Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => People v. Nicholas II Alexandrovich => Topic started by: writer_in_the_making on June 05, 2008, 04:56:52 PM

Title: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: writer_in_the_making on June 05, 2008, 04:56:52 PM
I am 11, so most people think someone my age's mind is unable to grasp things like this, but they are wrong. I was reading the "Crimes against Russia- Nicolas and family" and am horrified and ashamed at what some of the people put down.One person wrote:

Was it nice to kill the 'cute little kids'? NO! But then again many 'cute little kids' died on Bloody Sunday, in numerous pogroms and in various military reactions to strikes and protests -- and few people are terribly keen to discuss them.

   This person clearly can only grasp one bit of the problem at a time.Yes, Nicolas wasn't the best Emperor Russia had ever seen but he did not purposely murder people and even if he had there is always  the old saying " two wrongs don't make a right" and killing Nicolas's kids isn't okay just because during his rule some children died.
                                                                          Am I Right?
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: vallath on November 09, 2008, 11:09:33 AM
I Tzar and Tzarina were not particularlly intelligent. They did not know how poor Russia really was. 90% of the population were peasants who barely had anything to eat and had no possessions. In Tzarist Russia, there was NO middle class- any teacher will tell you in order for a society to survive, there MUST be a middle class to balance out wealth and commerce. Thre were the rich, and the poor- who had no power whatsoever. The royals were so disconnected with the people's reality that they were eventually overthrown, and unfortunately, execusted. The girls, however, had nothing to do with the affairs of state- their father and mother lead to the downfall. But empires cannot last forever. A country's wealth and prosperity cannot last forever. Time changes, therefore countries evolve into something different than before. The tzar REFUSED to change his government- modernity called for monarchs to give up power because certainly, one man and one woman CANNOT RULE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Nicholas and Alexandra, of coarse, ignored thiis and refuse reform and refused to give up any power. Other countries were leaning towards democracies and began reforming laws and goveernment to appeal to the people's needs. Because of the Tzars refusal for change Russia suffered dramatically from World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution and the whole Communist regime. One always wonders how Russia would be different now if the Tzar accepted change and reform!
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on November 12, 2008, 03:44:10 AM
Killing the Tzar's children was drastic and wrong but some study of conditions in the country can help explain if not excuse it.

One does wonder (okay, I still do) how much the Tzar knew of what his men were doing.  The Cossacks were considered to be the Tzar's soldiers.  How aware was the Tzar that they were looting and burning villages and killing innocent families?
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: writer_in_the_making on November 21, 2008, 08:26:10 AM
CorisCapnSkip, you made a very good point.But Vallath, the Tzar may not have known what was going on completely. He had to know that there was some suffering, but he may not have known the big picture. He showed so much love and compassion to his own children and the children of other people in his life that I can't believe he would deliberately kill one child.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on November 22, 2008, 05:41:42 AM
CorisCapnSkip, you made a very good point.But Vallath, the Tzar may not have known what was going on completely. He had to know that there was some suffering, but he may not have known the big picture. He showed so much love and compassion to his own children and the children of other people in his life that I can't believe he would deliberately kill one child.

I know, it doesn't make sense.  Could he have been victim to bad advisors and not all that was done happened directly on his orders or was even completely known to him?  Yet the poor class of people assumed it to be on his orders as the Tzar was supposed to have absolute power?
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: Jebediha on November 24, 2008, 03:18:23 PM
The Romanovs did noting wrong. Exespt for what they did wrong
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on November 27, 2008, 04:21:11 AM
The Romanovs did noting wrong. Exespt for what they did wrong

