The Alexander Palace Time Machine Discussion Forum
 
 User Info & Key Stats   
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
September 18, 2014, 10:41:57 AM
461961 Posts in 8954 Topics by 14517 Members
Latest Member: hisbuff
News: We think Pallasart is the best web design company in Austin and for good reason - they make this forum possible! Looking for a website? Call them at 512 469-7454.
+  The Alexander Palace Time Machine Discussion Forum
|-+  Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty
| |-+  Nicholas II (Moderators: LisaDavidson, BobAtchison, Forum Admin)
| | |-+  How Would History Have Rated Nicholas II if....?
  0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 Go Down Print
Author
Topic: How Would History Have Rated Nicholas II if....?  (Read 33557 times)
Reply #195
« on: March 08, 2012, 11:02:45 AM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

Petr, I take your points. Fair enough but I have no hostility towards monarchy except it, like any system of government does not respond to the needs of it's citizens.
 I definitely  do not share your  high regard of N&A, but hold no grudge against the children either. I simply state what true,,  That they were too young to be of any real historical importance. They simply had no opportunity to do so.
 Also, I make state that these MY opinions.  Formed my own reading, which is extensive and long going. Obviously, others are entitled to theirs and I am not trying to convince  anyone otherwise.
 If you find the topic distasteful, do not participate in it.
 Tim, where did you get this information that Stalin was in Poland ?  He was disqualified for service in WW1 and never served anywhere.  By then he was a confirmed revolutionary as well.
 edubs, I  do temper my comments on the GDs  hospital "work" You are  correct, having gone through that experience more than once myself[ visiting the dieing]  I know how eye opening it is.
 I apologize to anyone I may have offended, but am  just stating my point of view.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 12:22:37 PM by Alixz » Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #196
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:12:33 PM »
edubs31 Offline
Knyaz
****
Posts: 793

View Profile

Robert no apology necessary. And I do admire your willingness to often post the contrarian viewpoint knowing full well that you'll be placed on the defensive, much of the time, on forums dedicated to more or less aggrandizing the IF and European royalty in general.

Besides, I too struggle greatly with the legacies of Nicholas & Alexandra...almost subconsciously (right or wrong) treating OTMAA and the rest of the Romanov family as a complete separate entity.

Lets all just clear the air and get back on the topic of Nicholas II. Petr gives us a natural jumping off point with his comments about the Hague and NY State Bar...
Logged

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right...
Reply #197
« on: March 08, 2012, 12:14:38 PM »
Alixz
Guest

My point is that a lot of what we now know about OTMA is filtered through the fact of their horrible death. I think that sympathy for these young people has colored the views of some and made these rather unimportant and uninspiring young women into romantic heroines.

There are those here who are clearly "in love" with one of more of the grand duchesses and love does crazy things to objectivity.

When I said that they dealt their own hand, I also meant the Romanov Family as a whole, not just the young people. Alexandra is to blame for the deal that her children got. Not Alexei's illness (although she did pass the defective gene to him, that was not a conscious thing) but the way she sheltered and protected and smothered them made them unable to do more with their lives than she allowed.

While I don't see their work in the hospital as a PR thing, I don't see it as their choice to be there but the choice of Alexandra who we all know made many bad choices.

I am not anti monarchy, but like Robert, I have been studying this period in history in all nations from 1860 through 1918 for a long time and I have a lot of knowledge that is not colored by "hero worship".

I have written (with my co-author) a fictional account in the pre Alexandra life of Nicholas and his cousin George, but I recognize it as fiction and it was an attempt to explain the world's fascination with Anna Anderson not a hero worship of either monarch.

Logged
Reply #198
« on: March 08, 2012, 01:31:47 PM »
Rodney_G. Offline
Knyaz
****
an angel .....and the best of them Posts: 717

View Profile

 A few thoughts. First, the "if" of this thread has apparently been dropped and it's become a straightforward rating of Nicholas II on the whole. Fine by me. But then we should ask, compared to who? What's the standard? Compared to his fellow monarchs and heads of state? of the WWI era? of all history? And how much is a monarch, even an autocrat, truly responsible for? For the actions of every minister?, state functionary? general? provincial clerk? soldier? For his successor heads of government? For the mistakes of the Provincial Gov't? For the Bolshevik coup and subsequent terror? I think  that much of the criticism of Nicholas has been unrealistic and couldn't have been made at the time of the events involved.
Many of the events contributing to his lesser reputation he was not responsible for, starting with  the Khodynka Meadow disaster. Likewise the Bloody Sunday kiillings, committed in his absence and by the overreactions of others.

