Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Nicholas II => Topic started by: James_Davidov on November 01, 2004, 07:10:15 AM

Title: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: James_Davidov on November 01, 2004, 07:10:15 AM
It saddens me to learn Nicholas II was such an anti-semitic :(.  I understand the history of Russia's policies on Jews, and the pograms that took place during his reign. However I always viewed Nicholas, from the mass of information avaliable, that he was such a virtuous kind man, therefor it saddens me to learn of examples where he showed such hate towards the jewish... from 'The Fate of the Romanovs' -

:-[ "Nicholas II inherited both his fathers personal anti-semitism and his public anti-semitic policies.  He firmly believed in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against the Russian empire in general and himself in particular.  He once denied an orchestra permission to perform in Yalta on the excuse that it contained jewish musicians; on another occasion, learning that the widow of a Jewish doctor in Yalta had been evicted from her home and applied for permission to return, Nicholas dismissed her request by writting 'there are too many Yids already'.  The systematic pograms of Nicholas II's reign were far more vicious than anything witnessed under Alexander III".

This all troubles me and whilst i'd like to think of myself as a realistic romanov fan - delighting more in the normality of this extraordinary family, unlike some people, I'd really like it if someone could provide an excuse for Nicky's behavior or a contradiction - Im desperate!!! :-/ :-[ :(
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 01, 2004, 07:49:46 AM
James,

There is a very long and informative thread about the Romanovs and anti-semitism. I forget exactly what the topic title was, but it was somethinng along those lines. You can do a search and I am sure you will find it.

Also, Radzinsky, in his book The Last Tsar, assures us that Nicholas was not really anti-semitic because he had some sort of, what the author interprets as a serious fling with a Jewish woman. I never heard about this anywhere else but his book, so not sure how factual that information is. Of course, as the case may be, even if it's true, that still doesn't prove Nicholas not to be anti-semitic, he just happened to like one person who happened to be Jewish, that's all. Prejudice and racism doesn't preclude liking individuals from a group you dislike...

In any case, try to find the aforementioned thread, I think it will be interesting for you...

Helen

Helen
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Olga on November 01, 2004, 07:54:33 AM
Quote
This all troubles me and whilst i'd like to think of myself as a realistic romanov fan - delighting more in the normality of this extraordinary family, unlike some people, I'd really like it if someone could provide an excuse for Nicky's behavior or a contradiction - Im desperate!!! :-/ :-[ :(


The Romanovs are not perfect. If you think you're realistic then you will know that Nikolai Alexandrovich plus most of his family did and said some pretty stupid things. There is no excuse for his anti-Semitic statements. Is it too hard to believe that Batyushka Tsar could do something wrong?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 01, 2004, 08:09:47 AM
Fact is, although he was a "nice guy", Nicholas was not really an intellectual and sometimes had rather simplistic views of the world (at least I get that impression from many things I read about him. Alexandra seemed even more so, IMO.)
The practice of stereotyping is usually born out of an attempt to make sense of something very complicated by simplifying via categorezing. Of course all this goes way deeper than that, but if you keep this in mind, it may sort of explain some things about Nicholas or some other seemingly "nice" people who have these kinds of views...  

Helen
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AnastasiaFan on November 01, 2004, 09:15:02 AM
Quote
It saddens me to learn Nicholas II was such an anti-semitic :(.  I understand the history of Russia's policies on Jews, and the pograms that took place during his reign. However I always viewed Nicholas, from the mass of information avaliable, that he was such a virtuous kind man, therefor it saddens me to learn of examples where he showed such hate towards the jewish... from 'The Fate of the Romanovs' -

 :-[ "Nicholas II inherited both his fathers personal anti-semitism and his public anti-semitic policies.  He firmly believed in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against the Russian empire in general and himself in particular.  He once denied an orchestra permission to perform in Yalta on the excuse that it contained jewish musicians; on another occasion, learning that the widow of a Jewish doctor in Yalta had been evicted from her home and applied for permission to return, Nicholas dismissed her request by writting 'there are too many Yids already'.  The systematic pograms of Nicholas II's reign were far more vicious than anything witnessed under Alexander III".

This all troubles me and whilst i'd like to think of myself as a realistic romanov fan - delighting more in the normality of this extraordinary family, unlike some people, I'd really like it if someone could provide an excuse for Nicky's behavior or a contradiction - Im desperate!!! :-/ :-[ :(


Nicholas' anti-semtisim was not as black and white as portrayed in FOTR. He started to change his views for the better towards the end of his life. For a quick bit of info on this, go to the link below. It is from a section of this site titled Nicholas' New Study.

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/newstudy.html
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: bookworm857158367 on November 03, 2004, 02:09:50 PM
At a guess I'd say he, like others, probably believed that the Jews were being willfully blind and obstinant by not seeing the truth of Christianity and were destined for Hell. They were the Other. I doubt if he was quite so negative towards Jews were converted to Christianity. It was an unfortunate attitude all too common.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Georgiy on November 03, 2004, 02:45:41 PM
I should imagine that as an Orthodox Christian he would be more concerned with his own salvation than thinking about who would be condemned to hell as that is a perogative for God alone.
Anti-semitism was very common across Europe in those days and had been for a very long time. It wasn't something unique to the Romanovs or the Nazis in Germany later. Even in seemingly benign books like those by Agatha Christie you will find a good deal of anti-semitism in books written before WW2, and the impression is that it was something taken for granted or as a normal state of affairs.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Silja on November 03, 2004, 03:07:00 PM
Indeed the antisemitism of the Romanovs or many Russians was very different from that of the nazis in the way that a Jew who converted to Orthodoxy was perfectly acceptable. The nazis were interested in the race, not the religion. The antisemitic Russians cared about the religion.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alibubba on June 11, 2006, 02:06:03 PM
  I'm afraid to sound ignorant;  but I have always been an ardent Nicholas and Alix fan, but I confess to be interested  in them as a couple and a family---I'm not so interested in politics.  I admire the depth and strength of their faith, and the way their religion was an all-encompassing part of their lives.  But I just read a piece about Nicholas's intolerance, even cruel treatment, toward the Jews.  As a Christian, I very much have difficulty reconciling these attitudes and actions with Christ's teaching, especially since they have been made saints.  As a logtime fan of the family, this troubles me.  I would be grateful to hear others' thoughts and feelings on the subject. Thanks! :-? :-/
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 11, 2006, 02:38:08 PM
It's a not very pleasant chapter in Romanov history to be sure. It's caused quite a bit of discussion over the years on the Forum. Here is the biggest thread though if you do a search, you'll find the topic comes up in various threads throughout the Forum.

Anti-Semitism of the Romanovs (this one's 24 pages long)
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/YaBB.cgi?num=1078793610/0


Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 12, 2006, 04:27:12 PM
One would have to know the the factors that determined if one was a good Russian in order to understand why Emperor Nikolai II thought as he did about the Jews living within his country.

The three factors that made a Russian were belief in the Emperor as God's annointed representative on Earth; belief in the sanctity and defence of Mother Russia; a belief that the Orthodox Church was an organ of God's true word.

How could the Jews feel the inherent respect for Mother Russia if they already had their own historical and sacred homeland? How could they participate in the Orhtodox Church if they rejected it? How could they believe that the Emperor was God's annointed if they rejected the theological principles behind the annointing?

By rejecting the three factors that made one a good Russian, they allienated the Russians populace from them, becomming not Russian Jews but merely Jews living in Russia. In simplest terms, they refused to assimilate and thus became a target for abuse.

David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 12, 2006, 05:49:21 PM
Why then were the Crimean Tatars -- who were Muslim -- viewed as good and loyal subjects of the tsar and allowed to keep their own religion, dress, and traditions?  No one -- and certainly not Nicholas -- viewed their non-Orthodox faith as mutually exclusive of loyalty to the throne or as a signal of a desire to be excluded from the body politic of Russia.  

The reason the Pales of Settlement and the prohibition on practising certain trades were first established was to protect the ethnic Russian merchant classes from competition.  The Tatars were accepted as colorful and eccentric -- but thoroughly loyal -- Russians because they did not put themselves in economic competition with ethnic Russians in the core of the empire.  Religion had precious little to do with it, except as pretext.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 12, 2006, 07:50:06 PM
I agree with Tsarfan, but would add in the classic "Jews are Christkillers" accusation.  If this concept continues to be believed among many of today's "good churchgoing people" (who also, by the way, assign Jews much of the responsiblity of the Russian Revolution and other ills) why is it so difficult to come to grips with a man who lived one hundred years ago thinking along the same lines?

The last tsar was, in many ways, a cosmopolitan fellow, but deep down he continued to retain the prejudices he had been taught by his tutor, probably by his father, and certainly by the general culture surrounding him during his formative years. In addition, he had the luxury of being distanced from the evil that was inflicted on Jews. If he had witnessed the horrors of a pogrom, would Nicholas have changed his attitude? I don't know. I would hope so.

I have always liked, and continue to like, Nicholas II.  But just as I can understand (though not condone) WHY he had anti-Semitic leanings, I also cannot twist things around in my mind so as to declare him innocent of anti-Semitism.

It is through learning about anti-Semitism as practiced not only by goons such as Hilter, but also by far more appealing individuals such as Nicholas II, that we learn how prejudices take hold and are accepted by "good" people who are complacent or even swear fealty to monsterous governments promoting murderous policies.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 12, 2006, 07:58:37 PM
Tsarfan,

I was simply explaining the prevailing common attitude toward the Jews during the reign of Nikolai II. I did not write that there were no alterior motives behind some of the repression.

The difference between the Jews and Tatars of any variety, is that the Jews were immigrants who refused to assimilate rather than conquered 'semi-civilised' native peoples who in the Russian point of view would take many years to assimilate, educate and convert.

If one only sees the situation through the present reality how can one ever understand the past. In or present world some Pakistani comes to the US on an immigrant visa, takes up residence, holds a job and in three years passes the citizenship examination; takes the oath and he is a citizen, no different in the eyes of the law from a native born person whose family had lived in the US for 300 years. This is not how it was in Imperial Russia. We should not confuse two vastly different reallities.

David

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 12, 2006, 08:23:17 PM
Please read the excellent discussion on this subject in "Fontanka 16".  The authors researched the Okhrana archives which had been sealed until the late 1990s.  The genuine truth is that the government of Nicholas II NEVER EVER ordered nor sanctioned a single pogrom.  Nicholas, to the contrary, is on record ordering pogroms to cease and/or be prevented. The genuine source of pogroms during Nicholas II's reign is of lower level police and governmental officials all on the local level.
Now, Nicholas was not exactly what we would modern people call totally open minded about Jews. I'm Jewish myself.  However, Nicholas realized that many of his subjects were indeed rabidly anit-Semitic and he sought to keep the peace with all groups.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 12, 2006, 09:54:09 PM
Quote
The difference between the Jews and Tatars of any variety, is that the Jews were immigrants who refused to assimilate . . . .

There are records as early as the 4th century of Jews occupying territory that eventually became part of Russia.  There were significant Jewish populations in Kiev and in Kievan Russia.

As Musovite Russia expanded, its policy was to eject Jews found in lands that were annexed.  That policy finally became impractical in the late 18th century when Russia annexed large parts of Poland and the Crimea, where there were large indigenous Jewish populations.  So Pales of Settlement were established in which Jews were sequestered from the bulk of the population.

The significant Jewish immigrations in Europe occurred in the late Middle Ages when western Europe became more hostile to Jews, who moved into the more tolerant regions of central and eastern Europe.  There they sat several centuries later when they were, quite unwillingly, annexed into the Russian Empire.

What on earth gave you the idea that "the Jews were immigrants" who trekked into Russia to enjoy the Pales and the barring from most trade and professional life?

If you lay claim to understand the past better than I, you should at least get the basic history right . . . and tell it accurately.

As for Nicholas II, the FA is right that he was probably less anti-semitic than many of his subjects -- and he was surely less anti-semitic than most of the Romanovs.  Also, the pogroms were a source of embarassment to him and his government on the international stage.  Shortly before WWI, the U.S. even suspended an economic treaty with Russia due to her inability to stop the pogroms.

On the other hand, Nicholas made his share of anti-semitic remarks in the family circle and took steps to reduce the number of "yids" (his word) in the precincts of Livadia.  He also officially received people involved with the "Black Hundreds".  And, while his government did not order pogroms, it often simply reassigned local officials who were implicated in both instigating and in failing to quell pogroms.  But, most reprehensibly, Nicholas' government financed the publication of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which was both hugely incendiary and known by the government to be sheer propagandistic invention.

As with so many other aspects of Nicholas, it's very hard to know when his voice is his own and when it's an echo of others.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 12, 2006, 10:00:12 PM
There seems to have been a very casual, institutional anti-Semitism in the Romanovs. While NII might not have ordered pogroms, he used abusive language towards Jews in letters to his mother and others. In the Letters  of Tsar Nicholas and Empress Marie , a letter from NII to MF is quoted where he is quite defensive about the pogroms, writing that they wre a natural reaction of the populace to 'the impertinence of the Socialists and revolutionaries' and that 'because nine-tenths of troublemakers are Jews, the people's whole wrath turned against them...In England, of course, the Press says that these disorders were organised by the police. They can go on repeating this worn-out fable. But not only Jews suffered; some of the Russian agitators suffered as well.' There is a real lack of sympathy towards his Jewish subjects that is hard to reconcile with the many accounts of his gentle and kind nature. [And as for England, he couldn't understand the behavior of the British royal family towards Jews and was very uncomfortable with Jews invited to GV's wedding in 1893, writing that he tried to keep to himself as much as he could.]

It seems much the same as some racism that exists nowadays. A person may throw around epithets or make racist jokes and yet not consider themselves racist because they don't belong to the Klan or lynch people. And it wasn't NII alone by any means--his uncle (and BIL) GD Serge had a horrible history as Governor of Moscow and even in GDss George's memoirs, A Romanov Diary, she casually tosses in what many would consider anti-Semitic remarks.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 12, 2006, 10:58:31 PM
As I have mentioned in previous threads covering this subject, when I think of Nicholas II and his attitudes towards Jews I think of my father and his own sensibilities re: people who were different from him. My dad appreciated Jewish comedians (Jack Benny was a favorite) as well as Jewish musicians. And he was a basically good and kind man who, in person, was helpful and friendly no matter what that person's race, ethnicity, or religion. But when it came to people in the abstract he was a different person. Perhaps because he had issues of low self-esteem, combined with a sensibility that as a white Anglo Saxon male he was just a bit better than others who weren't, he had no problem in oversimplifying situations and tarring an entire group of people with one broad brush stroke. I will never forget the disgust I felt when, around the age of ten, my father proceeded to explain to me what was wrong with Jews.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 12, 2006, 11:47:52 PM
To the Ladies and Gentlemen of this Forum,

I found this subject a very difficult topic about which to write, a topic in which I had to both express my historical understanding as well as avoid offending our fellow members of this forum. The word immigrants may not have been the best term but seemed less offensive to me than 'adherents of a non-indigenous culture', this might have been the best choice as it would have included those non-indigenous Jews of Hebrew blood and the Kazars, an indigenous Turkic people who converted to Judaism in the ninth century

David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 13, 2006, 07:01:25 AM
And I learned some months ago where your head was when, in describing the Russian Revolution, you chose the phrase "packed full of Jews."

Quote
In simplest terms, they refused to assimilate and thus became a target for abuse.

The victims asked for it.  Well, there is certainly a timeless quality to this logic.  It is already emerging as the U.S. immigration debate heats up and reports of anti-Latino hate crimes begin to increase.  And it served the Nazis well in riding out the diplomatic repercussions from Kristallnacht.

The Jews did not refuse to assimilate.  They sought and would have welcomed integration into the economic and social life of Russia.  It was the government that fenced them off from those things.  What they refused to do was let others dictate to them their form of worship.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 13, 2006, 07:23:47 AM
Can we please not have personal insults directed at fellow posters? Topics like this one can bring up many passionate responses and can get rather heated but please try to keep it on the subject. If you don't have regard for a person's postings debate them without mockery please.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on June 13, 2006, 10:19:28 AM
Quote
Can we please not have personal insults directed at fellow posters? Topics like this one can bring up many passionate responses and can get rather heated but please try to keep it on the subject. If you don't have regard for a person's postings debate them without mockery please.

It is becoming clear to me that David is often the source of these personal arguments. Perhaps you ought to direct your attention at him.

Quote
The Jews did not refuse to assimilate.  They sought and would have welcomed integration into the economic and social life of Russia.  It was the government that fenced them off from those things.  What they refused to do was let others dictate to them their form of worship.

Correct. The Pale of Settlement was created by Catherine the Great in the 1790's with the purpose of keeping Jews out of Imperial Russia. They could not travel or leave without special permission from the government. Or how about Alexander III's May Laws in 1882? They placed strict quotas on the number of Jews that could obtain secondary or higher education and limited their professions. They remained in place until 1917, the year of the Russian Revolution. There was also an edict of expulsion from Kiev in 1886 and the cleansing of Moscow of its Jews in 1891 again under Alexander III. So how exactly did the Jews refuse to assimilate? History clearly indicates that this was not the case.

Frankly, I'm not willing to be so kind towards Nicholas. I don't believe in degrees of anti-Semitism. You either are, or you aren't anti-Semitic. The fact that he owned a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, did nothing to physically stop the pogroms occuring in his empire, like the Kishinev Pogrom in 1903, and his casual attitude towards getting rid of "Yids" indicates that he clearly was.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 13, 2006, 11:58:26 AM
Ortino,

First, GDElla's statement was a general one to all posters.

Second, PLEASE read some source material, like "Fontanka 16" by Ruud & Stepanov.

Re Kishniev 1903 (at pg. 233 et. seq.)
"In any event the documents show that Plehve, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impost measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram. (GARF 601/1/1046, sheet 2)

Following the pacificationof the outbreak, Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.
...
the minister (Plehve) frankly condemned the police in a report to Nicholas II.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 13, 2006, 12:28:13 PM
[ch1054][ch1088][ch1090][ch1080][ch1085][ch1086],

You seem to overlook the fact that assimilated Jews were not required to live in the Pale of Settlement. Only unassimilated Jews, that is those who did not convert to Russian Orthodoxy, were excluded from society. Let us remember that within the lifetimes of many of the members of this forum here in the United States that it was common place for real estate deeds to have legal restrictions barring Jews from purchasing the properties; for private clubs and societies to bar Jewish membership. Memories seem to be so short these days that the actions or inactions of a man, Nikolai II, living one hundred years ago loose their social context. Do you know if the use of the term 'Yid' was a pejorative in 1890's Russia or simply a slang term referring to a speaker of Yiddish? The meaning of words do change over time so one should not assume that the meaning was what it is today.


David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 13, 2006, 01:21:11 PM
It is true that we need to study the attitude of Nicholas II--or indeed anyone--within the context of that person's times, also taking into consideration formative influences such as family attitudes and schooling. In many ways I think Nicholas, in his early years as Tsar, was quite remarkable. However, as is the case with many people, he became increasingly conservative--even reactionary--as he aged. Certainly the reports he received, and the continued and accelerated threats of assassination were influences. Also I can accept that he was not the one to issue certain directives. But a leader sets the style and tone of his nation. Nicholas had many roadblocks to overcome, and not all of them of his own making. But I regretfully must add that in many critical situations he made decisions which ultimately led to the demise of all he cherished. When people feel fenced in and threatened they do try to find ways of blaming others, and keeping in mind that Nicholas II had a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reminds me of some of the right wing trash I found among my father's effects after his death. Still it must be remembered that during the captivity of Nicholas his words and actions often belied any expected ill will and sometimes indicated a sense of repentance for his own mistakes, coupled with hope and even optimism for Russia's tsarless future. Nicholas did have his prejudices. But I think, had he lived, his thoughtful nature, combined with all that he had observed and experienced while in captivity, might have balanced and even trumped the knee-jerk reactions that sometimes even the best of us fall back on when making decisions.  
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on June 13, 2006, 01:25:12 PM
It has been suggested that Plehve organized the pogrom himself and Lopukhin recalled that leaflets inciting the violence were printed under his direction on Minister of the Interior presses. Please define what "undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order" means. Intervening only after three days of vicious rioting and following the death of about 50 Jews does not in my mind constitute taking "all measures possible."  

Quote
Do you know if the use of the term 'Yid' was a pejorative in 1890's Russia or simply a slang term referring to a speaker of Yiddish?

It's not slang--the word "Yiddish" is the Yiddish word for "Jewish," so calling someone a "Yid" is the same as calling them a Jew. I've never heard or seen the word "Yid" used in a positive context, only as a derogatory term for someone who speaks Yiddish--in this case, Jews.

Quote
Still it must be remembered that during the captivity of Nicholas his words and actions often belied any expected ill will and sometimes indicated a sense of repentance for his own mistakes, coupled with hope and even optimism for Russia's tsarless future.

It's very nice to think about your mistakes afterwards, but that can't fix the damage already done.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 13, 2006, 01:39:39 PM
Quote
Re Kishniev 1903 (at pg. 233 et. seq.)
"In any event the documents show that Plehve, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impost measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram. (GARF 601/1/1046, sheet 2)

Following the pacificationof the outbreak, Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.
...
the minister (Plehve) frankly condemned the police in a report to Nicholas II.

It does seem established that the government in St. Petersburg did not order the Kishinev pogrom and that it later removed Governor von Raaben for inaction.

However, the story neither begins nor ends there.

There were rumors of trouble building in the city for some weeks before the disturbances broke out on Easter Sunday.  These rumors were fanned by vitriolic attacks on the Jews by the newspaper Bessarabetz, which ran a series of articles accusing Jews of murdering a young boy in a nearby village for ritual purposes.  (It transpired that the boy was killed by a relative, who was later apprehended.)

Six days before the riots began, a letter was received and publicized by a popular tavern.  The text read:

"Brethren Christians!

Here comes the great day of Christ's resurrection.  Many years ago our Saviour, tormented by the Jews, atoned our sins and the sins of the whole world by His blood.  Meanwhile, the base Zjids are not satisfied with the blood of our Saviour, crucified by them.  Every year they shed the innocent blood of Christians and use it for their rituals.  Have you not heard that they crucified a Christian boy in Dubossari [the accusation being published in "Bessarabetz"] and bled him?  Yes, it is true.  It is known to authorities, but they do not declare it so as not to excite us against these bloody bastards who should have been expelled from Russia long ago.

This is the way of their jeering at us Russians.  And how much harm do they bring to our Mother Russia!  They want to take possession of her.  They publish various proclamations to the people in order to excite them against authority, even against our Father the Tsar, who knows the mean, cunning, deceitful and greedy nature of this nation, and does not grant them liberties.

But if you give liberty to the Zjid, he will reign over our Holy Russia and take everything in his paws.  There will be no more Russia, but only "Zjidovia".  Brothers, in the name of our Saviour, who shed his blood for us; in the name of our Father the Tsar, who cares for his people and grants them alleviating manifests, let us exclaim in the forthcoming great day -- Down with Zjids!  Beat these mean degenerates, blood suckers drunk with Russian blood!  Remind them of the Odessa pogrom, during which even the army was on the side of the people.  No need to say, they will help us this time."


(Perhaps this letter will help establish the connotation of the word "Zjid" at the turn of the 20th century in Russia.)

This was the climate in Kishinev heading into the Easter holidays, and there is evidence the authorities -- both secular and spiritual -- were well aware that the situation was a powderkeg.  Both Governor von Raaben and the head of the local Okhrana were specifically warned.  When violence finally broke out on Easter Sunday (with Orthodox priests in the vanguard) and raged for three days, von Raaben disappeared during the entire time.  Nor was the local garrison of over 5,000 army troops called into action while 47 Jews were killed, hundreds more injured, and over 1300 houses and businesses destroyed.

The single most influential factor in the rise of anti-semitic hatred in Kishinev -- a town with a population that was one-third Jewish and that had historically had relatively good community relations -- was the newspaper Bessarabetz and its editor Krushevan.

