section on this Forum. There are plenty of places to discuss him. This thread is for everyone from monarchists to rabid Communists to discuss who betrayed Nicholas. And, nothing else.

In my view the one person above all else was the Tsarina herself with the meddling in affairs of state where clearly she was not competent to do so. This being because of Rasputin (to a large extent) competent ministers were removed and persons of low ability replaced them reducing the empire to ashes in the end. While I am sure she thought she was doing the right thing from her point of view she helped lead Russisa to ruins and the destruction of her family and the dynasty. By her actions she had betrayed Nicholas and his ability to reign with competence of the state. The Tsarina was a person who should never have been allowed near power as we all know with hindsight.

I would like to add to this the GD who marched on the Duma in support and removed the guards form the Alexander Palace thus leaving the Imperial Family to it's fate. By his actions he betrayed his oath and the Tsar and therefore his country as it was at that time. No doubt he wanted the throne for himself as was shown then and by later actions in exile by him and his line. By his actions I feel he was guilty of treason and by this act alone removed himself from the line of succession to the Imperial Throne. I would not have trusted him as Tsar under any circumstances.

This is one of those cushions that cannot be answered as there are so many candidates you can throw into the discussion.

Michael HR

It's one thing to point to real substance, it's another to keep posting propoganda. One would think with one particular poster that its important we embrace not only the issues of the communists, but as they enlarge on statistics it's important we keep that in our memories. Yup thats exactly the way of how communism was taught. I don't mind reading what other posters have to say, but to have this communist cabbage thrust down my gullet, is impossible. Most of the times the informations put forthe is not right and the tone at times quite harsh and most times, most slanted. Thank God Communism is no more! Just my two cents...

Tatiana+

Hello,

I am not sure that I have or would believe anything the Communists ever said about the Romonov dynasty myself. This is such an intelligent question that was asked about Nicholas II but the drawback in answering everyone will offend someone else and their point of view. Also it is such a complex issue and the bottom line is almost everyone in some way failed the Tsar at some time in Nicholas reign. I think most people here are well educated on the subject, better than most of the general public from what I can see, and understand the dynamics between the various persons and the Tsar at the time. Everyone from the Tsar down made mistakes it is just the cost of those mistakes that is so awful for them, Russia and us.

Michael HR

 'Treason, cowardice and deceit --all around!' 

I have looked at the strange itinerary of the last Emperor on his last journey as sovereign. 

Of course, the old plan was to hijack the Imperial Person on the way.  Somewere I heard that a likely spot to squirrel Him away would be the extensive Rodzianko estates near Novgorod just North of Dno (DNO).  Rodzianko certainly planned to force a 'ministry of confidence' sometime on March 1 either holding up the emperor at Bolognoe  or at Dno and it would appear that the beginning of the interruption of the Imperial passage was at Bolognoe, at around 12:00 A.M. on March 1 (O.S.) even if the Person's Train was not stopped until about 2:30 A.M.  The meeting at Bolognoe did not materialize possibly for a number of reasons, but Dno might have been a better spot for Rodzianko anyway --it was just south of Novgorod.  However, by the time the Emperor got to Dno Rodzianko had some serious problems at the Tauride Palace.  In any event, one must not forget that the Rail was compromised already by about 4:00 P.M. on 2.28. 

What interests me just now though is the strange triangulation of the Emperor's terrible day of March 1 that began at Bolognoe and ended at 7:30 when he pulled into Pskov with the depressing interlude at the 'abyssmal' DNO around 4:30. 

Petrograd, Pskov and Bolognoe form a perfect equilateral triangle defined by the Imperial rail!  It was a trap, a web, directed from the 'hub' of Petrograd at the 'summit'.  I wonder if some occult machination might have been applied?   

One wonders if the Emperor took the mortal web imposed by his enemies as a moral ruin --he certainly knew the map.                       

Oh, one more thing.

Anna Anderson Manahan said on the tenth aniversary of the revolution that Grand Duke Kirril was the 'first to betray the emperor'.  I suspect he was the 'premiere' --the highest personage, but he may have also been among the first to organize the ruin of the soverreign.  I suspect Kirril was up to his neck in the machination to replace the sovereign already days before 2.23 and was likely a close associate of Rodzianko on the morning of Mon. 2.27 as the revolt became a general mutiny in the capital.

Does anyone know when Kirril arrived back in the capital from his 'exile' at Port Romanov (Murmansk) in Jan. 1917?       

[everyone]

Of course practically everyone betrayed Nicholas II in the end, because they clearly felt that he had already betrayed them, by being such an incompetent ruler. I realize this is not considered "on topic," but the fact of the matter is (and almost every historian of imperial Russia will tell you so) that by the winter of 1916-1917 the Romanov dynasty and Nicholas in particular had managed to alienate virtually every single section of society (including, fatefully, the army!) with the sole exception of career courtiers and most likely, the older generation of peasants. Whether or not this was a fair judgment of Nicholas on the part of his so-called subjects is the topic of another thread. But this judgment nevertheless existed. It would be foolish to deny it.