Unlike  the militarists in Germany and Austria-Hungary and Serb nationalists, he sought to avoid hostilities, knowing Russia was unprepared. Russia was targeted and had to respond.  As monarch he was responsible for Russia's unpreparedness, but even his critics mostly acknowledge properly modernising the Army,Navy, and entire transport system of the whole country was a herculean task not accomplished by any of his predecessors.

But what I find most unfair in criticism of Nicholas is that it contradictorally comes from both directions, i.e., that he was somehow simultaneously weak and vacillating , both in his personal relations and with ministers, senior officers, and bureaucrats, while at the same time being condemned as the total autocrat, controlling and responsible for any and all wrongs occurring over twenty-three years ,in the world's biggest country, with 130 million population.Talk about a lose-lose situation. He's been damned for not acting with a stronger hand, for not cracking down harder, in short for being weak, but if he had ruled more forcefully(and in those few occasions where he actually did) those same critics would have savaged him(and did) for  any harshness  rigidity and illiberalism.
This is, if not a classic double standard, an almost impossible one to meet.
Logged

Rodney G.
Reply #199
« on: March 08, 2012, 02:15:11 PM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

So true, Alixz. That is what I was trying get across, but I did come off more forcefully and harsh.
 And Rodney is correct as well in that compared to whom?  The Kaiser and Emperor of Austria were not absolute monarchs.  At that time, I do not think any other European monarch was. They may have been influential but their powers had been curbed substantially.
 Nicholas was indeed in a no win situation, no matter what he did. It was just not in his nature to be forceful and I am not so sure he quite knew what his government was doing in his name. He was distant and often isolated. He was educated by the royal standards of the day but had no training to prepare him for his role. Yet is, by that role, was responsible for the actions  government,  again, power in his name.
 He was the one who signed the documents after all.
  He was too arch conservative to accept change yet he abdicated when it was too late.  IF he had done that sooner, perhaps the monarchy could have survived.
 He was also the one who chose his advisers and ministers. Another responsibility he  is responsible for.  Therein lies yet another whole topic.
 I will not even get into Alexandra and her influence. It is clear I do not care for the woman at all and  I would add fuel to the fire.
 But Nicholas, I feel more sorry for him than any hatred. A wasted opportunity.
 Of course he  did not instigate the war, but he entered it.
 History ifs not "what ifs" it is  "what was"
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 05:53:16 PM by Alixz » Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #200
« on: March 08, 2012, 03:12:03 PM »
TimM Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
Posts: 1392

View Profile WWW

Quote
Tim, where did you get this information that Stalin was in Poland ?  He was disqualified for service in WW1 and never served anywhere.  By then he was a confirmed revolutionary as well.

There was a well made documentary about Stalin on PBS a few years back, they were given access to the Russian Archives, which included Stalin's own writings.  He was part of a small detachment that went to fight the Poles in 1920.  By then Russia was in chaos and they weren't too choosy about their soldiers.  As I said, the Russians lost, and Stalin never forgot that humiliation.  So, almost twenty years later, he was finally in a position to get even with Poland, and he did.  With terrible results.
Logged

Author of The Rex and Hannah Chronicles.
Reply #201
« on: March 08, 2012, 03:25:22 PM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

I get it now.  He was not in WW1, but in an expedionary force to recover lost Belarus territory.
 Thanks for the info.
  I do not think Montefiorre mentioned that.
 I always thought his  extreme reaction to Poland was because of the Hitler betrayal. No love lost between those  two was there ?
 However, another topic.
Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #202
« on: March 08, 2012, 03:36:26 PM »
TimM Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
Posts: 1392

View Profile WWW

Quote
I always thought his  extreme reaction to Poland was because of the Hitler betrayal. No love lost between those  two was there ?


Hitler and Stalin were the two meanest, toughest kids on the block.  Sooner or later, they were gonna fight.
Logged

Author of The Rex and Hannah Chronicles.
Reply #203
« on: March 08, 2012, 03:57:25 PM »
Rodney_G. Offline
Knyaz
****
an angel .....and the best of them Posts: 717

View Profile

Quote
Tim, where did you get this information that Stalin was in Poland ?  He was disqualified for service in WW1 and never served anywhere.  By then he was a confirmed revolutionary as well.