Several protests about the paper's violently anti-semitic editorial policies had been raised with authorities, who consistently refused to censor the paper.  In fact, the government placed frequent ads in the paper.  And -- most significantly -- shortly after the Kishinev pogrom, Nicholas II thanked Krushevan for the work of his newspaper in keeping the region informed of critical events.

Did Nicholas order the pogrom?  Certainly not.  Other than the embarassment it caused his government by the huge international outcry, though, did he really mind that it happened?  Well . . . not so sure there.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 13, 2006, 01:40:16 PM
The first unrest started in Kishniev on 6 April. The first killing happened at noon on 7 April.  The pogrom was suppressed by evening of 7 April. I don't see that being three days of inaction.

Please cite exactly where it is "suggested" Plehve organized the pogrom. The documents in GARF totally are at odds with such a statement.  Please cite exactly where "Lopukhin recalled that leaflets inciting the violence were printed under his direction on Minister of the Interior presses" Again, the documentation in GARF disagrees totally with that statement as well. There is no evidence that there ever WERE leaflets inciting the violence.

Further, Lopukhin himself later criticized Witte for writing in his memoirs an unsubstantiated allegation without any proof that Plehve was responsible for the Kishniev pogrom (see Fontanka 16 pg 233 note 21 citing Lopukhin, Otryvki iz vospominanii (Po povodu 'Vospominanii' br. S.Iu. Witte) 14-15 ). Lopukhin wrote "it is unjust to attribute the Kishnev pogrom to (Plehve).  His anti-Semitism is not subject to doubt, but this one fact does not justify blaming an intelligent man for an act which is not merely repulsive, but also politically stupid."
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Louis_Charles on June 13, 2006, 01:41:44 PM
Jews who become Russian Orthodox are no longer Jews. They are Christians.

Frankly, I don't think that Nicholas II would have objected to being called "anti-Semitic", would he? His private correspondence and his public actions make it clear that he didn't like Jews, was uncomfortable in their presence and preferred to avoid them when possible. He certainly wasn't alone in his anti-Semitism among royalty; Edward VII was the exception to the rule, not Nicholas II.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 13, 2006, 01:59:58 PM
Quote
The first unrest started in Kishniev on 6 April. The first killing happened at noon on 7 April.  The pogrom was suppressed by evening of 7 April. I don't see that being three days of inaction.

The violence seemed to proceed according to a pre-laid plan.  Sunday, April 6, was marked by organized groups of 20 or so men each who spread out fairly evenly over the Jewish quarter.  On April 7 these groups were joined by less organized masses, when the violence escalated from property damage to death and injury.  The police were finally called into action about 6:00 p.m. on April 7.  However, order was not restored in the outlying precincts of the city until sometime on April 8.

As far as I know, only the police were called into action, although belatedly.  The army garrison -- both the largest force available and the one most likely to maintain internal discipline -- was not called out during any of the three days of unrest in the region.

And . . . in an era that already had telegraph and telephone, what possible reason can explain 30 hours of police inaction while residents of a city are attacked and burned out of home and business?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 13, 2006, 02:22:10 PM
The police inaction was explained as I wrote earlier. The lower level "on the street" police were sympathetic to the pogrom and the man in charge was dismissed with Nicholas' permission for his mis handling of the events:
"Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks. "

Here is Spiridovitch's take on Nicholas, from his memoir:
There was an opinion widely repeated in which the Emperor had detested the Jews.  That is incorrect.  As he was a Russian, and a man well versed in political and social history, the Emperor would not love the Jews, however he never once displayed the slightest hatred toward them.  He always showed himself to be as equally fair in regards to them as he was to many other groups.
     Those who created the anti-Jewish policies were acting in accordance with their own personal beliefs, and were hiding behind the Emperor and were trying to make him the scapegoat for them.  All of that was for nothing."


Also, several soldiers of the Orchestra of Nicholas' own Praeobrazhenskaya Regiment were Jews, there was a huge row when Dombadze tried to have them expelled from Yalta during one of Nicholas's stays at Livadia.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 13, 2006, 03:28:23 PM
Quote
>snip<

and keeping in mind that Nicholas II had a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion reminds me of some of the right wing trash I found among my father's effects after his death.

>snip< 

That Nikolai II owned a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not unusual at all for a man of his day. We of course do not know how he came by this booklet, as part of a report from the Okhrana, as a curiosity or because he believed what it said. I have books on communism, is that evidence that I am a communist; I have books on Hinduism, does that mean that I am a Hindu;  I have books on Taoism, do they make me a Taoist?

Out of curiosity, I once purchased a copy of Mein Kampf and read it. The best thing that could be written about this book is that it is repetitive and poorly written. I then ripped it to pieces and threw it in the trash. Owning a controversial book does not mean that one ascribes to its premise.

David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 13, 2006, 03:32:41 PM
Quote
The police inaction was explained as I wrote earlier. The lower level "on the street" police were sympathetic to the pogrom and the man in charge was dismissed with Nicholas' permission for his mis handling of the events:
"Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks."

I have no information on what was going on down in the lower police ranks, but it certainly would not surprise me to find a lot of sympathy with the rioters.

But I think there are some questions that present themselves from what is known about the situation.  For starters, I think Lopukhin's investigating the situation is somewhat akin to the Bush administration's investigating the Valerie Plame leak.  The findings cannot be dismissed out of hand, but neither they should they be accepted uncritically.

But I have more substantive questions about the events.  My understanding is that the police were not called into action until 6:00 p.m. on April 7.  They then quelled the unrest in the main city within two hours.  This does not sound like the accomplishment of a police force that was not under control.  So, what converted them from an unreliable force on Sunday afternoon into a crackjack team on Monday evening?

Also, if the police were found on Sunday to be unreliable, why was the army garrison not called into service?  If von Raaben could not be found -- and reports were that he could not be -- then why wasn't St. Petersburg telephoned or telegraphed for authority to call up the army?

I think there is another possible explanation of these events . . . and one that provides some connective tissue to the widely disparate report of events that came later.  The central government was willing to let the pogrom go just far enough to send a signal to the Jews but then wanted to intervene soon enough to maintain "credible deniability" with the international community.

This would explain the authorities' taking no action in the face of building rumors and reports in the days leading up to Easter 1903.  It would explain a police force absent on Day One suddenly becoming highly effective on Day Two.  It would explain an army garrison inexplicably left in its barracks.  It would explain an ambiguous message from Plehve to von Raaben in the weeks before the pogrom.  It would explain a tsar later thanking the publisher of a highly-incendiary newspaper.  It would explain Witte's later comments.  It would explain the removal of only one senior person (the scapegoat von Raaben) in a widespread litany of mayhem.

Speculation, I admit.  But the official story just doesn't ring true.

Nicholas' views of the Jews has always been a cypher to me.  I have read Spiridovitch's comments before, and I was aware of various Jews in his regiments and even his household (such as Max Factor, who did the photography make-up for Alexandra and her daughters).  I do not doubt the veracity of these reports.

However, for every one of these stories, there is an opposite.  For instance, he denied a Yalta residency permit to a Jewish widow, saying there were already "enough yids" in Yalta.  He denied Max Factor permission to marry, thereby precipitating Factor's emigration to the U.S. (and his founding of the cosmetics industry there).  He made viciously anti-semitic comments to his mother after seeing a provocative play about the Jew's role in the crucifixion.

Either Nicholas did not know his own mind on this topic, or he echoed the sentiments he thought were shared by the people he was addressing, or he was personally highly ambivalent about Jews . . . or all of the above.

What is suspected with some good reason is that, toward the end of his reign, Nicholas might have been toying with signficant liberalization of Jewish policy, against the strenuous objections of senior Romanovs.  But even then, there are questions as to how much of the thinking was his own or Alexandra's.

Usually I end up concluding that Russia -- and the Orthodox Church -- were profoundly anti-semitic and that Nicholas, as usual, could either not determine and communicate his own will categorically or could not exert it over his empire.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 13, 2006, 03:34:23 PM
Ortino, I agree with you: The damage done by one's mistakes can rarely, if ever, be undone. Which is why I have always been wary of the philosophy that wrongdoing can be wiped free from one's spiritual slate by repentance.

It is true that Jews were members of many Russian regiments. I once knew a man whose father had been a member of one of the Tsar's regiments; they were Jews who came to America not long after the Revolution.

I don't think Nicholas would have thought in terms of being anti-Semitic or not. He had been trained to think of himself as the representative of the One True Faith, period, end of story. The idea of being anti-this or anti-that would be inconsequential in the face of upholding a national faith.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 13, 2006, 03:49:37 PM
Exactly, David. If a book is found to be of value, it is worth keeping among one's personal effects, affording the opportunity to return to it time and again. On the other hand, if a book is found to be hate-mongering filth, one not only discards it but destroys it. Like dirty underwear, it is purged from one's existence.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on June 13, 2006, 04:20:02 PM
While owning controversial literature does indeed not necessarily indicate that one is a follower or supporter, we must consider the period of ownership. If, David, you owned Mein Kampf during World War II, you would probably be seen as a follower of Hitler--the same thing goes for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The other significant difference between the two is that Protocols was issued by the government, as opposed to simply being published by one man.

Quote
The first unrest started in Kishniev on 6 April. The first killing happened at noon on 7 April.  The pogrom was suppressed by evening of 7 April. I don't see that being three days of inaction.
 
Please cite exactly where it is "suggested" Plehve organized the pogrom. The documents in GARF totally are at odds with such a statement.  Please cite exactly where "Lopukhin recalled that leaflets inciting the violence were printed under his direction on Minister of the Interior presses" Again, the documentation in GARF disagrees totally with that statement as well. There is no evidence that there ever WERE leaflets inciting the violence.

I've only ever heard that the pogrom lasted three days--where did your frame time come from?

As FOTR's credibility is questionable to some, I used the word "suggested" :"The notorious Easter Massacre at Kishinev in 1903 was organized by Vyacheslav Plehve, the minister of the interior, with the emperor's knowledge and support. Alexei Lopukhin, director of the Imperial Police Department recalls that leaflets inciting the violence were printed under Phelve's direction on Ministry of the Interior presses; the text had been personally approved by General Trepov on the emperor's behalf, and the costs borne by Nicholas himself. Some fifty Jews were dragged from their houses and murdered in the streets, with another six hundred beaten and tortured with the assistance of the local police." (FOTR, pg. 39, paperback).
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 13, 2006, 05:26:15 PM
I'll stick with the first hand participant's statements, and the facts in GARF. You are certainly free to believe what ever makes you happy.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 13, 2006, 05:36:13 PM
Quote
Exactly, David. If a book is found to be of value, it is worth keeping among one's personal effects, affording the opportunity to return to it time and again. On the other hand, if a book is found to be hate-mongering filth, one not only discards it but destroys it. Like dirty underwear, it is purged from one's existence.

Janet,

Congratulations! You are to be commended on your debating skill. My intention was to give Nikolai II and your father the benefit of the doubt. Instead you took my post and turned it into support for your position, even convincing me of the validity of your premise!

David

 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 13, 2006, 06:14:07 PM
Quote
I'll stick with the first hand participant's statements, and the facts in GARF. You are certainly free to believe what ever makes you happy.

This is just a curious question (because I don't know much about the pogroms or the participants) but are the first hand statements reliable? Would Spiridovich, or others, have written statements that were favorable to the Emperor for instance? Many first-hand accounts of the massacre of the IF and other events have been discredited.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 13, 2006, 07:37:02 PM
I can make excuses for Nicholas. Perhaps he had allowed his reading to pile up. Perhaps there was no way to discard the book without receiving attention from the guards. We don't know, nor will we probably ever know. But since the book was with him in exile--or at least found among his effects (a plant?!)--we have to consider that he might have found the subject of interest and that possibly, to him, the text made some viable points. I hope that is not the case; I've long been a supporter of Nicholas, and continue to be. But it is important that we not allow our personal feelings to obliterate possibilities that do not reconcile with what we want to hear. (That's a double negative sentence and I apologize--it has been a long day!--but I hope you'll understand what I'm attempting to get across!)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 13, 2006, 08:12:07 PM
Lopukhin was sympathetic to the plight of the Jews and constantly fought for their rights, and eventually resigned his position in frustration over the failure of the government to address "the Jewish question."
Spiridovitch was trained as a police officer, and has addressed other sensitive subjects honestly. It seems a bit disingenuous to compare these men to the Bolshevik executioners of the Imperial Familhy in terms of veracity.

I would be interested to see if the FOTR statements made 100 plus years after the fact are supported by citation and documentation.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 13, 2006, 09:44:47 PM
I hope you didn't think I was trying to be disingenuous.  :( I  meant it as a sincere question since I am really enjoying learning some of the facts here. I had no idea who Spiridovich was and was trying to get a sense of who he was and what his mindset/viewpoint was--not trying to compare him to the Bolsheviks executioners. I only mentioned that in relation to first hand statements, not necessarily who was making them.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: RichC on June 13, 2006, 11:30:36 PM
Quote
Exactly, David. If a book is found to be of value, it is worth keeping among one's personal effects, affording the opportunity to return to it time and again. On the other hand, if a book is found to be hate-mongering filth, one not only discards it but destroys it. Like dirty underwear, it is purged from one's existence.

I'm sure you would not rate reading hate-mongering filth to one's family a good thing.  Well, that's what Nicholas did during the Tobolsk captivity.  On March 27, 1918 Nicholas wrote in his diary,

"Yesterday I started to read aloud Nilus's book on the Antichrist, to which have been added the "protocols" of the Jews and Masons -- very timely reading matter."

Alexandra's diary entries for several nights record that Nicholas read "The Great and the Small" out loud -- presumably to his family.

Also, Alexandra reported, in a letter to Anna Vyrubova on March 20, 1918, that someone had sent her a copy of "The Great and the Small" which she read with interest, and which she passed on to Nicholas.

Does anyone know who sent the book to Alexandra?

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 14, 2006, 06:16:39 AM
Quote
"Fontanka 16" by Ruud & Stepanov.

Re Kishniev 1903 (at pg. 233 et. seq.)
"In any event the documents show that Plehve, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impost measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram. (GARF 601/1/1046, sheet 2)

I cannot find any other sources which mention the calling up of the military during the riots.  I have only found reports that the military was not deployed.  Although the reports I have read indicate it was the "police" that quelled the riots within two hours on the evening of April 7, that sudden effectiveness does sound suspicious to me.  Was it perhaps the military that showed up that evening?  Do you know at which point the military was called up?


Quote
"Fontanka 16" by Ruud & Stepanov.

Following the pacificationof the outbreak, Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.

Lopukhin does seems to have been accorded credibility on other topics later in his career by groups across the political spectrum.  However, there were public documents -- such as the letter sent to the "Moscow Tavern" and numerous newspaper reports of two children (a boy and a girl) being killed by Jews for Passover rites -- in the days leading up to the riots that seemed aimed at whipping the public into a fury.  Given Lopukhin's personal views, he would not likely have seen these newspaper articles as actual reportage of true events.

Information later emerged that both von Raaben and the local Okhrana chief had been given prior warnings that trouble was brewing.  Given the nature of Russian bureaucracy, I think it likely that Lupokhin might not have been able to obtain information from the Okhrana -- especially compromising information.  Also, it was later determined that there was a high level of organization apparent in the events at least of Sunday, April 6.  Again, in the immediate aftermath of the riots, this information might not have yet been collected and analyzed in such a way that made the pattern apparent.

I can only conclude one thing from all this.  Either Lopukhin ignored the indications of prior planning for the pogrom for some reason, or key facts were withheld from him by everyone he interviewed in Kishinev when he he was conducting his investigation.  I find it hard to believe someone would not have at least pointed out the reportage of Bessarabetz.  However, given the independent character Lopukhin later evinced, I think it more likely that key information was withheld from him during his investigation . . . and that it was, perhaps, not the most determined investigation ever mounted or one done under an unrealistic deadline imposed on him from above.

Without impugning Lopukhin's personal character, I nevertheless think there are reasons to approach some conclusions of his report with skepticism.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 14, 2006, 09:00:03 AM
Courntey, my apologies. I've mentioned Spiridovitch so often I just thought you knew him.  He was the head of Personal Secret Security Police for the IF for eight years, spending literally 24/7 with Nicholas and Alexandra.

Tsarfan:  Lopukhin reported that the local gendarmerie "seemed duplicitious" at the time. There was also evidence that the local Okhrana chief B aron Levendal, a known anti-Semite, was supportive of the pogrom and sent a telegram to Petersburg "advising" of a "tense atmosphere" brewing in the area, but based it wholly on "suppositions".  The idea being to throw off the commanding authorities, while leaving a paper trail so that Levendal could later "cover his butt" after the fact.  The GARF record does not state specifically that troops were sent or not.  It says "The governor requested authority (on the 7th) to impose measures of strengthened security. I (Plehve) approved the request by telegram."
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 14, 2006, 10:17:13 AM
That's okay--I never really came to a lot of these threads before but try to at least drop in more of them now. Like I said, I'm enjoying the discussion as I usually don't study the more political aspects--there's so much to keep track of!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nathalie on June 14, 2006, 10:49:34 AM
Well, Nicholas was the head of the state-therefor, like it or not, he was indeed responsible for many things happened during his reign. And Russia was not that classical  democracy...he could had easily stopped pogroms, if he'd wanted. He was master of life and death.
Yet he didn't.
You are right, that we shouldn't take out a certain historical event from its specific historical time and context, but then again, Nicholas and Alexandra werent a muzhik couple from the middle of Siberia, knowing nothing, beleiving blidnly what the popa said, they were western-educated people, lived or visited other countries such as England or france, where there was one thing not liking Jews, that happens even nowadays at some people, but at least Nicholas must had known, Denmark or England didn't organize pogroms and other bad things.

Then again I wonder about Radzinsky's book, how did he speak about a Jewess being the first love of Nicholas, ignoring Toria and others...never read about this anywhere else, where did he get that info?... :-?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 14, 2006, 01:39:03 PM
The reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Nikolai II to his children comes as a real surprise to me. A shock indeed, rather like finding out that Hitler believed that a Communist Pole burnt down the Reichstag or that Polish troops fired first in 1939 and started World War II. I find it disturbing that the leader of an autocratic regime was unaware of the falsehoods of the propaganda of his own secret police. My opinion of Nikolai II dops even more.

David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: RichC on June 14, 2006, 06:30:14 PM
Quote
The reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Nikolai II to his children comes as a real surprise to me. A shock indeed, rather like finding out that Hitler believed that a Communist Pole burnt down the Reichstag or that Polish troops fired first in 1939 and started World War II. I find it disturbing that the leader of an autocratic regime was unaware of the falsehoods of the propaganda of his own secret police. My opinion of Nikolai II dops even more.

David

This is one of the mysteries.  We know what Nicholas and Alexandra wrote in their diaries in 1918, but there is evidence from other sources that Stolypin exposed the Protocols in 1905 as a faked document created by the Tsarist secret police.  When Nicholas learned of this he repudiated the Protocols.  If that's true, why suddenly read it again many years later??

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on June 14, 2006, 06:45:50 PM
Quote
Quote
The reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Nikolai II to his children comes as a real surprise to me. A shock indeed, rather like finding out that Hitler believed that a Communist Pole burnt down the Reichstag or that Polish troops fired first in 1939 and started World War II. I find it disturbing that the leader of an autocratic regime was unaware of the falsehoods of the propaganda of his own secret police. My opinion of Nikolai II dops even more.

David

This is one of the mysteries.  We know what Nicholas and Alexandra wrote in their diaries in 1918, but there is evidence from other sources that Stolypin exposed the Protocols in 1905 as a faked document created by the Tsarist secret police.  When Nicholas learned of this he repudiated the Protocols.  If that's true, why suddenly read it again many years later??


From what I understand, a full version of Protocols was published in the appendix of Nilius' The Great and Small. Perhaps he was interested in the larger book and Protocols was simply included in it. Stolypin did expose the book as a fraud in 1905, but I believe that the details of the investigation were not made public in order to protect Rachkovsky and his agents.  

Quote
Then again I wonder about Radzinsky's book, how did he speak about a Jewess being the first love of Nicholas, ignoring Toria and others...never read about this anywhere else, where did he get that info?...

The term "Jewess" is an offensive one, so please don't use it. "Jew" or "Jewish girl" is sufficient. Radzinky's mentions that there was a rumor circulating in St. Petersburg that Nicholas had fallen in love with a Jewish girl, but that Alexander III sent her and her entire household away. I've never heard this before either, and frankly it doesn't sound plausible.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Janet_W. on June 14, 2006, 07:01:31 PM
And yet in a letter from Toblosk his oldest daughter Olga writes that "Father asks to . . . remember that the evil which is now in the world will become yet more powerful, and that it is not evil which conquers evil, but only love . . . "

Historians have often dismissed Nicholas as a dull fellow but I find him rather complex. Beneath the handsome yet bland exterior I think he was far more complicated than just about anyone--even his closest  family members--were aware. (Alexandra, of course, and possibly his eldest daughter being the exceptions.) To apply a more modern term, he was certainly "button down" . . . the sort of person a corporation would gladly hire. He learned the rules and followed them, all the while displaying a convivial hail-fellow-well-met personality. Yet he was expected to lead, and that had to have been excruciatingly difficult for him.

After loosing his occupation and home, plus being humiliated and seeing his family and associates likewise humiliated . . . well, on the surface he presented a calm, go-with-the-flow attitude. But inside it must have cut to the very depth of his soul.

When we are wounded by exterior forces we question what we could have done better but also--a very human tendency--place blame on others. In recent months I've heard vociferous commentary--much of it accusatory--regarding "illegal immigrants and what they do to us." Decades ago I heard similar charges leveled against "uppity black people." So when someone fitting the description of the group you dislike/fear is found to be breaking the law and/or committing a heinous act, it's very easy to get on the bandwagon about EVERYONE who belongs to that ethnic/racial/religious/whatever group.

No doubt about it, the revolution was fueled by, among other people, Jews. But there were also non-Jewish revolutionaires (Lenin, to begin with) as well as Jewish people who did not identify or wish to be associated with the movement. It would be easy, though, given his youthful inculcation plus his rarified situation for Nicholas to feel that anarchist=Jew and Jew=anarchist.  

We don't know what tone and attitude Nicholas took while reading this book to his children. Perhaps it was similar to the manner in which my father used to make sure I was aware that such-and-such a crime had been committed by a Negro. (Funny, he never pointed out crimes committed by middle class white guys like himself . . . and there were, to be sure, plenty of those as well!) Or, perhaps Nicholas was just throwing it out to them for their commentary. So, was he taking the attitude of a high school civics teacher, exposing his children to an opinion . . . or trying to ingrain a philosophy?

Another thought: What looks and sounds reasonable to us now may seem laughable, grieviously stupid, highly embarrassing, or even worse several decades from now. I know of a number of people, now in their seventies, who would deny, up and down, that they had ever made inflamatory and enormously hostile comments about racial parity. But guess what . . . they did.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: David_Pritchard on June 14, 2006, 07:23:48 PM
Quote
[The term "Jewess" is an offensive one, so please don't use it. "Jew" or "Jewish girl" is sufficient.

[ch1054][ch1088][ch1090][ch1080][ch1085][ch1086],

The word Jewess is offensive when it is used with a derogatory modifier, otherwise it is better described as an outdated word that has fallen from common parlance. Most words of this type have fallen into disuse such as laundress, mistress, negress (a word that now has only offensive intent), etc. I have even noticed that the word actress is slowly being replaced by actor.

David
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 14, 2006, 09:08:09 PM
Quote
This is one of the mysteries.  We know what Nicholas and Alexandra wrote in their diaries in 1918, but there is evidence from other sources that Stolypin exposed the Protocols in 1905 as a faked document created by the Tsarist secret police.  When Nicholas learned of this he repudiated the Protocols.  If that's true, why suddenly read it again many years later??

There is evidence that Nicholas' view of Jews ranged from hostility to some level of tolerance and even sympathy, especially during WW I.  However, it rose to a torrent of vitriol during the period around the Revolution of 1905.  There are documented instances of his blaming the revolution explicitly  -- and almost exclusively -- on the Jews, and it was during this period that he wrote his mother an absolutely vicious letter, essentially calling the Jews "Christ killers" and saying that he could barely contain his fury at their perversities.