Too bad some of Nicholas's relatives couldn't have straightened him out as to what he should do.  He did visit other countries and must have been aware his policies were not entirely approved of there.  Of course, those other countries had different circumstances and perhaps their leaders felt unqualified to comment.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: imperial angel on November 30, 2008, 01:28:47 AM
I think they did feel unqualified to comment. Queen Victoria though was pretty outspoken that Russia was a dangerous place- she looked down on the Romanovs in that sense. I am not sure (don't remember) whether Queen Victoria said anything about how the Romanovs ruled Russia (she might have). But she died on 1901, so  didn't see almost all of Nicholas's reign.  I think she would have been opinionated had she lived longer though on what was going on in Russia, esp as Alexandra was the Empress, and was her grand daughter. I believe Nicholas was unaware of Bloody Sunday- he didn't give the order to shoot on the crowd. Everyone thought he did though. It was certainly not right to kill Nicholas's children just because children had died in his empire, in things like Bloody Sunday, which Nicholas wasn't directly responsible for. But, it is true they refused to change the goverment, Nicholas and Alexandra, as Vallath says.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: Felicia on December 25, 2008, 12:44:49 PM
I think if Nicholas had other character, or he listened to his relatives advice or did some changes in society - something more, than was done - his family was not murdered on 17th July! More, Russia would be still a monarchy, but not in this pseudo-democratic state!
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on December 28, 2008, 01:57:58 AM
The other day the news showed a report saying Stalin still has some fans who were celebrating his birthday and saying he was better than what they have now.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: imperial angel on December 31, 2008, 02:25:33 PM
That shows you can look back at anything nostalogically that was no good in reality. I don't feel the nostalgia for Imperial Russia is completely like this however, although making anything, even Nicholas II and the last Romanovs too romanticised isn't a good idea.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: Massine on January 03, 2009, 04:22:32 PM
I think it's hard for us to get ourselves into the mindset of those of 100 years ago.
I don't think the murder of the Tsar's children was civilized behaviour nor acceptable.  But drastic measures were being taken.
Nicholas II did not even have a trial!
But Nicholas also truly believed he was responsible for the entire land of Russia and he believed that God's will would be followed.
In his responsibilty to the people of Russia, he was a failure.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: romanov1918 on January 10, 2009, 03:46:07 PM
I Tzar and Tzarina were not particularlly intelligent. They did not know how poor Russia really was. 90% of the population were peasants who barely had anything to eat and had no possessions. In Tzarist Russia, there was NO middle class- any teacher will tell you in order for a society to survive, there MUST be a middle class to balance out wealth and commerce. Thre were the rich, and the poor- who had no power whatsoever. The royals were so disconnected with the people's reality that they were eventually overthrown, and unfortunately, execusted. The girls, however, had nothing to do with the affairs of state- their father and mother lead to the downfall. But empires cannot last forever. A country's wealth and prosperity cannot last forever. Time changes, therefore countries evolve into something different than before. The tzar REFUSED to change his government- modernity called for monarchs to give up power because certainly, one man and one woman CANNOT RULE THE LARGEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD! Nicholas and Alexandra, of coarse, ignored thiis and refuse reform and refused to give up any power. Other countries were leaning towards democracies and began reforming laws and goveernment to appeal to the people's needs. Because of the Tzars refusal for change Russia suffered dramatically from World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution and the whole Communist regime. One always wonders how Russia would be different now if the Tzar accepted change and reform!

Your comment that the Tsar and Tsarina were "not particularly intelligent are incorrect.  Nicholas II, while by no means a genius, was given the finest education as first a Grand Duke, then Tsarevitch.  Alexandra, while just a Princess, was highly intelligent and was also given the education a girl of her status was always given.  They knew exactly how poor some of the population was, and felt closer to the peasant population since they felt this was the heart of the Father/Tsar reverence.  There was a middle class in Russia, I do not know where you get that information from, you are wrong.  The reason Nicholas II abdicated was a result of many things.  First, the sickness of Alexei drove them to seek help from Rasputin.  As we all know, his morals were not upstanding and this lead to disgust and jealousy of his closeness to the Imperial Family.  Second, while Nicholas was Commander-in-chief, he left many decisions to Alexandra who along with Rasputin made bad changes in the ministers.  When the public loses confidence in their rulers, downfall is inevitable.  WWI caused shortages of heat and bread, causing hungry, tired people to protest.  One man and woman can rule the largest country in the world, one man, Peter the Great, and one woman, Catherine the Great, managed to do so for many years and made excellent changes for Russia.  As for Nicholas giving up his power, what ruler do you know has ever done that?  A Duma was created in 1905 after the revolution, but Nicholas felt it was his god-given right to rule alone, and the Duma went against everything he vowed in his coronation.  Possibly if the House of Romanov was a constitutional government as Alexander II was considering at the moment of his assassination, things might be different today and we would still have Tsardom in Russia.  But this was not to be. The leaders of the 1917/1918 revolution crowed about changes that the people at the time thought were going to make their lives wonderful, but made them even harder.

Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: imperial angel on January 10, 2009, 05:55:34 PM
I agree World War I and the actions taken during World War I, like Nicholas becoming commander in chief of the army, and leaving the goverment to Alexandra and Rasputin defintely contributed to the fall of the dynasty. Had World War I not happened, chances are the Romanov dynasty would not have fallen in 1917. World War I toppled many dynasties.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on January 12, 2009, 03:31:53 PM

Your comment that the Tsar and Tsarina were "not particularly intelligent are incorrect.  Nicholas II, while by no means a genius, was given the finest education as first a Grand Duke, then Tsarevitch.  Alexandra, while just a Princess, was highly intelligent and was also given the education a girl of her status was always given.  They knew exactly how poor some of the population was, and felt closer to the peasant population since they felt this was the heart of the Father/Tsar reverence.  There was a middle class in Russia, I do not know where you get that information from, you are wrong.  The reason Nicholas II abdicated was a result of many things.  First, the sickness of Alexei drove them to seek help from Rasputin.  As we all know, his morals were not upstanding and this lead to disgust and jealousy of his closeness to the Imperial Family.  Second, while Nicholas was Commander-in-chief, he left many decisions to Alexandra who along with Rasputin made bad changes in the ministers.  When the public loses confidence in their rulers, downfall is inevitable.  WWI caused shortages of heat and bread, causing hungry, tired people to protest.  One man and woman can rule the largest country in the world, one man, Peter the Great, and one woman, Catherine the Great, managed to do so for many years and made excellent changes for Russia.  As for Nicholas giving up his power, what ruler do you know has ever done that?  A Duma was created in 1905 after the revolution, but Nicholas felt it was his god-given right to rule alone, and the Duma went against everything he vowed in his coronation.  Possibly if the House of Romanov was a constitutional government as Alexander II was considering at the moment of his assassination, things might be different today and we would still have Tsardom in Russia.  But this was not to be. The leaders of the 1917/1918 revolution crowed about changes that the people at the time thought were going to make their lives wonderful, but made them even harder.



Romanov1918
Well said, what you have said is true.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: WhiteRussian on January 12, 2009, 04:54:51 PM
Does anyone else agree with me that being the Tsar of Russia during the late 19th-early 20th century was the hardest position in the world at that time? First off, being Tsar was akin to being a President without a cabinet, which leaves you pretty much on your own to make decisions. Second of all, he had to do very menial tasks that no Emperor should ever have to do, such as okay name changes and give his approval over divorces. He didn't even have a secretary for nearly all of his time as Tsar, which meant that he had to stamp his own envelopes and write his own notes!
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on January 13, 2009, 04:54:11 AM
Yes, I'm agree with you, being the tsar of Russia during the late 19th early 20th century was the hardest position in the world at that time.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: Anastasiafan0 on January 13, 2009, 11:00:55 PM
It was a very hard action, to take for the ones before and after the IF deaths.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: imperial angel on January 15, 2009, 01:16:10 AM
Does anyone else agree with me that being the Tsar of Russia during the late 19th-early 20th century was the hardest position in the world at that time? First off, being Tsar was akin to being a President without a cabinet, which leaves you pretty much on your own to make decisions. Second of all, he had to do very menial tasks that no Emperor should ever have to do, such as okay name changes and give his approval over divorces. He didn't even have a secretary for nearly all of his time as Tsar, which meant that he had to stamp his own envelopes and write his own notes!

I agree with you. I thought Nicholas though liked to be his own secretary, I believe Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie says that- I read it somewhere, anyway. Even if he wasn't his own secretary, he still had the hardest position.
Title: Re: were the romanovs actions wrong?
Post by: RomanovMartyrs on August 28, 2009, 10:04:48 AM
I think to say "The Romanovs' actions were wrong" would be incorrect.

But the decisions at that time were less than beneficial for the people.

Obviously, as mentioned by others, Bloody Sunday, and the pogroms, etc. etc. were *bad* things. But, I'd really like some documentation that declares Nicholas II to have been the one to say to his soldiers, "Go out and torture and kill the Russian people, the Jewish citizens, etc." I highly doubt such orders were ever given by the gentle, naive Tsar.

I think a bit of credit should be given to him simply because he never wanted to be a Tsar, but was forced into the position. Nay-sayers of the last Romanov Rulers do not bother to remember such things.

But of course it is history for a reason, and thus it is hard to come up with a solid answer to this question, "Were the Romanov actions wrong?" History is written (usually) by those in control. So of course the successors of the Romanovs (and by this I mean the Reds) will have reflected a negative historical view.

Personally, I do not hold the Romanovs responsible first hand for the tragedies during and before the Revolution. I look at the things that Nicholas II did right, after all that is what he was trying to do all the time.

I have read somewhere that some things were in fact *better* for the people at large under Imperial Rule than during and after Bolshevik control. If anyone has this article it would be greatly appreciated! (Obviously, I would rather have had Romanov Rule than been one of the millions Stalin deported and had killed, but that's a separate issue, no?) ;)