There was a well made documentary about Stalin on PBS a few years back, they were given access to the Russian Archives, which included Stalin's own writings.  He was part of a small detachment that went to fight the Poles in 1920.  By then Russia was in chaos and they weren't too choosy about their soldiers.  As I said, the Russians lost, and Stalin never forgot that humiliation.  So, almost twenty years later, he was finally in a position to get even with Poland, and he did.  With terrible results.

Though I defer to your more recent source of info here, Tim,  my understanding of the Polish/Russian war of 1920 leading to Poland's victory and independence was that Stalin had a more significant role, namely the decision?, advice? to the RedArmy command that they split their forces in the attack on Poland. They did and it failed, giving the Poles the"miracle on the Vistula" victory against the odds in that decisive battle. Stalin took some heat for that, or felt he did, and nurtured  resentment and a lust for revenge ever since. He got it in Sept., 1939.
Logged

Rodney G.
Reply #204
« on: March 08, 2012, 04:46:16 PM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

Same with me, Tim.  I think, do not know yet, that Stalin was a political commissar rather than an actual militray  leader in this adventure. I could very well be wrong and will look further into this, as I am a student off this guys's history. He was a paranoid monster, but he fascinates me. And your asessment is on spot.  2 bullies on the same block.
 As I said though, this is way off topic and has nothing to do with NII.
Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #205
« on: March 08, 2012, 05:52:38 PM »
Alixz
Guest

Yep, time to excise Stalin and back to the topic and hand.
Logged
Reply #206
« on: March 08, 2012, 06:28:04 PM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

I think I have said all have to say about Nicholas for now. It would just be repetitous. I mave made my points and rest on them.

 As for Stalin, he is part of Russian history, like it or not and deseves a totally different thread. He  actually had little to do with Imperial Russian history. Especially concernoning NII.
 
Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #207
« on: March 08, 2012, 06:47:58 PM »
TimM Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
Posts: 1392

View Profile WWW

Quote
Same with me, Tim.  I think, do not know yet, that Stalin was a political commissar rather than an actual military  leader in this adventure. I could very well be wrong and will look further into this, as I am a student off this guys's history. He was a paranoid monster, but he fascinates me.

Well, one thing is clear, Stalin had a hatred of Poland.  Following the invasion, the Katyn Massacre of Polish officials was carried out on his orders.  He tried to fob the blame off on Germany, but no one bought it (the Russians would not come clean about this crime until 1990).  Towards the end of the war, he ordered Soviet troops to hold back until the Nazis had virtually wiped out Warsaw.

Stalin was NOT one to make an enemy of.

Sorry, Alixz, Stalin crept back into this thread again.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2012, 06:51:33 PM by TimM » Logged

Author of The Rex and Hannah Chronicles.
Reply #208
« on: March 08, 2012, 07:46:07 PM »
Robert_Hall Offline
Velikye Knyaz
****
a site. Posts: 6652

View Profile

Agreed, Tim. But to get this back to  Nicholas, perhaps we should start a new thread on post imperial Russia ? With FA's approval as this whole  Forum is supposed to be about ROYAL Russia. It diveverges a lot, as we know,
 There are topics here that have nothing to do with Imperial Russsia.
  Soviet/Bolshevik Russia is, in fact a legacy of Nicholas II. That cannot be denied. He may not have  been part of it  but it came about because of his rule, or misrule.
 There are many misconceptions about Soviet treament of the  Romanovs. It was not kind, but neither was it destructive.  They are part of Russia's national patrimony.
 Russians are very proud people, proud of the history and achievments.
 Nicholas and his famaily are pretty much just a tourist attraction. They sell books and post cards.
 But in history's view, they are  just not important except for the devoted.
 Rasputin was a joke in  most people's view, not to be taken seriously, yet he made their story hit the  newspapers and movies. He still sells books. They all do, except to Russians.
 I could go on, but as I said it would just be repetitive.
Logged

Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.
Reply #209
« on: March 09, 2012, 08:00:27 AM »
Alixz
Guest

I was watching Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" yesterday and one of the questions was "Which world leader was so afraid of being poisoned that he chewed arsenic to build up a tolerance?"

The choices were Rasputin, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Stalin.  I would have gone with either Caesar or Alexander, but they said the right answer was Rasputin!

If I had been the contestant on that day, I would have lodged a complaint as Rasputin may have chewed arsenic (and I have never read about that in any bio of him) but he was never a World Leader! (Unless being the power behind that throne qualifies him as one.)

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Website by Pallasart - Austin Web Design