Even as his ill-advised war with Japan exposed the bankruptcy of Russian foreign and military policy and the corruption of the bureaucracy and supply services, Nicholas nursed the fantasy that everything in his empire was just as the masses of good Russians wanted it . . . if only the Jewish rabble-rousers could be silenced.

I suspect this same scenario was at play in 1918 at Tobolsk.  It was difficult for Nicholas to face the fact that much of the Romanov clan had become suicidally disgusted with his rule, that Rasputin had turned the imperial family into a laughing stock, that millions of ill-equipped and poorly-led soldiers had deserted the field, that supply lines into the cities and to the battelefields had broken down due to graft and incompetence, and that his own ministers were fed up with his remoteness and indecision in the critical weeks before the February 1917 Revolution.  Instead, there on the shelf sat a book that explained it all as the inevitable outcome of a Jewish conspiracy allowed to fester and seize control of events.  Even knowing the work to have been a fabrication of his own secret police and put into circulation by his own Ministry of the Interior, it must have delivered a message Nicholas very, very much needed to hear on a deep psychological level.  Maybe the words themselves were written by his own secret police . . . but that did not necessarily make the message untrue.  Even forgers attempt to capture something real.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 15, 2006, 09:37:02 AM
I think much of Nicholas' attitude could be more understandable to modern readers if they substitute "homosexual" for Jew and look at the Republican party.  Nicholas was well aware that the vast majority of his power base, the Cossacks, Military high command, local police and gendarmes and his own family were rabidly Anti-Semitic.

Prince Vladimir Petrovich Metschersky was one of Nicholas' closest friends and advisors. Nicholas II considered him almost as a father. The Prince knowing his was old, ill and dying finally felt compelled to address the one subject which had always been "off limits" with the Emperor, in what was to be their final meeting, as Metschersky died shortly afterward:

"You don't know, my friend, how difficult it was to speak to the Emperor…Even thinking about that reception is painful for me...I spoke about the Jewish question. The Emperor listened to me without interrupting me and with great attention.  From time to time, in his kind face, I saw the shadow of displeasure.  I did everything I could to force him to respond to me.  But he kept silent.  Knowing well his intelligence, the fineness of his spirit, I was wounded that he did not want to face the evidence.  When I had finished with the Jewish question, the Emperor thought for several minutes, looked me fixed in the eyes and slowly smiled as if he wanted to soften his response, said to me: 'Excuse me, my old friend, but I am not in agreement with you.  I thank you very much for the advice which you have given me and which has been dictated by your devotion to me, by the love for our Mother Russia, but…you know that it is often that I do not wish to follow your advice.  I must take into consideration many other circumstances which you do not know about, which escape your attention…My responsibility towards Russia is so great that I do not have the right to consider a question of such great importance to the State on just one side alone, although I should find it personally desireable. You do not know all of these circumstances which I do, which I do not have the right to ignore, and which, quite to the contrary, I must take into consideration…"
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nathalie on June 15, 2006, 10:44:09 AM
The term "Jewess" is an offensive one, so please don't use it. "Jew" or "Jewish girl" is sufficient. Radzinky's mentions that there was a rumor circulating in St. Petersburg that Nicholas had fallen in love with a Jewish girl, but that Alexander III sent her and her entire household away. I've never heard this before either, and frankly it doesn't sound plausible.

Oh, thanks. I always said Jewess, never knew it was a bad form, sorry, my mother tongue is not English..But I saw this term in a magazine, called "The American Jewess," what describes itself as " the only magazine in the world devoted to the interests of Jewish women." So I was like fine..maybe it was in the past.
Also I read Radzinsky's book in translation and perhaps it is a mistake of the translator, but the story is not a hearsay in his interpretation but a fact. I hope its ony mistranslation, not the author's mistake.

thanks for correction.:)

No doubt about it, the revolution was fueled by, among other people, Jews. But there were also non-Jewish revolutionaires (Lenin, to begin with)

As far as I know, Lenin was coming from a Jewish family that reverted to Christianity-if thats matter.
Well...If i had been a Jew back in those days, being threated as Jews were threated during the Tzars, I guess its natural, they were among the opposition, why would they love the regime? I think their step was just a reply for the rules and alws against them, natural.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on June 15, 2006, 12:45:25 PM
Quote
As far as I know, Lenin was coming from a Jewish family that reverted to Christianity-if thats matter.
Well...If i had been a Jew back in those days, being threated as Jews were threated during the Tzars, I guess its natural, they were among the opposition, why would they love the regime? I think their step was just a reply for the rules and alws against them, natural

Lenin's maternal grandfather was Jewish and later converted to Christianity. It is also said that his wife was Jewish and spoke Yiddish at home. Trotsky was also Jewish, changing his name from Lev Bronstein to Leon Trotsky in 1902. It shouldn't be surprising that many of the revolutionary leaders were Jewish--their treatment in Tsarist Russia was less than kind and therefore their response not wholly unexpected.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Tsarfan on June 15, 2006, 02:11:59 PM
Every single Jew in Russia could have united in a rebellion against the tsar, and the monarchy would have held if it had retained the confidence of the ruling classes, the military, and the Orthodox peasant masses.

One should remember that the first attempt to dismantle autocracy in Russia was the Decembrist uprising of 1825, led by aristocratic young officers.  Its dreams of a constitutional government for Russia had been born not of Jewish revolutionary propaganda, but of exposure to the decidedly-non-Jewish Englightenment ideals of western Europe.  As Nicholas I consolidated his rule in part by creating a secret police, this revolutionary sentiment was driven underground, but its embers did not die out.

The monarchy fell because of a prolonged series of missteps which several generations of revolutionaries -- Jew and gentile alike -- exploited but did not create.

Alexander III and Nicholas II built a treaty structure that put Russia on a collision course with Germany.  Their pan-Slavism deliberately heightened tensions in the powderkeg they knew the Balkans to be.  The disastrously-conceived and politically-unnecessary Japanese war revealed Russia as a second-rate military power trying to play in the big leagues.  Knowing that the peasant craving for land was building to an eventual explosion, Nicholas gave only half-hearted support to the land reforms attempted first by Witte and more seriously by Stolypin.  Having barely survived an assault on the throne in 1905, Nicholas set out to undermine the new representative government instead of trying to find a working accord with it.  Warnings from within the imperial family that Nicholas was becoming dangerously isolated and that Rasputin was undermining the reputation of the tsar's immediate family went unheeded or forcefully rejected.  Pleas from his ministers not to become personally associated with the disasters at the front in 1915-1916 were brushed aside.  Knowing his wife was popularly perceived to be a German spy, Nicholas left these ministers to report to her during his prolonged -- and largely ineffective -- stints at Stavka.  And, finally, the corruption and incompetence of the transport system left the industrial populations of his cities and his troops at the front without food and fuel.

The Bolshevik (or, if you prefer, the "Jewish") revolution unseated a provisional government.  Lenin, that scion of a converted Jewish family, remained in Switzerland until April of 1917, having despaired of any chance of unseating the Romanovs.

Nicholas was not overthrown by Jews or anyone else.  His military and civilian leaders simply walked away from him in frustration and disgust and found someone else to follow.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2006, 07:20:03 PM
"Redamber" was just another alias of the long banned Rskkiya and the other sock puppet names she used. Her posts and this fake user name are removed.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on June 19, 2006, 11:49:48 PM
Referring back to Spiridovitch, has anyone heard of this book?

General Spiridovich (Head of Czar's security) -- "Great War and February Revolution" Volume II (1916). Book includes many rare photos of Nicholas II, members of Czar's family, Grand Dukes and Duchesses, Generals and Ministers. This is a H/C book, New York, 1960. 240 pp. Book in Russian

It's up on ebay right now.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on June 21, 2006, 07:43:43 AM
Quote
The term "Jewess" is an offensive one, so please don't use it. "Jew" or "Jewish girl" is sufficient. Radzinky's mentions that there was a rumor circulating in St. Petersburg that Nicholas had fallen in love with a Jewish girl, but that Alexander III sent her and her entire household away. I've never heard this before either, and frankly it doesn't sound plausible.

actually its now used as a term of pride, made famous as far as i know, by golda meir
selina                     xxxxxxxxxx
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AlexP@asia.com on June 24, 2006, 06:24:50 AM
GuangZhou, PRC
2006.06.24

Dear Fellow Posters,

This is an excellently delivered thread on what could have been a highly volatile and emotional issue.

Just a few points.

1.  Jewess.  Until the  mid-20th Century, the English language still possessed female declensions for many nouns - doctor, doctoress, Jew, Jewess, abbot, abbess, poet, poetess, etc.  I would refer anyone to an etymological dictionary of the English language.   This word form is still present today in the comprehensive Oxford.  Whether a poster or posteress on this Board ascribes a negative connotation to this word is simply a matter of personal linguistic preference.

2.  David Pritchard has put up an excellent historical summary of the reasons for, and the background of, the Emperor's purported antiSemitisim.  Again, all concepts need to be considered in the light of their historical moment.

3.  Rob Moshein's very intellectual reasoning, and spirited defense of, the Emperor's comportment cause me a great deal of uneasiness of conscience.  I personally knew many of the (elder) members of the great nobility of the First Emigration, and their sons and daugthers, and now their grandsons and granddaugthers, and I can easily say that antiSemitism runs rampant from one to the other.  Consideration is always given to the role of the Jews in fomenting the Revolution; in the role of the Schiffs and the Warburgs in financing the Revolution; in the role of the Jewish German bankers who paid for Lenin's sealed train; in the composition of the first ranks of the Cheka; in the nearly entirely Jewish composition of Lenin's first government; and of the composition of those who murdered the Imperial Family at Ekaterinburg.

     There is much on both sides of the argument here, indeed much, and this is an issue that will not go away, neither on one side, nor on the other.

4.  The posters and posteresses seems to be overlooking the tremenduous influence of the Grand Duke Sergei upon the Emperor.  As this person could not come to terms with his own homosexuality, he turned his self-hatred loose on the Jews of Moscow.   Has anyone ever read the reports that he submitted to the Tsar?  I have and the language and actions and deed are violently antiSemitic.

     Then there was the role of Pobedenostov in all of this during Nicholas's earlier formative years, and of Sturmer, and of Goremykin -- all of them rapid antiSemites of the most extreme fringe.  Pobedenostov consistently quoted to the Emperor in his "verucheniya" lessons the passages from the New Testament where it is written about the Jews during the Crucifixion of Christ "and may their blood be on the hands of their progeniture for all ages".

     Next, for all of Rasputin's sins before God, and surely they are innumerable, antiSemitism was NOT one of them.  That also caused him to incur the wrath of the governing classes.  We have learned through many sources that he consistently referred to them as the Children of God.

4.  Finally, in spite of all of the finely tuned arguments both then and now seeking to convince that the Emperor was not antiSemitic, they are not persuasive.  As David Pritchard pointed out, he was a man of his time, both in spirit and body, and he was also head of the Church, and finally he was a man of an extremely clipped erudition.

All the best,


Alex P.
GuangZhou, PRC
    

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on June 24, 2006, 08:29:37 AM
ironic that rasputin bothered about jewish rights when the tsar's close aquaintences didn't ::) could that be put on his list of crimes too? i'm fighting with about 3 people for nearly a year to convince them that just becuase jews made up the majority of communism, doesn't mean all jews are evil and therefore control the rest of the world. looks like old rumours never die
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AlexP@asia.com on June 25, 2006, 10:23:51 AM
GuangZhou, PRC
2006.06.26


Dear Ferngully:

I quite don't know how to read nor "take" your previous posting, so if I stray or misinterpret, please correct me.

1.  It is a known fact that Rasputin, who was guilty of nearly felonious sin that can, or has or did exist in the annals of Christianity, was not guilty of antiSemitism.  His detractors wrote about this and his supporters wrote about this.  There were numerous short conversations with both the Emperor and the Empress in this regard.

     I do not add this to his sins. How could anyone?  Frankly, the man is a very, very dark figure, a "debauchiron" as we say in Russian of the first order, but in all of this, there was the soul of a man.  He opposed the battle of Baranovichi as a useless slaughter of Russian peasants and he repeatedly urged Nicholas to go light on the Jews.  All to no avail.

2.  As for your second comment, I am not even going to give it dignity.  Yes, there were many Jews in the first ranks of the Revolution -- but there were also numerous Balts, Ukrainians and about every minority that Russian contained.  And no, I am not Jewish, let's just say that for the record.

    I remember growing up in the ranks of the Emigration and hearing comments like the one that you wrote (Commies are evil, all Jews are Commies, therefore all Jews are evil) and these kind of comments revolted me then and revolted me now.

    Yes, the rather predominant role of the Jews in the Revolution needs to be studied coldy and scientifically but as AGRBear wrote (I think it was him) that if every Jew in Russia wrote up against the Emperor in 1917, the Empire would have hardly trembled.

3.  Lenin's Jewishness has been debated ad infinitum.  We do know that his original birth record went missing during the Revolution so that the debate will never have closure.  But the Jewishness of one man does not a Revolution make.

     Accordingly, many of the French Revolutionaries were actually Huguenots but does that mean the Reign of Terror in 1792 was inspired by the Calvinist Church?  I hardly think so.

     As I said before, this is a very, very murky subject and it raises hackles on all sides of the audience.

4.   Let me tell you a totally unrelated tale from China but one that will demonstrate man and his goodness.  

      When the British came to China, they introduced opium and they established the Opium Commission.  They directly contributed to the deaths of at least 25,000,000 persons.  We never forgot.

      When the French came to China, they opened brothels, they opened gambling dens and brought all of the Western vices to China, including sexually transmitted diseases never seen here before.  We never forgot.

      When the Catholic Church came to China, it opened factories and warehouses and some precious few hospitals, in each of which the orphans under its custody worked for no money.  We never forgot.

                                                     BUT


       When the stateless European Jews came to China over the last 100 years, they opened synagogues, business, hospitals, infirmeries, etc.  And do you know what?

        This very much maligned people, who came here as the poorest of the poor, opened their hospitals, their infirmeries, their schools to the Chinese people, and in many cases, treated them or school them for no money.

        AND WE NEVER FORGOT THIS.

        So,

        In 1949, when the New China was created, all of the properties of the British, the French and the others were nationalized and these people were thrown out of China.

        BUT

        In recognition of what they had to the Chinese people with so little resources, the Chinese Government gave the Jewish community the right to liquidate all of their properties at a fair price, withdraw their monies from the bank accounts that had been frozen, leave for Israel or the West, or finally remain in China as Chinese citizens.

        AND Do you know...that when the thaw began about 10 years ago in terms of religious practice, the restrictions on the synagogues were lifted and as opposed to every other Western religion that must have Chinese clergy, the Jews of China are allowed to bring in their own rabbi.

        Because the people have a long memory.  And an act of kindness is an act of kindness.

        So that is what I have to sayaa.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on June 25, 2006, 11:15:07 AM
guang zhou, do excuse me for writing so much sarcasm in order that you don't understand. if you read my post carefully, you will see that i wrote about fighting people who belived the statement i wrote about. and i do know about china becuase i am jewish and i make it my business to know about other jewish people from around the world. there are very few native chinese jews who make it known that they are as judiasm is not yet officially recognised in china, nevertheless, your story stands to reason.  thanks for replying but it really was unecessary
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AlexP@asia.com on June 25, 2006, 12:04:33 PM
Quote
guang zhou, do excuse me for writing so much sarcasm in order that you don't understand. if you read my post carefully, you will see that i wrote about fighting people who belived the statement i wrote about. and i do know about china becuase i am jewish and i make it my business to know about other jewish people from around the world. there are very few native chinese jews who make it known that they are as judiasm is not yet officially recognised in china, nevertheless, your story stands to reason.  thanks for replying but it really was unecessary

Dear Ferngully,

Please excuse me before I answer your post...but in the light of your post above,  I can now see that English is not your native language so perhaps I did miss your sarcasm..but I actually I didn't ... which is why I took the time to write such a detailed response.

It is good to make it "your business to know about Jewish people all over the world", but as we all learn, no one person is a walking encyclopaedia and sometimes the things we can learn from other people, if we take the time to listen, can bring us additional knowledge...and I must write this..HUMILITY.  Birthright does not confer universality of knowledge.

While you adjudged my posting unnecessary, it is not of your purview to do so, and since I took the time to write it, I adjudged it necessary.  I also had to say that.

All of that being said, I remain with best regards from GuangZhou, (and my name is NOT GuangZhou, please check your geography)


Alex P.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on June 26, 2006, 02:53:37 AM
you need to understand english sarcasm, english is actually my native language, can you see it now? i apologise for getting your name wrong. now getting back to the topic at hand, please read my first post and then decide weather it was necessary to post about it. i was talking about other people who use the communists who were born jewish as the reason for russia's downfall. i was being sarcastic when i listed it as rasputin's crime to defend jews, using the viewpoint of the people who vilified him to such an extent (the russian royals)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AlexP@asia.com on June 26, 2006, 03:18:13 AM
Quote
you need to understand english sarcasm, english is actually my native language, can you see it now? i apologise for getting your name wrong. now getting back to the topic at hand, please read my first post and then decide weather it was necessary to post about it. i was talking about other people who use the communists who were born jewish as the reason for russia's downfall. i was being sarcastic when i listed it as rasputin's crime to defend jews, using the viewpoint of the people who vilified him to such an extent (the russian royals)

Dear Ferngully,

Thank you for your kind post.  Now let me explain what I was wondering if English was your native language...in the above posting, english should be English; i should be I; there are numerous mistakes in English grammar that a European might make; communists should be Communists; jewish should be Jewish; russia should be Russia; rasputin should be Rasputin; etc., etc.  It was the same in your previous posts.  Frankly, it's a small matter for me whether or not English is or is not your native language, but knowing that it is not just allows one to spend a little more time reading your posts a little more carefully -- that's all.

Next, you have raised for the second time an issue which I thought that I had settled in my previous post.  Yes, for me it was necessary to answer your post in detail -- and so I did.  And your caustic remarks were well-noted (I mean in terms of the worldwide Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy).

Thank you for taking the time to answer.  All of the very best and I look forward to more of your ideas on this subject,


Alex P.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: james_h on June 27, 2006, 03:29:36 AM
The idea that Jews were responsible for the revolution or WWI or the other consipiracy theories is, in my opinion unlikely. As far as I can ascertain the Tsar's one true competitor on the European continent was......

Clearly there can only be one Universal (In the temporal sense) sovereign.





Ideologies:
      
Western Rome ( Vatican )
GENS ET REGNUM QUOD NON SERVIERIT MIHI PERIBIT
Translates:  THE NATION AND KINGDOM THAT WILL NOT SERVE ME WILL PERISH  
Aka: Single Earthly Sovereign      
 
Eastern Rome (Russian Empire)
[ch914][ch945][ch963][ch953][ch955][ch949][ch8058][ch962] [ch914][ch945][ch963][ch953][ch955][ch941][ch969][ch957] [ch914][ch945][ch963][ch953][ch955][ch949][ch973][ch969][ch957] [ch914][ch945][ch963][ch953][ch955][ch949][ch965][ch972][ch957][ch964][ch969][ch957]
Translates: King of Kings Ruler of Rulers
Aka: Single Earthly Sovereign


Financially      

Vatican net worth approx.
$77,470,000,000.00 (USA real estate alone)
Suffice to say, regardless of the actual amount almost unimaginably wealthy      

Tsar’s approx.
modern day net worth USD$1.8 Trillion.
Suffice to say, regardless of the actual amount almost unimaginably wealthy



Rank      
Pope = Above an Emperor HEAD of western Roman Christianity      
Tsar = An Emperor but more importantly HEAD of the eastern Roman christianity. The Eastern Roman Pope ( Effectively )


Now, to explain the Jews power….. as infantile as my reasoning might be. Of the three Abrahamic religions 1.Hebrew  2.Islam  3.Christianity (Messianic Judaism) only Hebrew was not scripturally forbidden to practice usury.

Lending money –> Usury –> Profit –> Power.
Clearly nothing endemically evil.

Although I have not a shred of evidence I hypothesize that ultimately the Pope must be responsible for the Russian Revolution as it removed his single largest competitor…..the Russian Tsar. Of all in Europe who would have benefited from the Tsarist fall, The pope had the most to gain and was the single most powerful, ideological arch nemesis the Tsar had.  Plus the timing, if it hadn't happened when it did, even as late as 1950 would have made the Tsar effectivly impervious to vatican power and influence.
This will probably make me violently unpopular but I believe if Jews were responsible for the revolution the Pope was the Puppet
Master.




I suspect that the Russian Revolution was a strategic move by the Vatican toward ending The Great Schism. I've no doubt amending that historical breach has been on the Vatican agenda for 800+ years. If that is the case it was a remarkable political move. In virtually one action the Eastern Church was irreversibly weakened, bankrupted, outlawed and ceased to exist. Now in it's weakened state a well trained and well equipped catholic retinue will move in and poach as many Russian as possible. Really it's genius, I doubt any other political institution on earth is so well eqquiped with machiavellian minds.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: james_h on June 27, 2006, 05:25:23 AM

Quote
4.  The posters and posteresses seems to be overlooking the tremenduous influence of the Grand Duke Sergei upon the Emperor.  As this person could not come to terms with his own homosexuality, he turned his self-hatred loose on the Jews of Moscow.   Has anyone ever read the reports that he submitted to the Tsar?  I have and the language and actions and deed are violently antiSemitic.

    

Speculating about Sergei’s sexuality is such a futile exercise. According to the Kinsey institute the results of their study Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948)
Sampling 6,300 of these sexual histories were of men and, of those, 5,300 were utilized in the Male volume




0                    Completely Heterosexual
1                    Mostly hetro / Incidental Homo
2                    Mostly hetro / occasional homo
3                    Equally hetro/ homo
4                    Mostly homo / occasional hetro
5                    Mostly homo / incidental hetro
6                    Completely Homosexual


Grand Duke Sergei may well have been a 5 or 6. But it’s unsubstantiated conjecture, open to so many variables that makes speculation absurd.

To relate his sexual orientation, whatever it amounted to with his attitude toward a local ethnic group is pseudo science at it’s best.... it’s ridiculous.


If you read the report there is no clear consensus as to what constitutes a homosexual, clearly then you cannot call someone one, particularly retroactively.  




Link: http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/


Results:

“They don't really tell us much, to think that a person is a homosexual or a heterosexual, as opposed to saying that a person sometimes engages in same sex behavior, or sometimes that a person engages in opposite sex behavior. In fact, he found in using his 0 - 6 scale that there were a lot of men and women who were 4's and 5's and still identified themselves as homosexual, but had in their behaviors opposite sex contacts when that felt perfect to them. It wasn't all black or white.”

“For instance, the high incidence of subjects, up to 50% of the men and up to 25% of the women, who were reported to have had some kind of same sex contact or fantasy or thought after the onset of adolescence was not saying that up to 50% of men and 25% of women had practiced homosexuality. It was saying, that childhood and adolescent same sex play, as well as having same sex fantasies that may or may not have been acted out, were very common.”

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on June 27, 2006, 05:39:14 AM
Quote
Quote
you need to understand english sarcasm, english is actually my native language, can you see it now? i apologise for getting your name wrong. now getting back to the topic at hand, please read my first post and then decide weather it was necessary to post about it. i was talking about other people who use the communists who were born jewish as the reason for russia's downfall. i was being sarcastic when i listed it as rasputin's crime to defend jews, using the viewpoint of the people who vilified him to such an extent (the russian royals)

Dear Ferngully,

Thank you for your kind post.  Now let me explain what I was wondering if English was your native language...in the above posting, english should be English; i should be I; there are numerous mistakes in English grammar that a European might make; communists should be Communists; jewish should be Jewish; russia should be Russia; rasputin should be Rasputin; etc., etc.  It was the same in your previous posts.  Frankly, it's a small matter for me whether or not English is or is not your native language, but knowing that it is not just allows one to spend a little more time reading your posts a little more carefully -- that's all.

Next, you have raised for the second time an issue which I thought that I had settled in my previous post.  Yes, for me it was necessary to answer your post in detail -- and so I did.  And your caustic remarks were well-noted (I mean in terms of the worldwide Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy).

Thank you for taking the time to answer.  All of the very best and I look forward to more of your ideas on this subject,


Alex P.

thanks for the interest, but i am here to discuss ideas, not grammar. can you understand my post without the grammar and capital letters? its not my habit to use them on forums unless for a special reason, which it isn't here
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: james_h on June 27, 2006, 06:28:06 AM
Quote
Dear Ferngully,

Thank you for your kind post.  Now let me explain what I was wondering if English was your native language...in the above posting, english should be English; i should be I; there are numerous mistakes in English grammar that a European might make; communists should be Communists; jewish should be Jewish; russia should be Russia; rasputin should be Rasputin; etc., etc.  It was the same in your previous posts.  Frankly, it's a small matter for me whether or not English is or is not your native language, but knowing that it is not just allows one to spend a little more time reading your posts a little more carefully -- that's all.

Next, you have raised for the second time an issue which I thought that I had settled in my previous post.  Yes, for me it was necessary to answer your post in detail -- and so I did.  And your caustic remarks were well-noted (I mean in terms of the worldwide Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy).

Thank you for taking the time to answer.  All of the very best and I look forward to more of your ideas on this subject,


Alex P.


Alex P.

I would rather not get involved in these squabbles  but if only to point out.... poison wrapped in candy is still poison.

James
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Johnny on August 18, 2006, 05:51:18 PM
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR! PLEASE HELP! LOCK THIS THREAD! IT IS GETTING OUT OF HAND. >:(
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on August 18, 2006, 06:06:10 PM
ummmmmmm Johnny,

Your request seems a bit odd, please look at the date of the last posting. Nothing has gone on here for like three months now. You seem to have over reacted.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Johnny on August 19, 2006, 06:07:24 PM
Sorry FA. I guess I just get too jittery when I feel people are getting (not to use a strong word) impolite to each other.
You were right, I didn't notice the date, although it's more like seven weeks since the last posting.
I haven't kept up with the forum the past couple of months. Remember, I'd been having a hard time logging on?
Thanks to your help it all worked out. I am now catching up with all I've missed and this topic for some reason wasn't so far down the list. Therefore I thought it was being discussed recently.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Paul on August 24, 2006, 10:20:35 AM
Why then were the Crimean Tatars -- who were Muslim -- viewed as good and loyal subjects of the tsar and allowed to keep their own religion, dress, and traditions?  No one -- and certainly not Nicholas -- viewed their non-Orthodox faith as mutually exclusive of loyalty to the throne or as a signal of a desire to be excluded from the body politic of Russia.  

The Christ Killer Myth aside, Christians have always had a weird sort of emotional fixation with the Jews: "We love you. Care about what we think or we'll be hurt and we'll kill you".  A frantic compulsion to convert them to various forms of Christianity has always dogged Christian-Jewish relations. It's as though certain Christian leaders (Martin Luther, for example) needed a mass Jewish embrace as validation for their own arguments.

Christians who weren't trying to kill or to convert Jews were often trying to cut-and-paste odd facets of Judaism into their own sects. If they weren't doing that, they were proclaiming themselves the descendants of one Lost Tribe or another. A certain prominent American church was not the first to incorporate this concept into their canon, so I'm not picking on them, btw.

All of this has struck me as more than a little sick, but oh well....

Perhaps Islam was just alien and "Other" enough (like Buddhism or Native Siberian tribal faiths) that the emotional investment wasn't there. The perceived kinship didn't exist in their minds, so the twin antagonism was mercifully absent as well? Who knows?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Georgiy on August 25, 2006, 11:03:47 PM
I don't know about that. When Islam first appeared, the Christians of the time thought of it as another (Christian) heresy - the latest in a long line of heresies. Some aspects of Islam seem similar to Orthodox Christianity.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 26, 2006, 02:34:39 PM
Quote
Although I have not a shred of evidence I hypothesize that ultimately the Pope must be responsible for the Russian Revolution as it removed his single largest competitor…..the Russian Tsar. Of all in Europe who would have benefited from the Tsarist fall, The pope had the most to gain and was the single most powerful, ideological arch nemesis the Tsar had.  Plus the timing, if it hadn't happened when it did, even as late as 1950 would have made the Tsar effectivly impervious to vatican power and influence.
This will probably make me violently unpopular but I believe if Jews were responsible for the revolution the Pope was the Puppet
Master.

Have you considered the Martians as possible suspects? There's no evidence for that, either, but that apparently doesn't stop speculation.

All the best,

A Mildly Offended Catholic, know to God as "Louis_Charles"
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Guinastasia on August 26, 2006, 02:38:34 PM
Quote
Although I have not a shred of evidence I hypothesize that ultimately the Pope must be responsible for the Russian Revolution as it removed his single largest competitor…..the Russian Tsar. Of all in Europe who would have benefited from the Tsarist fall, The pope had the most to gain and was the single most powerful, ideological arch nemesis the Tsar had.  Plus the timing, if it hadn't happened when it did, even as late as 1950 would have made the Tsar effectivly impervious to vatican power and influence.
This will probably make me violently unpopular but I believe if Jews were responsible for the revolution the Pope was the Puppet
Master.

Have you considered the Martians as possible suspects? There's no evidence for that, either, but that apparently doesn't stop speculation.

All the best,

A Mildly Offended Catholic, know to God as "Louis_Charles"

No no, it was the Illuminati! 

FNORD!

 :D

Seriously, one wonders if someone has been reading Jack Chick...
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on August 26, 2006, 03:29:12 PM
Oh Jack Chick--horrible bigot.  >:( He who claims, amongst other things, that the Holocaust was part of a plot by the RCC and that the Nazi party was run by the Vatican.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Guinastasia on August 26, 2006, 06:06:57 PM
Yeah, pretty much.  But I think anymore, his tracts are so out there that they're almost funny-I've had friends who love to sit and disect and just make fun of them. 

Also, notice how all of his villains always laugh like this:  HAW HAW HAW
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: james_h on August 29, 2006, 06:12:05 AM
Quote
Although I have not a shred of evidence I hypothesize that ultimately the Pope must be responsible for the Russian Revolution as it removed his single largest competitor…..the Russian Tsar. Of all in Europe who would have benefited from the Tsarist fall, The pope had the most to gain and was the single most powerful, ideological arch nemesis the Tsar had.  Plus the timing, if it hadn't happened when it did, even as late as 1950 would have made the Tsar effectivly impervious to vatican power and influence.
This will probably make me violently unpopular but I believe if Jews were responsible for the revolution the Pope was the Puppet
Master.

Have you considered the Martians as possible suspects? There's no evidence for that, either, but that apparently doesn't stop speculation.

All the best,

A Mildly Offended Catholic, know to God as "Louis_Charles"


Louis_Charles,

Sorry to have mildly offended you.

Martians? Perhaps, is their motto "GENS ET REGNUM QUOD NON SERVIERIT MIHI PERIBIT" because if it is you may have a point.





To be frank, achieving majority of opinion rarely ever validates an opinion.

For example 99% of the world probably view America as a democracy, some it appears do not.
"We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” : Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

I don't mind being the Ramsey Clark for my hypothesis; you can be the 99%..

All the best,

A mildly non-repentant former Catholic, not know to god as much at all.

J



Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on August 29, 2006, 08:36:44 AM
I would remind posters that there is a long-standing policy on the Forum of showing at least the minimum amount of respect to other people's religions. Making points, even controversial ones is fine, but try to stay within the bounds of basic consideration.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on August 29, 2006, 08:47:04 AM
"We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” : Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

Rathering embarassing for a former Attorney General (now making his living defending Saddam Hussein and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader in the Rwandan genocide as well as Milosevic (as well as attending his funeral as a friend) and Radovan Karadzic. He has declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that, charges." He also described Milosevic and Hussein as being "courageous") but the US is NOT a democracy, it is, in fact, a republic. It's even in our Pledge of Allegiance. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly while a republic  is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. One may argue whether we live up to various lofty goals but not the basic facts.

Also, in a thread about treatment of Jews, choosing Clark, who also defended Nazi concentration camp commandant Karl Linnas as well as Jack Reimer, charged as a war criminal in the killings of Jews in Warsaw, is rather ironic.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Louis_Charles on August 29, 2006, 10:21:11 AM
Dear James,

I think it was Bev who made the most interesting point on another thread in one of those endless "Who was really responsible for the downfall of the Tsar?" threads.  Is there some reason to discount the Russian people as the ones responsible? It was THEIR revolution, coming at the end of nearly one hundred years of civil unrest. Or was Kerensky secretly taking his orders from Benedict XV, a man with such limited authority that he couldn't even make Catholic rulers (ex. Franz Josef, Karl I) do what he wanted?

As Grandduchess Ella accurately points out, the United States is a Republic, not a democracy. Is it controlled by plutocrats? I'm not sure. Ramsey Clark certainly did quite well under the system, however, so perhaps he is in a better position to know.

And Selina, rest assured that my attitude as expressed on this thread is not a kneejerk defence of Christianity, especially in regard to the persecutions unleashed in its name over the past two thousand years. Anti-Semitism is an enormous reproach to the Churches --- Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. My point in my original post was an attempt to return the thread to topic.

Was Nicholas II anti-Jewish? Certainly in the abstract, as in he surely felt that they were aliens to Russian society and outside the community as non-Orthodox. He did not like meeting Jews (there are letters to his mother describing his distaste at the access wealthy Jews had to the English royal court), but I have never read where his personal distaste translated into poor conduct. My assessment is that he shared in the general anti-Semitism that was endemic to the upper classes of Western cultures at the end of the nineteenth century.


Simon
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 29, 2006, 11:23:04 AM
i realsie i willi offend christians all over right now. to be frank, i find the practise of your religion pretty hypocritical and this kind of example proves it. martin luther was very happy to socialise with jews until they refused to convert which was what he was angling for. cromwell only officially let back jews into britain becuase they were a good source of labour and improving the economy, like they did with other countries. when someone founds the banks on which a country stands for, you don't repay them by blaming them for a death and labelleling them with blood libel and eventually expelling them, but thats what britain did. i'm sure many other countries did the same, yet still practise the word of jesus 'love thy neighbour like thyself.' where were the good catholics in the 3rd reich? off ordering the deaths of millions of others, if not supporting it. i'd like to see a single nazi who repented for what they did and went to confession in the very least. sorry for getting off topic, but its bugging me just how christians have breached the laws of their own religon in order to persecute others and call it a reason, like what the russian monarchy had been doing for so long
selina                               xxxxxxxxxxx

Oh don't worry about offending people dear. Freedom of speech I say, that's why I was always harping on about freeing Palasteine, so much injustice. But anyway back to the topic :)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ortino on August 29, 2006, 05:39:55 PM
Can we please leave the whole Israel/Palestine conflict out of this? It will simply create explosive debates and has no bearing on the time surrounding this discussion.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: james_h on August 30, 2006, 03:09:04 AM
"We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” : Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

Rathering embarassing for a former Attorney General (now making his living defending Saddam Hussein and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader in the Rwandan genocide as well as Milosevic (as well as attending his funeral as a friend) and Radovan Karadzic. He has declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that, charges." He also described Milosevic and Hussein as being "courageous") but the US is NOT a democracy, it is, in fact, a republic. It's even in our Pledge of Allegiance. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly while a republic  is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. One may argue whether we live up to various lofty goals but not the basic facts.
Also, in a thread about treatment of Jews, choosing Clark, who also defended Nazi concentration camp commandant Karl Linnas as well as Jack Reimer, charged as a war criminal in the killings of Jews in Warsaw, is rather ironic.



Hmmm, ironic, yes it is. Saddam Hussein, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Milosevic. You are right about that. It would be much better if attorneys chose clients they believed were innocent or easy to defend. Also, because 1 + 1 = 2 naturally he must have shared his clients views, all of them, in there entirety.

 "He also described Milosevic and Hussein as being "courageous"“You would perhaps rather the man representing you to slander you in public?

"One may argue whether we live up to various lofty goals but not the basic facts. "    Lofty goals nothing, the issue would be whether the institution of a republic or a democracy is a theoretical impossibility. Not related to Nicholas attitude towards the Jews


In truth grandduchessella I merely shared a thought. It wasn't idle; hundreds of hours went into it. Though nothing admissible as judicial evidence.  Agree to differ, fine but....

"Oh Jack Chick--horrible bigot.  Angry He who claims, amongst other things, that the Holocaust was part of a plot by the RCC and that the Nazi party was run by the Vatican." - grandduchessella

"No no, it was the Illuminati!  FNORD!"  - Guinastasia

"Have you considered the Martians as possible suspects? There's no evidence for that, either, but that apparently doesn't stop speculation." - Louis_Charles


I'd never heard of Jack Chick. All these replies are disrespectful, childish and lower the tone of this entire forum, If I wanted replies like these I would have postulated my hypothesis to a group of teenagers. But fine, malign an idea with churlish wit.
Then you could post a lofty well written reply to a post I made, more through being offended at what had been written in response to my post. Remain on your plinth grandduchessella, this is tedious.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on August 30, 2006, 07:18:54 AM
Can we please leave the whole Israel/Palestine conflict out of this? It will simply create explosive debates and has no bearing on the time surrounding this discussion.

what wit eddieboy. if you want to get political on PM, feel free, i will tell you about injustice. but you're right ortino, everytime someone tells me about the jewish conspiracy, they always bring the middle east up just to back up their pathetic conversation. sorry for offending any person around here 8)
selina                  xxxxxxxxxxxx
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on August 31, 2006, 12:07:04 AM
"We’re not a democracy. It’s a terrible misunderstanding and a slander to the idea of democracy to call us that. In reality, we’re a plutocracy: a government by the wealthy.” : Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General

Rathering embarassing for a former Attorney General (now making his living defending Saddam Hussein and Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, a leader in the Rwandan genocide as well as Milosevic (as well as attending his funeral as a friend) and Radovan Karadzic. He has declared: "History will prove Milošević was right. Charges are just that, charges." He also described Milosevic and Hussein as being "courageous") but the US is NOT a democracy, it is, in fact, a republic. It's even in our Pledge of Allegiance. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly while a republic  is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. One may argue whether we live up to various lofty goals but not the basic facts.
Also, in a thread about treatment of Jews, choosing Clark, who also defended Nazi concentration camp commandant Karl Linnas as well as Jack Reimer, charged as a war criminal in the killings of Jews in Warsaw, is rather ironic.



Hmmm, ironic, yes it is. Saddam Hussein, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Milosevic. You are right about that. It would be much better if attorneys chose clients they believed were innocent or easy to defend. Also, because 1 + 1 = 2 naturally he must have shared his clients views, all of them, in there entirety.

 "He also described Milosevic and Hussein as being "courageous"“You would perhaps rather the man representing you to slander you in public?

"One may argue whether we live up to various lofty goals but not the basic facts. "    Lofty goals nothing, the issue would be whether the institution of a republic or a democracy is a theoretical impossibility. Not related to Nicholas attitude towards the Jews


In truth grandduchessella I merely shared a thought. It wasn't idle; hundreds of hours went into it. Though nothing admissible as judicial evidence.  Agree to differ, fine but....

"Oh Jack Chick--horrible bigot.  Angry He who claims, amongst other things, that the Holocaust was part of a plot by the RCC and that the Nazi party was run by the Vatican." - grandduchessella

"No no, it was the Illuminati!  FNORD!"  - Guinastasia

"Have you considered the Martians as possible suspects? There's no evidence for that, either, but that apparently doesn't stop speculation." - Louis_Charles


I'd never heard of Jack Chick. All these replies are disrespectful, childish and lower the tone of this entire forum, If I wanted replies like these I would have postulated my hypothesis to a group of teenagers. But fine, malign an idea with churlish wit.
Then you could post a lofty well written reply to a post I made, more through being offended at what had been written in response to my post. Remain on your plinth grandduchessella, this is tedious.

As moderator of this topic, I am giving you, James H, one warning to stop with the personal attacks. It is indeed unfortunate that you are unhappy with the replies you have received. Grand Duchess Ella is our Global Administrator and she and the other members here must be treated with respect and not derision.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 31, 2006, 05:43:09 AM
Can we please leave the whole Israel/Palestine conflict out of this? It will simply create explosive debates and has no bearing on the time surrounding this discussion.

lol, how convenient!!! No, please back to the topic... :)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Eddie_uk on August 31, 2006, 05:45:46 AM
Can we please leave the whole Israel/Palestine conflict out of this? It will simply create explosive debates and has no bearing on the time surrounding this discussion.

what wit eddieboy. if you want to get political on PM, feel free, i will tell you about injustice. but you're right ortino, everytime someone tells me about the jewish conspiracy, they always bring the middle east up just to back up their pathetic conversation. sorry for offending any person around here 8)
selina                  xxxxxxxxxxxx

Oh, no offence dear!! That's your opinion!!! :)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on August 31, 2006, 08:17:48 AM
very convenient for you that this topic isn't going to get nasty over the situation in the present  ::)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on August 31, 2006, 09:20:17 AM
I have been asked by several to review the recent "goings on" in here. Having been sidelined with a nasty summer cold, I've spent most of my time in here approving new members and keeping the spammers at bay (you have NO idea how many try so often! something like 10-15, some trying twenty times a day!!) and answering PMs, so I haven't been reviewing alot of threads.

OK: Here's how I see things. This thread has pretty well drifted WAY off course of the stated purpose of Nicholas' attitude toward the Jews. You have tried making analogies, which is fine, but now you are all caught up in dissecting the politics of the ANALOGIES rather than the topic.  With that, discussion has now gone into the weeds. I must castigate the moderators for participating in this diversion and taking things afield rather than their jobs of keeping discussin On Topic.

Lisa, I think you came down too hard on JamesH. I did not see "derision" in his comments, frankly others in here have come equally as close to the line but were addressing other users and not GDElla.  I think EVERYONE needs to stop addressing other users and go back to the topic.

Thanks
FA
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mandie, the Gothic Empress on January 23, 2007, 06:02:01 PM
I don't know if anyone posted that during that time, -Tsarist rule and Russian Orthodox religion were one. That why there’s a double eagle flag (tsar and Christian Orthodoxy)
I am also guessing that in Russia, during Nicholas’ reign- “not Christian, not Russian” ....sad.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: James1941 on January 26, 2007, 02:52:09 PM
There has been some discussion of the fact that one of the books Nicholas read while at Tobolsk was one which contained the Protocols. This has been suggested that it supports the view he was anti-Jewish.
Is there any evidence that Nicholas personally went around chosing the books that would go with the family when they left the Alexander Palace for Tobolsk?
I know that they took a great deal of stuff with them such as wine, napkins, linens, sheets, etc. as well as their personal clothing and possessions. However, did Nicholas choose which books would go, or did he simply instruct some of the servants to pack a number of books. Could it be that this book was included for no sinister reason except that it was among a bunch of other books?

NEVER MIND. I went back and read the posts and see that the book was supposedly sent to Alexandra and she gave it to Nicholas. I stand corrected. I don't know how to delete my post.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Elisabeth on January 26, 2007, 03:01:20 PM
James, since according to Alexandra's very own diary in Tobolsk (it's been published, by Yale University Press), Nicholas was reading the Protocols aloud to his entire family every night, I think we have to take seriously the charge that he was anti-Semitic and that he chose, of his own free will, to be anti-Semitic. Frankly, it's not surprising, given his nationality, class, cultural background and upbringing. In fact, it would be more surprising if he had turned out not to be anti-Semitic. If that had been true, he would have been an exceptional human being indeed... and as we all know, Nicholas II was the very reverse of being exceptional. In fact, he was totally ordinary in every way, the essence of the average. Maybe that's why his ultimate fate strikes such a chord with so many of us ordinary, average human beings?

But sorry, I see from your P.S. that you've already revised your opinion. At any rate, it's an interesting subject for discussion. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: lexi4 on January 28, 2007, 05:11:35 AM
Elisabeth,
You mention that Alexandra's diaries have been published by Harvard. Can you tell me where I can get a copy?
Thanks,
Lexi
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nadezhda Edvardovna on January 29, 2007, 10:48:15 AM
The Last Diary of Tsaritsa Alexandra, Edited by Vladimir M. Khrustalëv and Vladimir A. Kozlov; Introduction by Robert K. Massie. ISBN-10: 0300072120 Cloth: $45.00 tx.  Well worth the price.  Check the usual online booksellers and the publisher at http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/home.asp.  Pax, N.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nadezhda Edvardovna on January 29, 2007, 10:56:59 AM
This is always a fascinating topic.  As we proceed, let me caution against presentism, the error of judging the past by present-day standards.  As students of history, we must evaluate Nicholas in the context of his own times.  As for reconciling his attitudes toward Jewish people and his professed Christianity, well, that's up to God.  Remember also that God makes saints, the church only recognizes what God has already done, and that no one is without sin except Christ. Therefore, all saints were once sinners. Pax, N.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on January 29, 2007, 04:12:42 PM
James, since according to Alexandra's very own diary in Tobolsk (it's been published, by Yale University Press), Nicholas was reading the Protocols aloud to his entire family every night, I think we have to take seriously the charge that he was anti-Semitic and that he chose, of his own free will, to be anti-Semitic....

Let us NOT exaggerate the genuine facts, please. There is one, and only one diary entry by Alexandra on the subject:

Tobolsk 26 March/8 April
4th week of GreatLent
 ...

8 PM Nicholas read to us.  (Protocols of the freemasons)--


Nicholas wrote in his diary the next day:
Yesterday I started to read aloud Nilus's book on the Antichrist, to which have been added the 'protocols' of the Jews and Masons - very timely reading matter."

Now, according to the author of the Yale translations, Khrustalėv, on pg 91:
"Nicholas evidently read Sergei Nilus's Velikoe v malom i Antikhrist, kak blizkaia politicheskaia vozmozhmost: Zapiski pravoslavnogo (The great in the small and the Antichrist as an imminent political possibility: Notes of an Orthodox believer) 2nd ed. Tsarskoe Selo, 1905. which included the so called Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The White Army investigators found this book in the Ipatiev House after the family was killed.  Nilus claimed that these were the protocols of a Zionist organization bent on destroying civilization and creating a worldwide Jewish state.  In fact, the Protocols had been fabricated by the tsarist secret police."

This is hardly "every day" in Tobolsk that the "Protocols" were being read. Alexandra herself obviously thought it was the MASONS and not the Jews...and Nicholas himself believed them to be as much Masonic as Jewish....and Nilus himself appears to have attributed them to a Zionist "organization" and not to the Jews as a whole.


Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: tandtb on December 10, 2007, 12:00:43 PM
Hello everyone.  Newbe here and so glad that I found this site.  For many years I have had an interest in Russian history, and have recently begun doing a geneological search on my family.  After finding out that my great grandparents were from Russia I began to look up various subjects on google.  WOW I found this site  how fabulous.  As i said I have had interest in particular in the Nicholas/Alexandria reign, but have stopped reading about the last czar due to anti semetic feelings that I have read about him.  However now since joining this forum I have read where in fact HE was more for Jewish rights in Russia than first believed.  I have started purchasing books on ebay regarding the Romanovs and speciafically Nicholas II and am looking forward to enjoying this forum with all of you.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: anna11 on December 10, 2007, 02:02:27 PM
Well most of Russia's aristocrocy was anti-sematic and rather racist. Alexandra was  less anti-sematic than Nicholas, but even with him I think it was a much more 'they're not like us' attitude than a malicious hatred. They were products of their times, it doesn't reveal any particular nastiness in Nicholas's character imo.

And welcome to the forum!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: tandtb on December 10, 2007, 07:36:39 PM
Thank you so much Anna.  I am aware that during that time period in history there was quite a lack of understanding of others.  I am glad that I found this forum.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: tsarsrule on December 29, 2007, 05:41:38 AM
i heard that Nicholas was anti-semite but was fond of his Musilm subjects, and when he took the trip to england he was suprised by the jews he saw and people who were married to jews.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on December 29, 2007, 11:42:53 AM
.... when he took the trip to england he was suprised by the jews he saw and people who were married to jews.

What do you mean by this?  ???
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: tsarsrule on December 29, 2007, 11:51:08 AM
the book says he was anti-semite like most monarchs in those times, but in England, there were middle class people who were jews, he didn`t expect to see jews
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: rosieposie on January 06, 2008, 08:38:32 AM
I'm guessing he saw a normal middle class people just as anyone else and he was shocked to see that these certian group of people were Jews and they were not what he suspected a Jewish person was.   
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on January 06, 2008, 10:11:40 AM
This has been discussed to death already. Please go read the old thread on the subject, it is something like fifteen pages long.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: grandduchessella on January 08, 2008, 07:14:17 AM
I've merged the 2 threads.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nala on January 08, 2008, 09:03:36 AM
I want to know why the Jews attract so much hatred

What is it?

There has to be something that they do …they say or ..whatever… that incites total barbarism and illogical pursuit for their blood the world over.

It can’t be the fact that they refuse to conform or assimilate…Indians don’t assimilate, Muslims don’t assimilate

Jews have to be the single most persecuted religious faction in the history of the world

Apart from the alleged “Christ killing”  what else is there?

Of course they could be the holders of puppet strings as conspiracy theory believers would state. However I can’t think of a single documented event that has occurred in which the Jews were solely responsible.

I have a Russian friend whom I adore, however he absolutely despises Jews, to the point where his face goes red and the veins on his forehead pop out, when he mentions Jews

I am sorry if I sound ignorant or if this is a little off topic, but I can’t think of a better medium to discuss this as this forum is full of balanced people (I hope)   ;)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on January 09, 2008, 05:12:04 PM
First let me thank the Forum Admins for allowing me to participate in this Forum.  English isn't my first language, so if at times I sound harsh or not polite, I beg you to forgive me, it will never be the intention.

Shvibzik, the issue of anti-Semitism goes back to the time of the Pharaoh of Egypt, of biblical fame.  That is the oldest record of anti-Semitism in history, where in this case a ruler, publishes and executes a decree with the specific objective of eliminating the Jews.  From then onward, this has not subsided.

Quite regrettably, the Empire wasn't an exception.  My great-grandparents lived through the pogrom in Odessa, and according to my grandparents, they never quite knew what was the reason for it.

Maybe this will answer your questions, and help your Russian friend as well: http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Why_Do_People_Hate_The_Jews.htm (http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Why_Do_People_Hate_The_Jews.htm)



Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: dmitri on January 09, 2008, 06:12:56 PM
Anti-semitism is purely and simply a vile and irrational hatred of a people. It is also connected with the denial of the fact that Jesus Christ was a Jew as was the Virgin Mary and all the disciples. Religion has a lot to answer for doesn't it?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nala on January 09, 2008, 08:12:08 PM
Thankyou for the link Mexjames, i will enjoy reading through it : )
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: anna11 on January 12, 2008, 02:19:26 PM
FA- I'm just wondering, if you don't like people starting new threads when there is already one, how come when replying to an old thread a message comes up saying 'This topic has not been replied to for at least 120 days, consider starting a new topic...etc?'

Not a troll question, i'm generally curious.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on January 23, 2008, 11:42:21 AM
Well, I'm obviously coming to this thread late, but I thought I'd give in my points.  Anti-semitism in countries that are predominately Christian, carries a long and harsh history.  I can tell you that even during the Second World War in America, it wasn't until people saw the images of the death camps that they were shocked.  Hearing about Jews being massacred alone wasn't enough for them.
With that being said, Nicholas II was not as anti-semitic as his father, but he did seem to inherit some anti-semitic attitudes.  Attitudes that I think emerged after the assassination of his grandfather.  I don't have my sources in front of me, but I think that either one of the members of the People's Will--or someone who owned a house where they gathered--was Jewish, and therefore, if one person is Jewish there must be this big "Jewish World Conspiracy!"
With that being said, while I know that Nicholas did indeed read from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, I don't think he actually believed it.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 06, 2008, 09:53:31 PM
My four grandparents lived in the Empire when they were children, and they went out in the late 1920s, when it was clear that Communism wasn't going anywhere.

From the conversations I had with them, I can tell you that Nicholas II was an anti-Semite.  The most violent pogroms, like the Kishinev pogrom in 1903, happened during his reign.  Being an autocrat means that he was ultimately responsible for this, even if he didn't have any prior knowledge of the events in question.  In "Nicholas and Alexandra" Massie mentions the fact that Konstantin Pobedonostsev was his mentor, like he had been his father's, and he instilled anti-Semitism in both.

On top of this, the Empress herself had her anti-Semitic issues as well, and she was not exactly loved by her Jewish subjects. 

The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought, because they had a greater responsibility (again, along with the rest of the crowned heads of Europe and the democratically elected presidents in America): they had to govern their land, for which end they had Divine Right, and second, they had much better education than anyone else or so it seemed.  This link
http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/83/04712076/0471207683.pdf (http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/83/04712076/0471207683.pdf) may shed some light on the subject.

The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a hoax perpetrated during Tsar Nicholas II's reign, is still widely read in the Arab countries, for instance, even though the Russian government recognized the work for what it was.  In the link above, it is said that it was none other than Grand Duchess Ella that promoted this libel.  It appeared in 1901 in the Empire and it seems that the Okhrana was behind it.  It is ironic that the Grand Duchess is buried in what is now Israel.

My grandparents and their parents and grandparents suffered a lot in the Empire just because they were Jews.  They were not well off, lived in little "shtetls" of townships, in wooden shacks with dirt floors, and some winters the cold air would blow through the walls of their houses.  The government pressed all sorts of absurd restrictions in their lives, and as much as the Tsar might have been a kind man otherwise, personally I think that regarding the Jews, history doesn't share that point of view.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 07, 2008, 05:20:20 PM


The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought


I agree with a lot of what you said above, but I wanted to comment on this point.  The way that we are looking at the world that Nicholas II lived in now would not have existed back in the early 20th century.  Let me give you an example, in the later part of the 20th century there has been a great deal of friendship among the various religions of the world (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc...).  This friendship was brought on by the ecumenical movement, which began in the 1940s, and really exploded in the 1960s after the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council.  But before this time, such friendliness would not have existed.  Therefore, it's hard for us to put our standards in a time when such standards did not exist.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 08, 2008, 08:25:41 PM
There is a big difference between a Jew and a Zionist isnt there?
That book about the protocols of ZION, is it a a hoax or fact?Has it ever been officially discredited as a fake, officially?
What ever happened to the wealth of Russia afer 1917, or the churches and their property?How come the church was banned and its bishops and priests killed and banished?
Were the Jews of Russia Russian or Khazars?I cant seem to find them going back to the 9th century or before?
Werent most communist/bolsheviks of a paricular race or creed? Stalin and Beria etc?
I would have thought Christianity was the first true form of communism,how come the commies tried to destroy it?
I must go back and read my hebrew copy of the Talmud, see what that has to say about killing gentiles and the true nature of Christ!

I'll do my best to give a response to all of those questions.  There is a difference between being a Jew and a Zionist.  A Zionist supports the creation of Israel.  Not all Jews support Israel, because they believe that only that Messiah can bring the Jews back to Isreal--this is usually found among Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews.  Regarding the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it's very much a hoax.  As for why bishops and priests were banned after Communism took over Russia, is that Communism is very anti-religious.  Karl Marx, the founder of Communism, declared that religion was the "opium of the people."  Christianity does have form of socialism in it, but not Communism, which is considered the "black sheep" of the socialist movement.  Many of the Bolsheviks were Jewish--partially due to years of persecution of Jews under the tsarist regim--but Stalin was not one of them, and neither was Lenin--both were raised in the Orthodox Christian faith.  Be careful what the Talmud says about Jesus, because it won't be impartial.  From what I understand, the Talmund declares Jesus to have been an bastard son and something of a wizard.  The Talmud's view of Jesus would be very similar to Matthew's Gospel's view of the Pharisees.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 09, 2008, 10:09:20 PM
I would just like to add that the vast majority of Jews support Israel, and only a very small minority like the "Neturai Qarta" don't; they were the ones that went to see the Iranian president last year.  Even very Orthodox Jews accept the State of Israel, their only regret is that it is a Jewish state run by lay Jews. 

The Jews of Russia were Jews, not Khazars.  According to what I've read mostly in the paper, genetics proves this as the Jewish genes seem to have remained rather constant over time.  Genes of Russian Jews and Jews from other places (Middle East, Turkey, Northern Africa), are remarkably similar.  I remember seeing a picture of a coin portraying a menorah (the chandelier described in the Old Testament that lit the Temple in Jerusalem), which was found in Crimea.  It was dated to 80 CE.  Way before the Romans destroyed the Second Temple (70 CE), there were Jewish settlements all around the Meditarranean basin, so I wouldn't be surprised that they would have settled around the Black Sea as well.

As for Stalin and Beria, to the best of my knowledge they were both Georgians.  Bulllocks excellent "Stalin and Hitler" is a comparative biography of both characters, proves that Stalin was educated as Russian Orthodox. 

As Cody correctly says, what you read in the Talmud regarding Jesus may not be what you'd expect.  I don't know if the Talmud says what Cody mentions below, but the account of what happened then is clearly not what the  Church says, and is very very delicate and not for everyone to read because it can lead to terrible misunderstandings.  Also, the Talmud was not written in Hebrew, it was written in Aramaic so unless you really understand that language I would respectfull advise you to stay away from that or otherwise, stick to an authorized version of the Talmud.


Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ilias_of_John on February 11, 2008, 04:26:40 PM
Thanks for the information gentlemen.
I would not want anyone to think that any of us were racist or anti Jewish
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 12, 2008, 01:31:47 AM
Thanks for the information gentlemen.
I would not want anyone to think that any of us were racist or anti Jewish

Asking legitimate questions doesn't make one racist or anti-Jewish.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 12, 2008, 09:17:49 AM
Anti-semitism is purely and simply a vile and irrational hatred of a people. It is also connected with the denial of the fact that Jesus Christ was a Jew as was the Virgin Mary and all the disciples. Religion has a lot to answer for doesn't it?

the first part of this comment is generally correct. But 'denial of the fact that Jesus was a jew...?' is fabricated and itself an irrational statement.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 12, 2008, 12:41:36 PM
The only way in which we can all learn is by asking questions!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: ferngully on February 16, 2008, 11:14:13 AM
the talmud is not something you should put your entire trust in IMO (speaking as a jew) becuase although it has some good proverbs etc, the views in there were written by a bunch of rabbis who all had their opinions about subjects and they don't reflect on everyone. historically, the idea of jesus being a bastard etc was the response that jews gave whenever christians would taunt them. who knows if they really believed it back then (some of them did but not all) but being treated the way they were, i personally would understand that response in that situation, even if it wasn't the wisest thing to say
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 16, 2008, 12:00:22 PM
I did my homework and ask those who know, not only rabbis but someone who is a secular Jew well versed in these matters.  The Talmud never mentions that Jesus was a bastard, nor there are bad references to him.  I don't want to hijack this thread at all, but I feel it is necessary to clarify that there are two Talmuds, the first one written in Jerusalem in ca. third century of the CE and the second and most important one, which is in use still today, is the Babylonian Talmud (the oldest copy of which was found in S. Hussein's archives not too long ago).  The idea of the Talmud was to interpret Jewish law, that is, the Torah or the five books of Moses (Pentateuch), to a new circumstance facing the Jews, that is, they were no longer in Israel but in the Diaspora, and most of them were in Babylon and what became Baghdad as well as other cities.  There were a number of commandments that could no longer take place, such as service in the Holy Temple, so the idea was that without altering the holy text of the Torah, the Jews could still practice their religion and not incur in sin. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 16, 2008, 12:27:53 PM
I did my homework and ask those who know, not only rabbis but someone who is a secular Jew well versed in these matters.  The Talmud never mentions that Jesus was a bastard, nor there are bad references to him.  I don't want to hijack this thread at all, but I feel it is necessary to clarify that there are two Talmuds, the first one written in Jerusalem in ca. third century of the CE and the second and most important one, which is in use still today, is the Babylonian Talmud (the oldest copy of which was found in S. Hussein's archives not too long ago).  The idea of the Talmud was to interpret Jewish law, that is, the Torah or the five books of Moses (Pentateuch), to a new circumstance facing the Jews, that is, they were no longer in Israel but in the Diaspora, and most of them were in Babylon and what became Baghdad as well as other cities.  There were a number of commandments that could no longer take place, such as service in the Holy Temple, so the idea was that without altering the holy text of the Torah, the Jews could still practice their religion and not incur in sin. 

I don't want to hijack this thread either, but I decided to visit the old Jewish Encyclopedia, which I do not find to be as good as the modern Encyclopedia Judaica, but it does mention three sources that Jews have used to describe Jesus: New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, the Talmund and Midrash, and the Life of Jesus that was written out of the Middle Ages.  The Jewish Encyclopedia states as follows: "It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death."  And if you want to read more, here's the direct link: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=254&letter=J&search=Jesus#2

With that being said, if Mexjames or anyone else wants to chat about the subject of Jesus in Judaism--or any other religion--perhaps they should email me personally.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 16, 2008, 12:35:27 PM
Back to NII as it relates to his being anti semetic....one must also take into account that the rise in anti Jewish sentiments during the mid 19th century was directly related to the series of revolutionary crises that swept Europe and the existing monarchies. Marx, Engels, and the Communicst movement was a largely Jewish endeavor and movement within its leadership. Very important to realize, though, the Jews involved were predominately atheists who maintained a Jewish heritage on an ethnic level. The "international Jewry" and "international communist" labels and entities were significantly overlapped. So, by both a historic anti-Jewish bias among European Christians based on a centuries old religious and cultural divide and a new anger/opposition to the ground swell of revolutionary thinking among the Jewish/communist effort, NII and others were further moved to view the Jewish community with suspicion and fear.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 17, 2008, 08:17:36 PM
Fear of what?  In general the Jewish population in the Empire was not better off than most peasants.  And as you correctly point out, the background of this were centuries of all sorts of discrimination.

Anyway, I think that the Emperor and the Empress were anti-Semites; I agree that at the time this was common but I don't think that the better educated people can be excused in any way, shape or form.  And I think that the role of the so-called international jewery, etc., has been greatly exaggerated over the years and that too constitutes anti-Semitism.

The time of reconciliation has come.  Not one single incident of what happened in this regard should ever be forgotten, but it should be used to build a new understanding among people of different backgrounds all over the world.  From what I've read, during his captitivy the Emperor realized his mistake, an intelligent man as he was, but he wasn't prepared at all to face the challenges he met during his lifetime, and he and his family paid dearly for this. 

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 18, 2008, 12:20:11 PM
Fear of what?  In general the Jewish population in the Empire was not better off than most peasants.  



As I pointed out in the previous post, the intelligencia, especially among revolutionary thinking people, were largely Jewish. That was a source of great fear to leaders like NII who was well aware (although much less aware than he should have been) of the fragility his role as emperor had. It really didn't matter about the peasants, other than the expected ripple effect a leader could have on the masses, which of course, we know did have and still does.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 19, 2008, 02:14:52 PM
I understand your point, sure enough some of the leaders were of Jewish origin.  From within Judaism we think of them as renegade Jews, especially Trotsky and Dzherzhinsky to name just two.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 19, 2008, 02:37:22 PM
interesting, never heard of 'renegade Jews'. But, also keep in mind that part of their being 'renegade' was their adoption of atheism. The communist movement was atheistic and the Jews involved were defiinitely so.

When the Kibbutzes were originally begun in palestine during the mid 19th century, they were almost exclusively russian jews were were ethnic jews but atheists and communists. This was also the start of Zionism.

going back to NII's anti semitism, it was not his unrealistic fear or dislike for judaism or Jewish people (any more than the many ethnic groups that made up his empire), rather the concern for the danger the communist/zionist movement posed to the peace and solidarity of his empire.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 19, 2008, 03:24:22 PM
among revolutionary thinking people, were largely Jewish.

Well, of course that makes sense, since Jews didn't exactly have a life that was a bowl of cherries under that regime, so more than fair share of Jews were drawn to the revolution. Wouldn't you be? If it were me, I would want change too and wouldn't exactly be crazy about the tsar.... Nothing surprising about that. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Louis_Charles on February 19, 2008, 05:15:58 PM
interesting, never heard of 'renegade Jews'. But, also keep in mind that part of their being 'renegade' was their adoption of atheism. The communist movement was atheistic and the Jews involved were defiinitely so.

When the Kibbutzes were originally begun in palestine during the mid 19th century, they were almost exclusively russian jews were were ethnic jews but atheists and communists. This was also the start of Zionism.

going back to NII's anti semitism, it was not his unrealistic fear or dislike for judaism or Jewish people (any more than the many ethnic groups that made up his empire), rather the concern for the danger the communist/zionist movement posed to the peace and solidarity of his empire.

No, Nicholas didn't like Jews qua Jews. He was shocked by the fact that his wife's uncle received them socially at the English court. I doubt he was any more rabidly anti-semitic than usual, but it is cutting Nicholas II too much slack to assume that his dislike was purely political. Furthermore, and I realize that others have a higher opinion of his native intelligence than I, I truly doubt that he was capable of the kind of subtle distinction you imply in regard to Jews and Zionists. In fact, the Jews --- ALL Jews --- were treated far worse under Tsarist rule than, say, Moslems.

He had many good qualities, but freedom from prejudice in this regard was not one of them.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 19, 2008, 06:28:24 PM
interesting, never heard of 'renegade Jews'. But, also keep in mind that part of their being 'renegade' was their adoption of atheism. The communist movement was atheistic and the Jews involved were defiinitely so.

When the Kibbutzes were originally begun in palestine during the mid 19th century, they were almost exclusively russian jews were were ethnic jews but atheists and communists. This was also the start of Zionism.

going back to NII's anti semitism, it was not his unrealistic fear or dislike for judaism or Jewish people (any more than the many ethnic groups that made up his empire), rather the concern for the danger the communist/zionist movement posed to the peace and solidarity of his empire.

No, Nicholas didn't like Jews qua Jews. He was shocked by the fact that his wife's uncle received them socially at the English court. I doubt he was any more rabidly anti-semitic than usual, but it is cutting Nicholas II too much slack to assume that his dislike was purely political. Furthermore, and I realize that others have a higher opinion of his native intelligence than I, I truly doubt that he was capable of the kind of subtle distinction you imply in regard to Jews and Zionists. In fact, the Jews --- ALL Jews --- were treated far worse under Tsarist rule than, say, Moslems.

He had many good qualities, but freedom from prejudice in this regard was not one of them.

I was not making assumptions that his attitudes were purely political. It is generally considered that most prejudice is irrational and emotional; I was pointing out reasons why he would have had concerns about the political nature of mid 19th century revolutions and the ongoing concern to his power. And as such, would have to disagree that he was incapable of distinguishing between the political threats and emotional ones.

Were moslem groups or other ethnic/religious groups in Russia during his reign organizing reactionary political inititatives? I'm not aware, but could be. Let us know! thanks!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 20, 2008, 08:43:44 AM


The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought


I agree with a lot of what you said above, but I wanted to comment on this point.  The way that we are looking at the world that Nicholas II lived in now would not have existed back in the early 20th century.  Let me give you an example, in the later part of the 20th century there has been a great deal of friendship among the various religions of the world (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc...).  This friendship was brought on by the ecumenical movement, which began in the 1940s, and really exploded in the 1960s after the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council.  But before this time, such friendliness would not have existed.  Therefore, it's hard for us to put our standards in a time when such standards did not exist.

Oh Cody - Cody -  You can't imagine how many times I have said the same thing and been soundly "trounced".  You have been much more eloquent that I, but that message was so badly received in another thread, (perhaps the original of this one) that I had to leave the forum for a while as I was accused of being an anti-Semite and as I tried to explain my thought in more detail, I became (to those who didn't agree with me) not only an anti-Semite but a racist as well.

I do agree that Nicholas, as a well educated (for his time) Tsar, should  have seen what was going on and been more open to acceptance and tolerance.  But Alexander III had taken up the work of his Grandfather Nicholas I in the Russification of the peoples of the empire and Nicholas continued on.

According to Lambton in Elizabeth and Alexandra, the Jews were expelled from Moscow by Governor General Serge Alexandrovich in the thousands. (30,000 to be exact)

Now this book reads like a novel and Lambton doesn't footnote anything, but here is what it says, "...within three days of the original proclamation nearly nine thousand Jews had been, often separated from their families packed into trains and carried off to different districts of the Pale.
While another ten thousand poor Jews had gone into hiding - many of them to gain a few days in which to sell their businesses and get some money to take away - the authorities had granted exemption orders to another ten thousand of the richest families.  One of Serge's aides explained the anomaly quite simply: "The rich can stay and pay, the poor must go."   page 136
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 20, 2008, 09:48:26 AM
I do agree that Nicholas, as a well educated (for his time) Tsar

One can be very educated, yet very ignorant. The two can be mutually exclusive...
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 20, 2008, 11:21:36 AM


The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought


I agree with a lot of what you said above, but I wanted to comment on this point.  The way that we are looking at the world that Nicholas II lived in now would not have existed back in the early 20th century.  Let me give you an example, in the later part of the 20th century there has been a great deal of friendship among the various religions of the world (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc...).  This friendship was brought on by the ecumenical movement, which began in the 1940s, and really exploded in the 1960s after the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council.  But before this time, such friendliness would not have existed.  Therefore, it's hard for us to put our standards in a time when such standards did not exist.

Oh Cody - Cody -  You can't imagine how many times I have said the same thing and been soundly "trounced".  You have been much more eloquent that I, but that message was so badly received in another thread, (perhaps the original of this one) that I had to leave the forum for a while as I was accused of being an anti-Semite and as I tried to explain my thought in more detail, I became (to those who didn't agree with me) not only an anti-Semite but a racist as well.


Some people may not like to hear such things, but it doesn't change the fact that they are simply true.  Obviously anti-Semitism is as wrong now, as it was then; but back then, people just didn't see things that way.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 20, 2008, 03:32:41 PM


The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought


I agree with a lot of what you said above, but I wanted to comment on this point.  The way that we are looking at the world that Nicholas II lived in now would not have existed back in the early 20th century.  Let me give you an example, in the later part of the 20th century there has been a great deal of friendship among the various religions of the world (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc...).  This friendship was brought on by the ecumenical movement, which began in the 1940s, and really exploded in the 1960s after the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council.  But before this time, such friendliness would not have existed.  Therefore, it's hard for us to put our standards in a time when such standards did not exist.

Oh Cody - Cody -  You can't imagine how many times I have said the same thing and been soundly "trounced".  You have been much more eloquent that I, but that message was so badly received in another thread, (perhaps the original of this one) that I had to leave the forum for a while as I was accused of being an anti-Semite and as I tried to explain my thought in more detail, I became (to those who didn't agree with me) not only an anti-Semite but a racist as well.


Some people may not like to hear such things, but it doesn't change the fact that they are simply true.  Obviously anti-Semitism is as wrong now, as it was then; but back then, people just didn't see things that way.

I disagree, Cody. While I do agree that we should not apply our own standards to the behaviors of people in other eras, the fact remains that many people in the 19th and early 20th centuries recognized anti-Semitism for exactly what it is (and has always been) - bigotry. I think it would be more correct to say that in that era, bigotry of this type was so overt and so pervasive that many people failed to see it in themselves or those close to them - or in those they admired.

I often hear this type of comment when it comes to slavery in the United States - that people then just did not see it as wrong. Not true! Otherwise, there would have been no Abolision movement - and maybe slavery would have lasted much longer.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 20, 2008, 05:57:35 PM


The fact that European monarchs and the people in general were anti-Semites, as they had been for centuries, doesn't justify that the Emperor and the Empress followed that line of thought


I agree with a lot of what you said above, but I wanted to comment on this point.  The way that we are looking at the world that Nicholas II lived in now would not have existed back in the early 20th century.  Let me give you an example, in the later part of the 20th century there has been a great deal of friendship among the various religions of the world (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc...).  This friendship was brought on by the ecumenical movement, which began in the 1940s, and really exploded in the 1960s after the Catholic Church's Second Vatican Council.  But before this time, such friendliness would not have existed.  Therefore, it's hard for us to put our standards in a time when such standards did not exist.

Oh Cody - Cody -  You can't imagine how many times I have said the same thing and been soundly "trounced".  You have been much more eloquent that I, but that message was so badly received in another thread, (perhaps the original of this one) that I had to leave the forum for a while as I was accused of being an anti-Semite and as I tried to explain my thought in more detail, I became (to those who didn't agree with me) not only an anti-Semite but a racist as well.


Some people may not like to hear such things, but it doesn't change the fact that they are simply true.  Obviously anti-Semitism is as wrong now, as it was then; but back then, people just didn't see things that way.

I disagree, Cody. While I do agree that we should not apply our own standards to the behaviors of people in other eras, the fact remains that many people in the 19th and early 20th centuries recognized anti-Semitism for exactly what it is (and has always been) - bigotry. I think it would be more correct to say that in that era, bigotry of this type was so overt and so pervasive that many people failed to see it in themselves or those close to them - or in those they admired.

I often hear this type of comment when it comes to slavery in the United States - that people then just did not see it as wrong. Not true! Otherwise, there would have been no Abolision movement - and maybe slavery would have lasted much longer.

I must disagree here as well.  I heard from first-hand sources that anti-Semitism was prevalent in Russia, and Jews were physically abused in many ways, sometimes even at the hands of the authorities.  It is a historical fact that when Jews were abused during the pogroms, neither the Imperial nor the Communist authorities would move one finger to bring the situation to order, much less to prosecute the organizers. 

And the higher ups denied having anything to do with what was going on.  I think that "plausible deniability" is not a new concept.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 20, 2008, 06:00:58 PM
I heard from first-hand sources that anti-Semitism was prevalent in Russia, and Jews were physically abused in many ways, sometimes even at the hands of the authorities.  It is a historical fact that when Jews were abused during the pogroms, neither the Imperial nor the Communist authorities would move one finger to bring the situation to order, much less to prosecute the organizers. 

And the higher ups denied having anything to do with what was going on.  I think that "plausible deniability" is not a new concept.

This is true. It was most prevalent during NII's reign and also AIII's (the pogroms), which is when the Kishinev pogrom happened in 1903, as well as the one in Odessa in 1905 (supposedly as a retaliation for the 1st revolution).  http://www.moria.farlep.net/vjodessa/en/pogroms.html
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 20, 2008, 06:19:24 PM
I don't think that either Cody or I are saying that anti-Semitism (or slavery for that matter) was right or that people didn't know that is was wrong.  We know from many sources of the atrocities visited on the Jews in Russia.  We are not saying it didn't happen.  We are not saying that it didn't happen during Nicholas II's reign.

I think that Lisa Davidson is right when she says that anti-Semitism was so prevalent that people did not recognize it in themselves or in those they admired.  Because during that time  the world we know and the values we hold so dear were not the world or the values of the people living during that time.

We are just saying (and Cody forgive me if I misconstrue) that we can't apply our values to a past era.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 20, 2008, 06:26:45 PM
Well, it was rather palpable in some of the Romanovs. GD Elisabeth Fedorovna, for instance, was one of the biggest proponents of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and it was published and promoted in Russia for years...  Going back to Catherine the Great - one of the most enlightened Russian monarchs - she was the one who set up the Jewish Pale and was quoted as saying something along the lines of: I don't want anything from these killers of Christ (I think she was referring to borrowing money from Jews?). Russia was always way behind Western Europe in these matters (not that there wasn't anti-semitism in W Europe).  In fact, it still is, but now they are just plain racist...
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 20, 2008, 10:52:14 PM
It is interesting though, that for a wandering people who had no "homeland" until 1948, the Jews were seen as "money lenders" and therefore rich by most standards.

And yes, there is the "Christ killer" thing, but that was Pilot and he was a Roman.  Sure he "washed his hands" of it and let the crowd decide, but, come on, we all know the crowd mentality.  And the soldiers who actually committed the crucifixion were Romans as well.

And Christians sometimes forget that Jesus was a Jew.  And the Jews still don't believe that he was the Son of God, they never did.

I think what scared most people was that Jews don't give "lip service" to their religion.  They truly live it.  I have a very good friend who is a Jew and when I am with him and his family, I get a very special feeling that I never got with my husband's large, noisy Catholic family.  I actually feel a reverence in their presence and not just on holidays and holy days.  I feel this special calm perspective at all times.  I envy them their ability to "live" their religion.  And I know that the Israelis have an army and that they fight, probably better than most armies. 

But my friend and his wife are both doctors and they have a whole large family of very well behaved children.  I hope that I am making sense here, it is a hard feeling to express in words.  I just know that I am very lucky to know them.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 21, 2008, 08:23:03 AM
It is interesting though, that for a wandering people who had no "homeland" until 1948, the Jews were seen as "money lenders" and therefore rich by most standards.

Many Jews became money lenders in countries like Russia in order to make a living, because they were excluded from most other professions. So they had to become good with money, almost by default... And then they were despised even more because they were money lenders and had money to lend, so basically they couldn't win...

BTW, there is such a thing as 'Jews for Jesus' you know ;-)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 21, 2008, 10:14:53 AM
It is interesting though, that for a wandering people who had no "homeland" until 1948, the Jews were seen as "money lenders" and therefore rich by most standards.

Many Jews became money lenders in countries like Russia in order to make a living, because they were excluded from most other professions. So they had to become good with money, almost by default... And then they were despised even more because they were money lenders and had money to lend, so basically they couldn't win...

BTW, there is such a thing as 'Jews for Jesus' you know ;-)

There's a lot of points that need to be discussed from what was said above.  On the subject of anti-Semetism and slavery, certainly many people from the time of Nicholas II and before--in this case America--said that it was wrong.  Often those people would quote the Bible, yet those who supported the pogroms and slavery quoted the Bible as well (consider Matthew 27:21-25 for anti-Semetism; and Colossians 3:22 for slavery).
As for Jews having this stereotype of being associated with money, Helen pretty much hit the nail on the head as the reason why.  During Christendom's period of Feudalism, Jews could not take part in the Feudal system, because it involved taking a Christian oath.  Therefore, as a way to make money Jews became merchants.  Often acting as intermediaries between Christian and Muslim merchants, who would not speak to one another.
Now on the subject of Jews for Jesus...I'm going to tell you that most Jews, for good reason, do not care for "Jews for Jesus."  Jews, even in its most liberal form, have a word for a Jewish person who accepts Jesus as their "Lord and Savior"--it's called a Christian.  Jews for Jesus uses unethical tactics to bring members into their organization--some of the members often claim to be Jews, when many of them were never Jewish in the first place.  I encountered some of them one time on campus after all the controversy surrounding the movie, The Passion of the Christ, and they gave me this pamphlet about what Jews believed about The Passion.  What I saw were quotes from the canonical gospels.  No Jewish pamphlet would EVER be quoting from the gospels, if it was a pamphlet involving devotional practices about Judaism.
Well, now that I've rambled too much, I'll close with this.  No, I was certainly not trying to advocate anti-Semetism, and I hope no one was accusing me of that either.  But I was trying to show a point of view that is sometimes overlooked involving subjects like the ones addressed above. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 21, 2008, 10:17:33 AM
Thanks for the info, Cody!

Jews, even in its most liberal form, have a word for a Jewish person who accepts Jesus as their "Lord and Savior"--it's called a Christian. 

Exactly, that's why "Jews for Jesus" are so funny :-)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 21, 2008, 01:41:25 PM
Hmmmm. Intersting view of the terms.

In my circles of jewish and non jewish people, being Jewish definitely has two meanings. one is the nationality/ethnicity. the other is religious designation.

I have never known a Jewish person who converted to Chrisitianity to shed the Jewish nationality part. They usually refer to themselves as jewish but of christian faith.

Jews for Jesus, then, has always made sense to me and among those who I know who self define as such.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 21, 2008, 01:52:04 PM
Hmmmm. Intersting view of the terms.

In my circles of jewish and non jewish people, being Jewish definitely has two meanings. one is the nationality/ethnicity. the other is religious designation.

I have never known a Jewish person who converted to Chrisitianity to shed the Jewish nationality part. They usually refer to themselves as jewish but of christian faith.


You are correct that many of them do not, because you're born into the Jewish tradition through your mother--regardless of whether or not you believe in God.  Jews, who convert to Christianity, often make--sometimes using the term "completed Jew."  But, like I said earlier, Jews--even Reformed Jews, which is the most liberal form--have a word for a Jewish person who accepts Jesus; it's called a "Christian."  Just like Jews have a word for someone who accepts the teachings of Muhammad--it's called a "Muslim."
I'll put it to you like this.  A few years ago, I had a course on the History of Judaism that was taught by the rabbi in this area.  The rabbi said that the term "Jews for Jesus" is similar to Christians who convert to Islam and now call themselves "Christians for Muhammad;" or during the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant Reformers calling themselves "Catholic for no pope."  Do you get what I mean?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: HerrKaiser on February 21, 2008, 04:29:24 PM
yes, I do follow you Cody, but it does seem like we are playing semantics in the semitic thread! :)

Jews for Jesus are still Jews, but christians on top of it. Two labels work here.

Christians for no pope were called Lutherans. One label.

Christians who convert to Islam are simply no longer Christians. they are muslims. One label.

hope this helps!  :)

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 21, 2008, 06:54:01 PM
Regarding the jobs that Jews were allowed to have in Europe for centuries, I'd like to add that it wasn't only money lending, which in fact was practiced by some.  The vast majority of Jews took different trades to survive.  Some were indeed traders, buying and selling merchandise, but some were also goldsmiths, jewelers, carpenters, blacksmiths and so on.  Rabbi Eliezer aka "Baal Shem Tov", the founder of the Hasidim, was himself a shoe maker and was very poor.

Also, most of the time and in most countries Jews weren't allowed to own land, so that also put severe limits to what they could do.

One last comment as the Jews being seen as rich.  Clearly some of them were if not rich, better off but that still was relative. 

You see, on top of paying regular taxes to the city, the duchy or the kingdom or all of them, there were special taxes that Jews had to pay.  Sometimes they had to pay a fee to go in and out of the Jewish section of town, or ghetto. 

Periodically, the government or the Church or both would stage some incident that involved Jews; riots against them followed with loss of life and property.  Then, the Jews would be forced to gather in a synagogue or other place while the authorities searched the houses for you-name-it.  This was just blackmail to take money away from them.  Some communities didn't have the amounts of money that were required of them, and they were kicked out, their property confiscated and again, with loss of life, raped women and children, etc.

So it wasn't that the Jews in general were rich, as a matter of fact the vast majority lived in extreme poverty, even by the day's standards.  And sure enough, there were some that were rich and a few made it to be the "court Jew".  Shafirov I think was one of those, converted to Orthodoxy and founded the secret police in the time of Tsar Peter I (please correct me if I'm wrong).

It is amazing how this has affected the lives of some of us, even today. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 21, 2008, 07:08:51 PM
interesting, never heard of 'renegade Jews'. But, also keep in mind that part of their being 'renegade' was their adoption of atheism. The communist movement was atheistic and the Jews involved were defiinitely so.

When the Kibbutzes were originally begun in palestine during the mid 19th century, they were almost exclusively russian jews were were ethnic jews but atheists and communists. This was also the start of Zionism.

going back to NII's anti semitism, it was not his unrealistic fear or dislike for judaism or Jewish people (any more than the many ethnic groups that made up his empire), rather the concern for the danger the communist/zionist movement posed to the peace and solidarity of his empire.

No, Nicholas didn't like Jews qua Jews. He was shocked by the fact that his wife's uncle received them socially at the English court. I doubt he was any more rabidly anti-semitic than usual, but it is cutting Nicholas II too much slack to assume that his dislike was purely political. Furthermore, and I realize that others have a higher opinion of his native intelligence than I, I truly doubt that he was capable of the kind of subtle distinction you imply in regard to Jews and Zionists. In fact, the Jews --- ALL Jews --- were treated far worse under Tsarist rule than, say, Moslems.

He had many good qualities, but freedom from prejudice in this regard was not one of them.

I was not making assumptions that his attitudes were purely political. It is generally considered that most prejudice is irrational and emotional; I was pointing out reasons why he would have had concerns about the political nature of mid 19th century revolutions and the ongoing concern to his power. And as such, would have to disagree that he was incapable of distinguishing between the political threats and emotional ones.

Were moslem groups or other ethnic/religious groups in Russia during his reign organizing reactionary political inititatives? I'm not aware, but could be. Let us know! thanks!
I think that if that happened, it might have been for territorial and then political situations.  Muslims lived generally in Asia and were not as exposed to Western thought as others, such as the Jews living in the Pale.  Jews spoke several European languages and might have had access to the works of Voltaire and others, as well as the works by anarchists and nihilists in the 19th century.  I don't think that Muslims had access to any of this.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 21, 2008, 09:38:24 PM
I believe that the tsar had Muslim subjects as well as Jews and Christians and Russian Orthodox.

The Black Sea area in the Crimea had Muslims living there.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 22, 2008, 02:02:14 PM
Does anybody out there know what was the attitude of the Emperor in particular, and the Empire in general, to the non-Jewish minorities?  My guess is that Muslims, not being Christians, might have had a hard time as well.  After all, many if not all Russian Orthodox churches have a cross on top with a crescent moon below, symbolizing the victory of Christendom over Islam.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 22, 2008, 03:40:59 PM
Mexjames - that is a very good and interesting question!

I am going to have to do some research.  I know that when the tsar and his family stayed in the Crimea, there is mention of the ethnic costumes and traditions of his subjects there.  However, I don't believe that there were ever pogroms against any other ethnicity than the Jews.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 22, 2008, 03:50:02 PM
I don't believe that there were ever pogroms against any other ethnicity than the Jews.

I don't think so either. I also remember reading somewhere (unfortunately can't remember where) that Nicholas and family liked his muslim subjects from the Crimea, etc. very much and used to receive them often and exchange gifts, etc...
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cody on February 22, 2008, 08:00:32 PM
Does anybody out there know what was the attitude of the Emperor in particular, and the Empire in general, to the non-Jewish minorities?  My guess is that Muslims, not being Christians, might have had a hard time as well.  After all, many if not all Russian Orthodox churches have a cross on top with a crescent moon below, symbolizing the victory of Christendom over Islam.

From a historical point of view, Christians have been less tolerate to Muslims, than it has been the other way around.  However, I do believe that Nicholas II had respect for his Tatar subjects, which I think may have been Muslim. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 22, 2008, 09:35:02 PM
Russia's Muslims have historically lived in two broad geographical areas of the country. One part lives in the Volga river basin, and is made up of Tatars, Bashkir and Chuvash peoples. They have been part of the Russian state since the 16th century, and their autonomous regions and republics lie in the heart of the Russian Federation. They are Russian citizens and have been an integral and inseparable part of the state -- be it the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union.

The second large Muslim population lives in the region between the Black and the Caspian Seas, in the Caucasus area. These populations were finally incorporated into the state much later, in the 19th century, and small-scale resistance to state rule existed all the way up to 1991. This resistance quickly escalated into full-scale war as the Republic of Chechnya sought to break away from the Russian state as an independent Islamic republic.


From PINR      http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=222&language_id=1
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 22, 2008, 09:41:19 PM
The formation of the Mongolian Empire, and then the Golden Horde, did not change the position of Islam in the Volga Region. According to the 'Yassa' (code of laws) of ghengis khan, all religions were admitted as equal, exempted from taxes, and oppression of any existing church and the clergy was considered as a crime subject to punishment. Therefore both Islam and Christianity developed freely in the Golden Horde era. Even when, in the year 1312, Uzbek Khan has declared Islam as the state religion, it did not touch the Russian Princedoms that remained Orthodox. As we see, already in the Middle Ages, tolerance was implanted in the culture of the Tatars and it found continuity in the next centuries.

The epoch of Baptising Kazan Territory in the 16th-17th centuries was the most difficult period in the history of Tatars. It was accompanied by continuous revolts of the Muslim population until Katherine II issued in 1773 the "decree on tolerance of all confessions"... The rights of Muslims were recognised officially and since that moment the revival of Islam and all Tatar culture began.

The development of Islam in the Volga-Ural region has reached a bloom in the 19th and the beginning of 20th centuries. Mosques were constructed, and religious and secular literature were issued in huge quantities, education became practically full, vigorous activity of the Tatar businessmen made it possible to sponsor many public structures. Due to the development of a network of medreses, there appeared a number of advanced centres of Islamic learning in Kazan, Ufa, Orenburg, and other cities of Russia which offered reformatory ideas.



Address delivered by His Excellency Mintimer Shaimiev, President of the Republic Tatarstan, at the opening session of the international symposium on "Islamic Civilisation in Volga-Ural Region", 8 June 2001
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Alixz on February 22, 2008, 09:55:07 PM
MOSQUE

    Against the background of Petersburg's austere architecture the oriental building crowned with a turquoise-blue cupola and accented by two elegant minarets stands out. It is the Mosque that is nowadays the only functioning Muslim temple in the city.
   The Mosque was founded shortly before the World War I, in 1910, and was meant to commemorate the 25-th anniversary of the rule of Abdul Ahat Khan, Emir of Bukhara (Turkistan). The Muslim community, one of the largest religious communities of Saint Petersburg, asked the authorities the permission to build a temple since 1880, but the permission was given only on 1906. The place for the future building was chosen close to the Peter and Paul Fortress. Although there were many opponents of the construction of the Moslem Mosque in the very center of Saint Petersburg, in 1907 Nicholas II authorized the sale of land. The announced architectural contest was won by architects Krichinsky, Vasiliev and Gogen.
   The project of Petersburg's Mosque was inspired by the most famous monuments of Central Asian Muslim architecture. Thus, the cupola of the Mosque greatly reminds of the 15th century Gur Emir Mausoleum of Samarqand. The walls were faced with dark-grey granite that attaches monumentality to the construction and makes the building look more natural in the austere architectural ensemble of the Northern Capital. The dome and two minarets of the mosque were decorated with multi-colored tiles and the facade was adorned with sayings from the Koran.
   The traditions of Muslim architecture were strictly followed not only in the exterior but also in the interior decor. The columns supporting the arches under the dome were faced with green marble. In the center of the hall hangs a giant chandelier, covered with sayings from Koran. The semi-spherical niche in the wall, calling the mihrab, is faced with blue ceramics. The mihrab's location is oriented to the sacred Moslem city of Mecca. According to Islam regulation there is no depiction of living creature, but a plenty of ornamental patterns lavishly covering the walls.
   In 1913, to honor the 300th anniversary of Russia's ruling Romanov family, the first Mohammedan prayer was said in the Mosque and the solemn opening of the first Muslim temple of the Northern capital was held. That doesn't mean that the construction works had been completed by that time. The finishing works of the interior and exterior decor lasted for 7 years more and the regular public worships were started in 1920. In 1940 Soviet authorities banned services and turned the building into a medical equipment storehouse. In 1956 the Mosque was returned to the Muslim Religious Society.
   Nowadays the recently restored Mosque of Saint Petersburg is one of the largest in Europe - on Muslim holy days about 5,000 worshippers gather there to pray and praise Allah. The Mosque is the only functioning Moslem temple, as well as a leading educational and cultural center of Saint Petersburg.


http://www.saint-petersburg-hotels.com/mosque.htm
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on February 24, 2008, 08:13:10 PM
Many thanks for all the above, very interesting!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cantor Tany on June 09, 2008, 05:12:21 PM
As a new member I totally enjoy everything on this forum and thank everyone for their wonderful comments.  I am a Jewish Cantor.  My very dear friend is from Moscow and heads the Moscow Jewish Capella Choir.  They have sung all over the world and are reknown for introducing Jewish Music that was confiscated after the revolution by the "government "  All of this music was put into hiding in Moscow, and when Gorbachov became the new head of Russia the music was found and released to my dear friend and now the choir is brining it back to life, and this has started my interest in Russian history and has led speciafcally to Nicholas II.

I guess what does this have to do with anti-semitism.  Naturally the subject is quite imposing on my interest in Nicholas and Alexandra, and especially as a Cantor in the Jewish Faith I am trying to find other things about them that I can handle.  I think you can see my dilema with this, but I have purchased numerous books on this family and come across occasional ani-semetic actions by the czar, but I am looking at the ENTIRE life of these individuals and hoping to come to some resolution in my own mind.  Does this make any sense????

Thanks again for such a wonderful site.

Tany
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 09, 2008, 06:01:04 PM
As a new member I totally enjoy everything on this forum and thank everyone for their wonderful comments.  I am a Jewish Cantor.  My very dear friend is from Moscow and heads the Moscow Jewish Capella Choir.  They have sung all over the world and are reknown for introducing Jewish Music that was confiscated after the revolution by the "government "  All of this music was put into hiding in Moscow, and when Gorbachov became the new head of Russia the music was found and released to my dear friend and now the choir is brining it back to life, and this has started my interest in Russian history and has led speciafcally to Nicholas II.

I guess what does this have to do with anti-semitism.  Naturally the subject is quite imposing on my interest in Nicholas and Alexandra, and especially as a Cantor in the Jewish Faith I am trying to find other things about them that I can handle.  I think you can see my dilema with this, but I have purchased numerous books on this family and come across occasional ani-semetic actions by the czar, but I am looking at the ENTIRE life of these individuals and hoping to come to some resolution in my own mind.  Does this make any sense????

Thanks again for such a wonderful site.

Tany

Dear Cantor Tany:

What you say makes perfect sense. It is difficult for many people to understand how pervasive anti-Semitism was in Europe - and also in Russia - prior to WWII. (And perhaps how pervasive it is becoming once again in countries such as France). 

I think that Nicholas' attitudes changed over time. He was certainly raised to be an anti-Semite. But, I think he was intelligent enough and sensitive enough that I think he must have questioned these views when they did not match his direct experiences with Jewish people, which seemed to be very positive. We do know that his last argument with his brother in law, Alexander Mikhailovich, was over Nicholas' plans to repeal anti-Jewish laws within the Russian Empire, a move Sandro opposed.

Now this alone doesn't mean he didn't continue to be anti-Semitic, but I think it does mean that at a certain point in his life, he became open to the possibility of change. I quite agree with you, by the way, that we need to look at the whole person, good and bad, and not just his attitude about Jewish people, the latter of which I think most of us find unfortunate, if not bigoted.

And, I am pleased so say that some of our most articulate members here, including some of us who help run the Forum, are also Jewish and also struggle with many of the same issues you outline. (Oh, and I hope it is correct to address you as Cantor Tany. If it is not, I hope I will be forgiven my ignorance.)

Lisa
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cantor Tany on June 09, 2008, 06:41:40 PM
Lisa thank you so very much for your words regarding my posting.  ( I have photographs of Nicholas II which I have purchased over the years and for some reason have been " afraid " to hang them up do to the Romanovs history of anti-semitism.  Note I said Romanovs and not Nicholas (lol)  It is like going into a Jewish home and hanging up a picture of H----r.  It is so very interesting to see that there are indeed a number of Jewish people in this forum.  It definitely makes me feel more comfortable.

Again thank you for your comments, and yes my parents nick named me " TANY " for Nathaniel and I am a Cantor. :)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 09, 2008, 08:41:42 PM
Cohan Tany

Welcome to our forum.  I agree with you about the difficulty about accepting the anti Jewish practices of the Imperial Regime yet acknowledging Nicholas II as a good man.  My own Grandfather, born in Warsaw in1884 used to say, in words of "Fiddler" "May G-d bless theTsar and keep him, far away from us."

I quote to you a passage from Spiridovitch, close to Nicholas as chief of the Personal Secret Police to HM the Emperor.  He refers to Prince Metschersky, a second father to Nicholas II, this is about his last audience with Nicholas II before the Prince died:

"You don't know, my friend, how difficult it was to speak to the Emperor…Even thinking about that reception is painful for me...I spoke about the Jewish question. The Emperor listened to me without interrupting me and with great attention.  From time to time, in his kind face, I saw the shadow of displeasure.  I did everything I could to force him to respond to me.  But he kept silent.  Knowing well his intelligence, the fineness of his spirit, I was wounded that he did not want to face the evidence.  When I had finished with the Jewish question, the Emperor thought for several minutes, looked me fixed in the eyes and slowly smiled as if he wanted to soften his response, said to me: 'Excuse me, my old friend, but I am not in agreement with you.  I thank you very much for the advice which you have given me and which has been dictated by your devotion to me, by the love for our Mother Russia, but…you know that it is often that I do not wish to follow your advice.  I must take into consideration many other circumstances which you do not know about, which escape your attention…My responsibility towards Russia is so great that I do not have the right to consider a question of such great importance to the State on just one side alone, although I should find it personally desireable. You do not know all of these circumstances which I do, which I do not have the right to ignore, and which, quite to the contrary, I must take into consideration…"
   
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on June 12, 2008, 06:25:01 PM
As a new member I totally enjoy everything on this forum and thank everyone for their wonderful comments.  I am a Jewish Cantor.  My very dear friend is from Moscow and heads the Moscow Jewish Capella Choir.  They have sung all over the world and are reknown for introducing Jewish Music that was confiscated after the revolution by the "government "  All of this music was put into hiding in Moscow, and when Gorbachov became the new head of Russia the music was found and released to my dear friend and now the choir is brining it back to life, and this has started my interest in Russian history and has led speciafcally to Nicholas II.

I guess what does this have to do with anti-semitism.  Naturally the subject is quite imposing on my interest in Nicholas and Alexandra, and especially as a Cantor in the Jewish Faith I am trying to find other things about them that I can handle.  I think you can see my dilema with this, but I have purchased numerous books on this family and come across occasional ani-semetic actions by the czar, but I am looking at the ENTIRE life of these individuals and hoping to come to some resolution in my own mind.  Does this make any sense????

Thanks again for such a wonderful site.

Tany

Dear Cantor Tany:

What you say makes perfect sense. It is difficult for many people to understand how pervasive anti-Semitism was in Europe - and also in Russia - prior to WWII. (And perhaps how pervasive it is becoming once again in countries such as France). 

I think that Nicholas' attitudes changed over time. He was certainly raised to be an anti-Semite. But, I think he was intelligent enough and sensitive enough that I think he must have questioned these views when they did not match his direct experiences with Jewish people, which seemed to be very positive. We do know that his last argument with his brother in law, Alexander Mikhailovich, was over Nicholas' plans to repeal anti-Jewish laws within the Russian Empire, a move Sandro opposed.

Now this alone doesn't mean he didn't continue to be anti-Semitic, but I think it does mean that at a certain point in his life, he became open to the possibility of change. I quite agree with you, by the way, that we need to look at the whole person, good and bad, and not just his attitude about Jewish people, the latter of which I think most of us find unfortunate, if not bigoted.

And, I am pleased so say that some of our most articulate members here, including some of us who help run the Forum, are also Jewish and also struggle with many of the same issues you outline. (Oh, and I hope it is correct to address you as Cantor Tany. If it is not, I hope I will be forgiven my ignorance.)

Lisa

Just out of curiosity, Lisa, what were those positive experiences of the Emperor and the Jews you mention above?  Are any documented, even on an anecdotal basis?

I'm asking this because my grandparents came from there, and they didn't have any good memories of their time in the Empire or the Soviet Union.  I know their parents had a hard time as well.

Also, I don't know if the Emperor might have been forced to change his mind about the Jews, as the famous (at the time) Bayliss affair put some international pressure on the Empire.  That wasn't the first time, I read that the House of Rotschild wouldn't issue Russian bonds unless actions were taken to ease the lives of the Jews in the Empire, mostly by eliminating pogroms.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 12, 2008, 06:50:55 PM
Mexjames.

I suggest you read this entire thread first. then search Nicholas and Jews....there are many documented instances, including the Bayliss affair. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 12, 2008, 08:50:32 PM
As a new member I totally enjoy everything on this forum and thank everyone for their wonderful comments.  I am a Jewish Cantor.  My very dear friend is from Moscow and heads the Moscow Jewish Capella Choir.  They have sung all over the world and are reknown for introducing Jewish Music that was confiscated after the revolution by the "government "  All of this music was put into hiding in Moscow, and when Gorbachov became the new head of Russia the music was found and released to my dear friend and now the choir is brining it back to life, and this has started my interest in Russian history and has led speciafcally to Nicholas II.

I guess what does this have to do with anti-semitism.  Naturally the subject is quite imposing on my interest in Nicholas and Alexandra, and especially as a Cantor in the Jewish Faith I am trying to find other things about them that I can handle.  I think you can see my dilema with this, but I have purchased numerous books on this family and come across occasional ani-semetic actions by the czar, but I am looking at the ENTIRE life of these individuals and hoping to come to some resolution in my own mind.  Does this make any sense????

Thanks again for such a wonderful site.

Tany

Dear Cantor Tany:

What you say makes perfect sense. It is difficult for many people to understand how pervasive anti-Semitism was in Europe - and also in Russia - prior to WWII. (And perhaps how pervasive it is becoming once again in countries such as France). 

I think that Nicholas' attitudes changed over time. He was certainly raised to be an anti-Semite. But, I think he was intelligent enough and sensitive enough that I think he must have questioned these views when they did not match his direct experiences with Jewish people, which seemed to be very positive. We do know that his last argument with his brother in law, Alexander Mikhailovich, was over Nicholas' plans to repeal anti-Jewish laws within the Russian Empire, a move Sandro opposed.

Now this alone doesn't mean he didn't continue to be anti-Semitic, but I think it does mean that at a certain point in his life, he became open to the possibility of change. I quite agree with you, by the way, that we need to look at the whole person, good and bad, and not just his attitude about Jewish people, the latter of which I think most of us find unfortunate, if not bigoted.

And, I am pleased so say that some of our most articulate members here, including some of us who help run the Forum, are also Jewish and also struggle with many of the same issues you outline. (Oh, and I hope it is correct to address you as Cantor Tany. If it is not, I hope I will be forgiven my ignorance.)

Lisa

Just out of curiosity, Lisa, what were those positive experiences of the Emperor and the Jews you mention above?  Are any documented, even on an anecdotal basis?

I'm asking this because my grandparents came from there, and they didn't have any good memories of their time in the Empire or the Soviet Union.  I know their parents had a hard time as well.

Also, I don't know if the Emperor might have been forced to change his mind about the Jews, as the famous (at the time) Bayliss affair put some international pressure on the Empire.  That wasn't the first time, I read that the House of Rotschild wouldn't issue Russian bonds unless actions were taken to ease the lives of the Jews in the Empire, mostly by eliminating pogroms.

If you can't find the information by reading through the links provided in this thread and elsewhere, go ahead and start a new topic on that particular question. The short answer is, yes, there were documented cases of the Emperor having positive experiences with Jewish people.

I never said, nor is it my belief, that Jewish people living in Imperial Russia had a great time of it and were not subject to unreasonable prejudice. Clearly, the experiences of your family were sadly not unique. But, that does not mean that the Emperor was not willing to consider change, either by recognizing the correct action himself or perhaps as you suggest for pragmatic reasons.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on June 13, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Many thanks for your answer!

I'll do my homework.

I don't have like Cantor Tany a private collection of IF pictures, but when my cell phone rings it plays "God Save the Tsar", and its alarms go off playing the  "Preobrazhensky March".  The National Anthem caught the attention of a Russian emigré, he thought it was part of Tchaikovsky's 1812 and he was right, but I explained what that part was, he didn't know.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 15, 2008, 03:42:35 PM
Thousands of Jews were beaten to death in public with Nicholas' open support throughout his 23-year reign.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 15, 2008, 10:19:56 PM
Harvey,  this statement is not accurate. Please do your research. While the pogroms were supported by local officals, Nicholas was not "openly" supportive, in fact the opposite, he was openly AGAINST them.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 16, 2008, 02:49:50 PM
The virulently anti-semitic Nicholas openly supported the murder of the Jews, and his own words and letters show.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
Harvey,

I must insist that you bring the specific letters and words to support your contention that Nicholas II was "virulently" anti-semitic, and secondly "openly supported the murder of Jews."
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 16, 2008, 03:48:37 PM
It's all recorded in "The Murder of the Romanovs" and plenty of other books. It's no wonder that King George V wanted nothing to do with his cousin in 1917.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 03:52:10 PM
Thats not good enough Harvey. I must insist you bring the specific words and letters here to support such an blind and broad statement. While I wait:

Here is Spiridovitch's take on Nicholas, from his memoir:
There was an opinion widely repeated in which the Emperor had detested the Jews.  That is incorrect.  As he was a Russian, and a man well versed in political and social history, the Emperor would not love the Jews, however he never once displayed the slightest hatred toward them.  He always showed himself to be as equally fair in regards to them as he was to many other groups.
     Those who created the anti-Jewish policies were acting in accordance with their own personal beliefs, and were hiding behind the Emperor and were trying to make him the scapegoat for them.  All of that was for nothing."


Also, several soldiers of the Orchestra of Nicholas' own Praeobrazhenskaya Regiment were Jews, there was a huge row when Dombadze tried to have them expelled from Yalta during one of Nicholas's stays at Livadia. The Tsar was most angry.


Plevhe was involved in the Kishnev pogrom of 1903.  April 6, 1903, the first day of Orthodox Easter, rumors spread in Kishnev that a ritual killing took place in nearby town of Dubossary by Jews during passover, and that in Kishnev itself a jewish doctor had tried to get blood for a passover ritual from a young servant girl.  The pogrom broke out just before noon that day.

Fontanka 16, pg. 233:
"By mid afternoon the governor R.S. von Raaben, issued orders to the police and military and by evening they had largely suppressed the pogrom.
     Groups opposed to the government laid the blame for the Kishnev pogrom on the authorities and in particular on the minister of the interior.

pg 234 "...Documents show that Plevhe, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the Tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impose measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram." [document in GARF 601/1/1046 sheet 2]
    Following the pacification of the outbreak, Plehve secured the Tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishnev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trances of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.  The Gendarme officers seemed duplicitous. ... the minister [Plehve] frankly condemned the police in a report to Nicholas II."
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:03:24 PM
After the celebrated Beyliss trial, which  ended with a verdict which, while recognizing the ritual character of the murder, nevertheless acquitted Beyliss; the Tsar, informed of the verdict (he was then still at Yalta) said to someone in his entourage who later repeated his words to me:
     "It is certain that this had been a ritual murder.  However I am happy that Beyliss was acquitted, as he is innocent." (Spiridovitch)

Spiridovitch re Dombadzye: Deprived of any instruction, however he was intelligent, cunning and positive and wily, he knew how to  monopolize his bosses and profit from their weaknesses.  He pretended to encourage and flatter not only his superiors, but also those near to them, including their wives.
     The population suffered greatly under Gvozdyevitch's machinations, but could do nothing against him because he had protectors everywhere.  Each new governor began his administration by announcing loudly that he intended to "chase out this scoundrel", but after just a little while Gvozdyevitch had become necessary and indispensible to the man, an invariable Michael Ivanovitch.  And so the arbitrary policeman continued both in Yalta and its suburbs to enrich himself here and there with new "plots" of land and new "little houses" which he had acquired under advantageous circumstances, so much so that having started out life as an errand-boy, he had become one of the richest landowners in the region.
     It was Gvozdyevitch who maneuvered General Dombadze, and Dombadze let himself be maneuvered completely, despite his pretensions of independence.
The socialists and the Jews were the principal elements against whom the police fought in Yalta.  However if, in regard to the socialists, the police were impartial and disinterested, so much more so as the police force watched them, it was not at all the same with regard to their attitude toward the Jews who could reconcile themselves with the policemen by knowing the right moment when to be "generous".
     It goes without saying that Gen. Dombadze was completely outside of these prevailing forces, and that he was not the least part touched by them, and was unaware of them deliberately.  He served only in his office and left his subordinates to serve in his name and to invoke his authority.  Every poor Jew, who did not have a right to domicile was immediately apprehended, rousted and expelled without any further legal process; while hundreds of other people, also without the right to domicile were not disturbed, because they had made their own private arrangements with the police.
     During Gen. Dyedyuline's stay in the Crimea, Gen. Dombadze made such a display of feelings of devotion for the Emperor and of such hatred for the revolutionaries that the commandant of the Palace was literally seduced and conquered by him. ...Pushed by Gvozdyevitch, Dombadze at that time created a major storm of trouble about several Jewish musicians, soldiers in the Praeobrazhenskaya Regiment, who were part of the military orchestra hired by the administration to play in the public garden in Yalta. He demanded their expulsion from Yalta, pretending that they could not be sure about their political views.  This was of course a manifest absurdity.  This "story" created an unbelievable row.  Dombadze was even more proud than ever before and walked through town with the air of triumph. Judge for yourself: he was not even afraid to expel soldiers from the Praeobrazhenskaya Regiment from Yalta!! When they learned about this story in the higher circles, one was contented to smile as Dombadze was treated as the source.  And, the source was strongly brought to account for the affair as his involvement in the affairs was a means of pleasure for him, and he wore that pleasure publicly."
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 16, 2008, 04:05:46 PM
I'll find some quotations from the book, such as when he wrote, "There are too many Yids already". The anti-semitic policies of Nicholas II were far worse than anything that happened under Alexander III.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:15:25 PM
also Spiridovitch:
this about the Jew Bogrov's murder of Stolypin:
Count Kokovtzev told me much later that the Tsar had thanked him most warmly in Kiev for having succeeded, as he had replaced the murdered Stolypin, in preventing a pogrom, and had even embraced him, a sign of personal recognition.    (my emphasis)

The "too many Yids" comes from the denial of a Residence permit for a Jew in Yalta. So far, that doesn't seem like a smoking gun for his approval of murder of Jews...

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:16:52 PM
and my personal favorite from Spiridovitch:
On those days when they did not hunt, (at Spala) the Emperor would happily go for walks on foot.  A few days after he arrived, he left the Palace alone, and went rather far and found himself in front of a small distillery where the farmer, a Jew, made turpentine.  Having greeted the farmer, the Emperor asked him for a bottle of turpentine.
     "Impossible" the Jew said, "we do not sell retail."  The Emperor smiled, said goodbye to the farmer and went along his way.
     "What did the Emperor ask you?" the security agent following the Emperor from a distance asked when he came up to the Jew.
     "What Emperor? Where?? The Emperor??" the Jew asked, and he suddenly understood what the agent meant, and he fell to the agent's feet.
     He was scared to death, when he realized the mistake that he had made, and he expected the most terrible consequences as a result of it.
     When the Emperor was told about the state of anxiety the poor Jew was in, the Emperor was amused, and had him sent 25 rubles along with another request for a bottle of his turpentine.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 16, 2008, 04:21:26 PM
The Easter Massacre at Kishinev in 1903 was organised with the Tsar's full knowledge and support. When 50 Jews were beaten to death in the streets and 600 more tortured he congratulated his minister of war and added, "Jews ought to be taught a lesson, they have got above themselves and are taking the lead of the revolutionary movement." In the autumn of 1906 he refused a request from the Council of Ministers that the most restrictive measures against Jews be lifted. Like the Kaiser, Nicholas and his wife believed in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and said, "Everywhere one sees the directing and destroying hand of Jewry!"
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:25:26 PM
"Prologue to Revolution" by Michael Cherniavsky, 1967.which is essentially an English traslation of the official and secret meetings of the Russian Imperial Council of Ministers from July, August and early September 1915. There is much information on this subject, and others in this forgotten and valuable (historically speaking) book.

While civil rights for the Jews had been promised in 1905, nothing had been done. By 1915, the government was now forced to deal with the issue, because the Military had ordered the expulsion of all Jews from the areas under their control as "German spies". Given that the front of the war encompassed virtually all of the Pale of Settlement, it meant that the Jews would have to relocate to Russia proper. The Duma was useless, totally inept at coming to any decision. Nicholas approved of giving the Jews full civil rights and property ownership in the cities, but would not act alone, so the Ministers attempted to reach a solution by issuing a series of edicts. The discussions on the subject reveal much about the nature and origins of the anti-Semitism prevalent in Russians and I think are insightful as to Nicholas's personal beliefs and perspective.

In short, it reveals that the fundemental basis of active anti-Semitism came from two sources: the Military which actively maintained that postion and the peasant class.  Their meetings reveal that for years, the main reason for NOT granting civil rights to Jews was because the Tsar and Ministers were afraid that there was no way to grant these rights without a violent backlash from these sources. Prince N.B. Shcherbatov, 4 August, 1915:"Our attempts to reason with Headquarters have been in vain...All together and separately we have spoken and written and pleaded and complained frequently. [The Military commander] Ianushkevich thinks that national considerations and interests are not binding on him. It is his plan to maintain the army's prejudice against the Jews and to represent them as responsible for the defeats at the front. Such policy is bearing fruit, and a disposition towards pogroms is growing in the army. ... we are apparantely deprived of the possibility of kiling this evil at its roots and there remains for us to search for ways of diminishing its baleful influence on the internal policy of the Government. Even if Headquarters were to give the order to stop the outrages against the Jews, the evil has spread so deeply that one could not manage the situation."

They also recognize that for years, the local police and authorities had been ignoring government orders to stop persecuting Jews, and were taking matters into their own hands and lying to their superiors about their anti-Semitic actions, or blaming others. That situation was becoming worse by 1915. Their fears from the past ten years were coming true.  On August 25 1915 there was a proposal to the Duma which included "The complete and definitive termination of all persecutions for religious beliefs, on no matter what pretexts and the abrogation of all circulars designed to limit or distort the meaning of the Decree of April 19, 1905." It is interesting to note that the Council was equally concerned with the Baptists and Catholics and Poles as the Jews on this issue. That proposal died in the Duma.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:29:29 PM
The Easter Massacre at Kishinev in 1903 was organised with the Tsar's full knowledge and support. When 50 Jews were beaten to death in the streets and 600 more tortured he congratulated his minister of war and added, "Jews ought to be taught a lesson, they have got above themselves and are taking the lead of the revolutionary movement." In the autumn of 1906 he refused a request from the Council of Ministers that the most restrictive measures against Jews be lifted. Like the Kaiser, Nicholas and his wife believed in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and said, "Everywhere one sees the directing and destroying hand of Jewry!"

This statement is incorrect. Nicholas never made such statements, please provide your original source documentation to support your claim that he actually said these words.  Just because one book may "say so" doesn't mean he really did.
 Please see Fontanka 16, which contains the GARF files on the subject.
Plevhe was involved in the Kishnev pogrom of 1903.  April 6, 1903, the first day of Orthodox Easter, rumors spread in Kishnev that a ritual killing took place in nearby town of Dubossary by Jews during passover, and that in Kishnev itself a jewish doctor had tried to get blood for a passover ritual from a young servant girl.  The pogrom broke out just before noon that day.

Fontanka 16, pg. 233:
"By mid afternoon the governor R.S. von Raaben, issued orders to the police and military and by evening they had largely suppressed the pogrom.
     Groups opposed to the government laid the blame for the Kishnev pogrom on the authorities and in particular on the minister of the interior.

pg 234 "...Documents show that Plevhe, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the Tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impose measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram." [document in GARF 601/1/1046 sheet 2]
    Following the pacification of the outbreak, Plehve secured the Tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishnev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trances of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.  The Gendarme officers seemed duplicitous. ... the minister [Plehve] frankly condemned the police in a report to Nicholas II."
  emphasis mine.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2008, 04:41:11 PM
Harvey,

As a newbie, I will assume you don't understand our Forum rules.  "blanket" suppositions such as you make are not allowed when specific historical source material has been requested to support them. I have removed your last inappropriate post as it violates our rules.  Please keep your discussion to specific supported statements.  I will not permit you to continue in current manner as it violates our policy and rules.  Please conform or refrain.

This is a place of valid historical discussion, not unsupported blanket condemnation of anyone without the real history to support it.
You are coming new to a discussion that has been gone over several times, for some 50 plus pages of discussion over several threads. I urge you again to use SEARCH function and do some reading first before shooting your mouth off about an issue you don't seem to understand as fully as long time users.

thanks for your cooperation.

FA
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 17, 2008, 07:53:19 AM
His support and membership of the Union of the Russian People and the Black Hundreds is yet further evidence of Nicholas' active support for the extreme violence levelled against Jews and students in his name.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 17, 2008, 08:24:29 AM
That statement makes no logical sense.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 17, 2008, 08:45:14 AM
I'm sorry "Harvey" but I will not permit unsupported statements lacking their source documentation in this thread. I have deleted the last one, and will delete any and all further such unsupported allegations without further notice.

You're not the first one who tries to come in here and ramrod an  unsupported agenda down the throats of readers, I've seen your kind come and always go for years now.

You're warned. Play by the rules or be banned.  I don't have time or patience left to deal with your sort.

FA
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 17, 2008, 08:57:10 AM
Oh sorry, I didn't realize this is a fascist site. For your information all of that deleted post is documeneted in "The Fate of the Romanovs". One of the reasons King Edward VII had to cancel his visit to Russia in 1906 was because his people knew what was happening to students, Jews and the workers under the direct authority of the Tsar. I am sure that had Edward lived he too would have denied the family asylum in Britain, because as a constitutional monarch he could not be seen to condone the excesses of an authoritarian regime.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 17, 2008, 09:12:13 AM
This is NOT A "FASCIST" SITE.  Quite the opposite.  We ask ONLY that you support allegations with the facts and source documentation.  FOTR is a secondary source.  Some of which has been found to be inaccurate. For example, the opening of the GARF Okhrana files has proved that Nicholas II nor his Ministers in fact did NOT "pre plan" nor finance the 1903 Kishniev pogrom. It didn't happen.

 Please go to the original source material and support your allegations. Period.  There is  nothing fascist in demanding that you put your money where your mouth is.  We simply have an obligation to the thousands of students ranging from primary school to university post-graduate who use our site for their research to keep the information here accurate.

Since YOU brought it up, the AUTHOR of FOTR herself, Penny Wilson, participated in this same discussion, and had you bothered to get off your lazy bum and use the "search" feature I have asked you to use twice before, you would KNOW that the author's themselves don't believe your conclusions to mean what you think they do.  Penny, rightly I think, does believe that Nicholas was Anti-Semitic in that he had a prejudice against them as a racially non-Russian ethnic group, as he did many others.  However, there is ZERO evidence to support the claim that he aided, abetted, approved, planned or wished the murder of ANY of his subjects as a group, Jews or others.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 17, 2008, 12:56:45 PM
Oh sorry, I didn't realize this is a fascist site. For your information all of that deleted post is documeneted in "The Fate of the Romanovs". One of the reasons King Edward VII had to cancel his visit to Russia in 1906 was because his people knew what was happening to students, Jews and the workers under the direct authority of the Tsar. I am sure that had Edward lived he too would have denied the family asylum in Britain, because as a constitutional monarch he could not be seen to condone the excesses of an authoritarian regime.

And, I will not stand for your name calling, especially with Rob. I find your language and demeanor offensive. Any repeats and I will go straight to the owner of the site about your offensive conduct.

You are certainly entitled to voice an opinion as long as you are careful to draw a distinction between what is your opinion and what is fact.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Michael HR on June 17, 2008, 02:01:12 PM
I think I shall duck for cover....


: )
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 17, 2008, 02:09:20 PM
Why?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Mexjames on June 17, 2008, 04:16:59 PM
Harvey, during my childhood and early youth, and even five years ago, I heard all sorts of stories about the Emperor and the Empress, from people who lived in the Pale during their early years, until their mid-20s when they left what had become the Soviet Union.  Some of the stories I heard went from gruesome to unbelievable, and coming from people who lived in "shtetls" in Poland and the Ukraine, I don't think they have any credibility.

I never heard my grandparents refer to the Emperor and the Empress in a demeaning way; my grandparents didn't like them at all, though, but they never mentioned them in a disrespectful way.

Harvey, I'm trying to do some research on the conditions prevalent at the time, because my children must know their family history.  The material I needed is quoted above, and I'd like to tell you in a very respectful manner, to put quotations and cite your bibliography (if you have it).  That way you will contribute to what others like me are trying to do here.

I can also print all the stories I heard as a youth, none which is substantiated and as such, will remain in the realm of gossip.

I think that the revolution went bad for everyone, and we must respect those who died there.  The damage is done.

We Jews have managed to mend our fences, up to a point, with Germany, and I find no reason of why we shouldn't mend them with Russia too.

Nicholas II tried to do his job to the best of his abilities.  He was brought up in a way of life and under a set of circumstances that were useless when he had to cope with a new world.  I think that neither he nor his advisors were prepared to cope with a parliament, more freedom of expression, etc., and in doing what they were trained to do, earned the hate and distrust of some, paying with their lives in the process.

If the stories that are documented above are true, and there's reason to believe they are, it behooves us to revise the anti-Semitism of the Emperor, and to differentiate facts from opinions. 

The incident told above about the turpentine manufacturer speaks for itself a lot, not to mention the others.  Had the Tsar been an anti-Semite, believe me, that Jew wouldn't have gotten 25 rubles which were a fortune at the time, when I'm told, people had to save their kopecks to buy a loaf of bread for Sabbath.



Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 17, 2008, 04:24:43 PM
and for the record, Harvey, my own grandparents were subjects of Alexander III and Nicholas II and lived in the Pale.  We only want to provide a historically ACCURATE picture of Nicholas, and not one subject to the myriad of half truths, Bolshevist propoganda and outright lies which many people blindly accept as the truth.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Harvey on June 18, 2008, 06:04:16 AM
At least George V was not anti-semitic, unlike his cousins.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Michael HR on June 18, 2008, 08:08:53 AM
I think this also shows how far we have come in the last 100 years in dealing with and wiping out this problem. Things are not perfect but they are better than they were. I have never understood prejudice based on religion, race etc. It is difficult for us as we did not live in the epoch of Nicholas II and don't really know his thoughts. I did read somewhere that he was gong to change a law or laws in favour of the Jewish population but that it was the Imperial Family that objected. I might be wrong about this and cannot remember where I read it.

Perhaps I should reread my books with this subject in mind and see what I discover.

Michael HR
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 18, 2008, 08:26:38 AM
That discussion is over in the other thread, the Imperial Family and Anti-Semitism.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Michael HR on June 18, 2008, 08:58:37 AM
Sorry didn't realise

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 18, 2008, 03:53:01 PM
At least George V was not anti-semitic, unlike his cousins.

An oversimplification if there ever was one! Trying to prove someone is not prejudiced is very difficult. The impression I have from my own grandparents is that anti-Semitism was rife in Europe during this period. And, that includes Great Britain. I know of no evidence which indicates that George and Nicholas were terribly different from one another when it came to prejudice.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Cantor Tany on June 18, 2008, 05:10:46 PM
WOW I cannot believe what I have started here.  I am so glad that the forum moderators including Lisa have cleared this all up.  Thank you guys for your great input. 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Proud_Olga on June 26, 2008, 05:46:46 PM
I was always wondering if Nicholas was anti-semitic or if he didn't know about the pogroms.
Because most of people who don't like this Tsar refers to his anti-semitic behavior. Being anti-semitic was habitual in the beginnig of 20th century. Maybe he had prejudices againt them.
I remember that someone told me that the Orthodoxy Church was really anti-semitic, and I think few Romanov members were too.
So, if I well understood, actually, Nicholas never gave ordors for the pogroms , didn't he ?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 26, 2008, 05:59:44 PM
No, there is no evidence anywhere that Nicholas gave the order for any pogrom.  To the contrary, there is much evidence that Nicholas did not like the pogroms and asked his ministers and government employees to stop pogroms.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Nathalie on July 01, 2008, 03:15:55 AM
My gosh, you are trying to clean up the Tzar just like old bolsheviks do with Stalin: he didn't know about it, even if he knew, he didn't approve, but the chinovniks ordered, he was nice guy, etc..

Hey: he was the Tzar.
He had to know about it. The whole Europe knew about it.
Yet he did nothing.
Face with the facts...
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on July 01, 2008, 08:56:46 AM
Nathalie,

You are a newbie here, so I will explain to you that we HAVE presented the facts.  The FACT is that the file records clearly show that Nicholas II never ordered a single pogrom.  The FACT is that Nicholas II did not even KNOW about a single pogrom BEFORE it happened.  The FACT is that the file and documentary records show Nicholas II ordered an immediate stop to pogroms and gave medals and awards to those who stopped or prevented Pogroms ( I direct you specifically to just two examples: the murder of Stolypin, Spiridovitch "Les Dernieres Annees..." Vol 2. Ch. 4:
"P.A. Stolypin died on September 5th at 5 o'clock in the evening.
   Once the news of his death was known, the popular  centers were beginning to display a blame toward the Jews.  A pogrom was going to erupt.  Although he was orthodox, Bogrov was Jewish in origin, and that was enough to give rise to a hatred toward the Jews.  "The Jews have killed Stolypin. Kill the Jews" was heard throughout the city.  Governor Guirs and Kuliabko did everything possible to prevent a pogrom.  They both held great influence among the right wing organizations, although these same organizations say the Governor General as a partisan of Jews and had little confidence in him.
   The police patrols circulating in the streets hardly frightened the crowds.  They could only calm them and prevent vengence against the Jews for the assassination of the minister by telling them that the Emperor wished that there not be a pogrom, and that he would be greatly upset if one happened.  I witnessed this myself, as I had not left for Tchernigov, and so I was asked by Kurlov to help Kuliabkov to assist in calming the crowds and to persuade them from starting a pogrom.
   Count Kokovtzev told me much later that the Tsar had thanked him most warmly in Kiev for having succeeded, as he had replaced the murdered Stolypin, in preventing a pogrom, and had even embraced him, a sign of personal recognition."
). (emphasis added)
and 2:
Re: Kishniev Pogrom of 1903:
Plevhe was involved in the Kishnev pogrom of 1903.  April 6, 1903, the first day of Orthodox Easter, rumors spread in Kishnev that a ritual killing took place in nearby town of Dubossary by Jews during passover, and that in Kishnev itself a jewish doctor had tried to get blood for a passover ritual from a young servant girl.  The pogrom broke out just before noon that day.

Fontanka 16, pg. 233:
"By mid afternoon the governor R.S. von Raaben, issued orders to the police and military and by evening they had largely suppressed the pogrom.
     Groups opposed to the government laid the blame for the Kishnev pogrom on the authorities and in particular on the minister of the interior.

pg 234 "...Documents show that Plevhe, having received news of the pogrom from the local authorities, undertook all measures possible under the law to restore order.  He also reported to the Tsar about his supplementary measures: "Despite the summoning of the military and the arrest of more than 60 rioters, disorders continued.  The governor requested authority to impose measures of strengthened security.  I approved the request by telegram." [document in GARF 601/1/1046 sheet 2]
    Following the pacification of the outbreak, Plehve secured the Tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishnev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trances of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks.  The Gendarme officers seemed duplicitous. ... the minister [Plehve] frankly condemned the police in a report to Nicholas II."



NOW, if you have specific and credible first hand evidence to support your allegation that Nicholas knew about or ordered even one single pogrom or did nothing to stop them, please bring it here for discussion.

Your unsupported allegations and unsubstantiated personal opinions are not permitted nor will go unchallenged.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Halinka on July 17, 2008, 12:46:47 PM
My gosh, you are trying to clean up the Tzar just like old bolsheviks do with Stalin: he didn't know about it, even if he knew, he didn't approve, but the chinovniks ordered, he was nice guy, etc..

Hey: he was the Tzar.
He had to know about it. The whole Europe knew about it.
Yet he did nothing.
Face with the facts...

Actaully alot help in country's that royals or political leaders didn't know about. For example Nicholas didn't know about bloody sunday to after the event.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on February 27, 2014, 03:14:09 PM
Paul Kulikovsky, in his Romanov News No. 70, reproduced this interesting article:

Scholar explodes ‘canonic’ American Jewish belief: Russian Czar was behind 1903 massacre
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/explodes-american-massacre.html
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on March 25, 2014, 05:57:36 PM
I have some comments,additions and answers to some of the above posts. Nicholas was somewhat anti-semtic. It would have been really odd back then if he wasn't most Russians of his era where and many where both before and after his lifetime. He sure wasn't Adolf Hitler. I should also point out racism, bigotry and anti-Semitism were common back then worldwide. There was quite a bit of anti-Semitism in western Europe note the Dreyfus affair in France.  In the US during this period a Jew was lynched and more than a few Blacks and Mexicans were either lynched or murdered. Today you can find plenty of anti-Semitism and Isreal actions and talk at the UN and elsewhere in the world.

The book "Prologe to the Revolution" Ed Michael Cherniavsky while the Council of Ministers does condemn the mistreatment of jews ect by the Russian army. They go on to talk about how the Jews control the world banking system. Note some of these people are reguarded as "Liberals".

Nationalizing the Russian Empire" by Eric Lohr which deals with the Pogroms, depotations, hostage taking property seizures of jews and others. It was done by the senior leadership of the Russian army most of whom were anti-Semitic. This includes grand Duke Nicholas N. It has Nicholas, The Council of Ministers, the Duma and civilian officials trying to restrain them.

"The Russian Revolution" Richard Pipes points out the Russian government did not encourage Pogroms it repressed them because they hated disorder more than they hated Jews since it could Victimize the landlords and officials property.

The Tolstoys" Serge Tolstoy says the same thing.

"Autocracy under Siege" John Daly on Kishinev The Govenor Von Raben war fired for failing to stop the Pogrom. Pleve also adivised the War Minister not to give him a commission. Pleve was also furious with the local security officials and sent an order to all govenors the Tsar would hold them responsible for preventing and halting violence against anyone.
(to be continued)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on March 25, 2014, 07:14:01 PM
"The Fall of the Romanovs" has Nilus book being sent to Alexandra by a friend (you might say with friends like these...)She calls it the "Protecols of the Freemasons". Does anyone know what was in this book besides the protocals of the elders of zion? If the book has anything on freemasons on it could be why Nicholas and Alexandra are reading it. The book the Febrary revolution T Hasegawa points out that there was a strong Masonic Movement that appeared in Russia after the 1905 Revolution. It included a number of leading Russian politicians including Kerensky, Prince Lvov, and even Grand Duke Nicolas M. We will probably never know what actually occurred at these evening gathering because everybody there ends up getting shot by the Bolos. This book also mentions other members of there entourage were at these gatherings including Schindler, Hendrova, Dollirokov and tatisuhev. Also if someone was reading aloud they where sometimes interrupted by someone else in the room.
The book also mentions, Nicholas saying he was in favor of religious freedom. Nicholas writing Xenia telling her all or most of the Bolo leaders were Jews, Bittner saying Nicholas blaming Jews for all Russia's problems. It also has Nicholas not being able to understand why Russia fell apart after he abdicated and why the Bolos got into power.

"Prelude to the Revolution The Murder of Rasputin" Ron Moe on the Belyiss case the security police view was they had to have a trial to prevent a Pogrom and knew he was going to be found not guilty. (I should point out that democratic goverments are not above putting on "Show trials" to calm the public ect.)
 It has Nicolas after finding out that protocals was a fabrication reportedly writing "one cannot defend a pure cause with dirty methods."
It has Dmitri Rubinstein a Jewish banker pal of Rasputin's was Alexandra's fiscal advisor, managed Grand Duke Kyrils estate worth 12 Million rubles, and advised other grand dukes on fiscal matters. Nicholas gave him the government of actual state counsilor equel to the army rank of major general.
(to be continued)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen on March 26, 2014, 08:27:22 AM
"The Fall of the Romanovs" has Nilus book being sent to Alexandra by a friend (you might say with friends like these...)
Wasn't it GD Elizaveta Feodorovna who gave it to Nicholas and Alexandra?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on March 26, 2014, 05:21:46 PM
I think Moe in his book mentions she did. it was part of a struggle for influence with Nicholas with her and Serge on one side and Grand Duke NN and his wife on the other side. One does not know weather Ella did this on her own or was doing this because Serge wanted it done.

Rasputin was friendly to Jews and often spoke out in their defense there is a book "Rasputin and the Jews". I wonder was he so hated because he was so immoral and had influence with the IF or was this because he was friendly towards Jews.
Being friendly towards jews may have been one reason or possibly the main reason why he was murdered.

I must also point out communication in the Empire was poor. Sometimes officials didn't tell Nicholas what was really going on. The best example of this is the Febrary/march 1917 revolution Nicholas was not told that Petrograd was in full revolt until it was too late.

In his letter to his Mother in a earlier reply here he says 9/10ths of the troublemakers are Jews. It could be because some lower level officials who were anti-semtic told him this. Note the book "Thou Shalt Kill" mentions about 30% of all terrorists were Jews.

What can I say Nicholas was a rather complex, sometimes confusing and confused (he couldn't understand at first why his people were in revolt against him in 1905) and contradictory man.

One must also point out that Stalin, Khruschev, Bezhenev, and Andropov were all anti-semetic
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Kalafrana on March 27, 2014, 03:19:21 AM
We should also bear in mind that it is perfectly possible to read a book without agreeing with its contents. Plenty of people of moderate political views have read Mein Kampf in order to find out what Hitler was actually thinking.

So it is possible that Ella sent Alexandra the Nilus book on the basis of, 'You'd better read this, but it will shock you.'

Ann
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Helen on March 30, 2014, 07:45:38 AM
We should also bear in mind that it is perfectly possible to read a book without agreeing with its contents. ...
So it is possible that Ella sent Alexandra the Nilus book on the basis of, 'You'd better read this, but it will shock you.'

I agree that this is a possibility. However, I'm not sure that this was the case.

I’ve seen references to Grand Duchess Elisabeth and Nilus’ book in several sources, a.o. Warrant for Genocide  by Norman Cohn  [edition published by Serif, London, 2005; first published in 1967]. Trying to trace the origins of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', Cohn quoted from a sworn 1927 affidavit by Filip Petrovich Stepanov, formerly procurator of the ecclesiastical synod of Moscow, court chamberlain and privy councilor, who claimed that he and Arkady Ippolitovich Kelepovsky anonymously printed the Protocols in Russia around 1897; Kelepovsky was said to be head of the household of Grand Duke Sergei and Grand Duchess Elisabeth at the time [Cohn, pp. 108-109]. It seems not unlikely that Grand Duke Sergei and Grand Duchess Elisabeth knew about this anonymous publication and were familiar with the contents of the Protocols well before their publication in Znamya [‘Banner’] in the Autumn of 1903 and well before their inclusion in Nilus' The Great in the Small.

Cohn also wrote that the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and Grand Duchess Elisabeth turned to Pyotr Ivanovich Rachkovsky, head of the Russian secret service in Paris, for help to get Mr. Philippe removed [Cohn , p. 92].
One plot involving Grand Duchess Elisabeth and Nilus that Cohn discusses is based on an account by Alexandre du Chayla, who knew Sergei Nilus in 1909. According to that account, an earlier book by Nilus that was basically the first edition of The Great in the Small  had “received favourable reviews in some religious and conservative newspapers in 1900 and so came to the attention of Grand Duchess Elisabeth”. According to du Chaya, Grand Duchess Elisabeth “regarded Nilus as a genuine mystic and unshakable orthodox” and set out to replace Archpriest Yanishev, whom she blamed for the state of affairs with regard to Mr. Philippe, by bringing Nilus to Tsarksoe Selo to have him trained and ordained priest, to have him married off to Yelena Alexandrovna Ozerova, one of the Empress’ ladies-in-waiting, and then to impose Nilus on the Tsar and Empress as their new confessor. [Cohn , p. 93] It sounds like a rather time-consuming and roundabout way to get someone sacked, and it didn't work, but apparently there are documents that prove that Yelena Alexandrovna Ozerova used her position as a lady-in-waiting to secure publication of the third edition of her then fiancé's book The Great in the Small  under the imprint of the Red Cross organization, whose President happened to be the Dowager Empress, and she did marry Nilus in 1906 [Cohn, pp. 94-95].

I must say that I cannot properly verify what Cohn wrote; more detailed footnotes on the above points would have been most welcome.
However, if there is truth in the above, Nilus and his spirituality and thinking seem to have been in GD Elisabeth’s good books.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2014, 01:43:26 PM
As I have said many times,  Nicholas II was brought up by a family who were raised to believe Jews were the "killers of Christ" and it was up to Nicholas and the others, as they grew older, to learn Jews were no different than anyone else.  Some were good.  Some were bad. But he didn't.  Why didn't he?    Nicholas II witnessed several horrific events.  First and foremost, he, as a child with ice skates as he had just returned home,  saw his grandfather, Alexander I, screaming with pain as he lay bleeding and torn apart from a bomb which Nickolas was told was thrown by a Jew.    There are an unknown number of attempts on his life which the Secret Police claimed were by Jews.   He watched his father holding up part of the royal train car to save his family.... The Secret Police claimed the train was blown up by Jews.  Never mind that the train wreck was probably a train traveling too fast...  There were those around him who believed the same as they had been taught, that the Jews were "killers of Christ" and, now,  they were plotting against all of the Royals...  Does this excuse Nicholas II?  No.  But I can understand how his hatred was planted in his head and how he felt he could not trust the Jews.   And,  there is no reason to deny what he felt and what he did.  He wasn't alone.  Most of his family, religious leaders, political leaders, secret police ..... (the list goes on and on) believed Jews were the enemy.  Oh, now and then,  Nicholas did meet  Jews he liked.... But they were exceptions and the pogroms continued to take place under Nicholas II's years of rule. 
AGRBear
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on June 07, 2014, 01:07:14 PM
Quote
The reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion by Nikolai II to his children comes as a real surprise to me. A shock indeed, rather like finding out that Hitler believed that a Communist Pole burnt down the Reichstag or that Polish troops fired first in 1939 and started World War II. I find it disturbing that the leader of an autocratic regime was unaware of the falsehoods of the propaganda of his own secret police. My opinion of Nikolai II dops even more.
David

This is one of the mysteries.  We know what Nicholas and Alexandra wrote in their diaries in 1918, but there is evidence from other sources that Stolypin exposed the Protocols in 1905 as a faked document created by the Tsarist secret police.  When Nicholas learned of this he repudiated the Protocols.  If that's true, why suddenly read it again many years later??

I began to read this particular thread only recently. Perhaps the information given below will clear up a few points or shed some light on the questions posed in this thread.

Such as:
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=1225.msg193272#msg193272
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=1225.msg193956#msg193956

1) Sergei Nilus’ book was not taken to Tobolsk by the Imperial family when they left Tsarskoe Selo. It was sent to them later in Tobolsk.
On March 20, 1918, Empress Alexandra wrote to A. A. Vyrubova:
“…Zina sent me her book Something Great in Something Small by Nilus…”

2) Some think that the Zina mentioned here is Zinaida Tolstaya, then in Odessa.
Mr. Alferieff, compiler of the Letters from Captivity, felt that it was the Empress’ friend, Zinaida Menshted.
Perhaps at this late date, it cannot be determined for certain who indeed sent the book to the Imperial family.

3) The Empress (and the Emperor) wrote of the Protocols as though they were primarily the work of the Freemasons. It seems that in this particular case they viewed the Jews as allies or collaborators with the Freemasons, not the instigators of the plot.

4) The Protocols form the last part of Nilus’ book. The first part has chapters on Russian religious figures.
On March 24, 1918, Empress Alexandra wrote to A. V. Syroboyarsky:
“…I am now reading that which everyone was reading 15 years ago, and which some people have now sent to me… The Protocols of the Freemasons. It used to be sold as a separate publication, but the Freemasons bought up all the copies, so now it is included in the back of Sergei Nilus’ book Something Great in Something Small, and is entitled “Antichrist as an Imminent Political Possibility” — published in 1905… The first part of the book is about Fr. John of Kronstadt, St. Seraphim of Sarov, and the Elder Ambrose of Optina — this section we will read with the children when alone in order not to make them overly sad.”

5) On the convoluted history of the origins of the Protocols, see the meticulously researched study by Cesare G. De Michelis, The Non-existent Manuscript: “A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion”, trans. Richard Newhouse (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004); and Michael Hagemeister’s recent works, such as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Between History and Fiction,” New German Critique 103, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 83-95. They demonstrate quite convincingly that — contrary to popular belief — the Protocols were not fabricated by M. Golovinsky and Peter Rachkovsky in Paris at the end of the nineteenth century, nor were they composed originally in French, nor were they created by the Okhrana or by S. Nilus himself. Rather, the Protocols were most likely composed by members of Russian right-wing political circles within Russia itself sometime in 1902 or 1903.

6) As for the Imperial family’s attitude to the Protocols in 1918, perhaps for them too, as for so many other Russians at that time, the enormous political and social upheavals then convulsing Russia may have made the Protocols seem more credible. Maybe all that the Imperial family had recently undergone caused the Tsar to reconsider his reported previous opinion of the Protocols. We will probably never know.

For an insightful analysis of the dazed and bewildered mental state of people in those very difficult days, see the Afterword of Richard Pipe’s The Russian Revolution.

PLEASE NOTE: The conjectures expressed in point 6 above are not meant to grant any credence to the Protocols themselves.

7) Concerning the whole discussion here on racism, anti-Semitism, and Tsar Nicholas II being a product of his time, see Carlo D'Este’s interesting comments on whether or not General George Patton should be considered a racist and bigot: Patton, Genius for War (Haper-Colins, New York, 1995: pp. 171-72).

 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on June 15, 2014, 04:52:23 PM
[ch1054][ch1088][ch1090][ch1080][ch1085][ch1086],

 Do you know if the use of the term 'Yid' was a pejorative in 1890's Russia or simply a slang term referring to a speaker of Yiddish? The meaning of words do change over time so one should not assume that the meaning was what it is today.

David



Disclaimer: The comments below are not meant as an attempt to “redeem” the word “zhid” or to defend the Romanovs' use of the word.
Etymology and historical usage are incapable of “rehabilitating” a word once the majority of people have come to consider it to be a pejorative epithet.

My point here is that it is imprecise and misleading to translate the Russian word “zhid” into English as “yid”. It would be best to simply transliterate the word as “zhid”, and leave it at that.

The word “yid” (from Yiddish) is a mid-nineteenth century English-language coinage. It was originally just a slang term; one which is now considered to be pejorative and derogatory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yid

The relatively modern word “yid” has never been standard usage in English, whereas the Russian word “zhid” has a long and rich lexicographical history in the Slavic languages. Both “zhid” and ‘evrei” occur in the Slavonic translations of the Bible. In medieval Russian chronicles the two words occur interchangeably. And the hero of the legend “The Wandering Jew” is known in Russian as “Vechny Zhid”, the Eternal Zhid.

The word occurs in the classics of Russian literature by such famous authors as Gogol and Dostoevsky, and it is used in St. Dmitry of Rostov’s [d. 1709] collection of the Lives of Russian Saints, published in Russian in twelve volumes from 1902 to 1911.

A. Alexandrov’s well known Complete Russian-English Dictionary (Sixth Edition, Petrograd, 1917, p. 159) has seven entries under the root ‘zhid’, (nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.), all of which are translated into English as Jew, Jewess, Jewish, Judaism, Judaize, etc. Only one entry of the seven carries a negative connotation.

This is not to deny that the word “zhid” was used pejoratively, but certainly not in every case, and not by all classes and groups. By the end of the 19th century, “progressive” circles in Russian society, especially journalists, considered use of the word unacceptable. Some Jewish scholars have even noted a politico-ideological divide here, with socialists and liberals using the word “evrei”, while nationalists, monarchists, and conservatives retained the common people’s term “zhid”.

Already during the reign of Catherine II, prominent Jews in Russia had sought to have the word banned. However, it was the Bolsheviks who officially proscribed the word — declaring it to be an “anti-Semitic and counter-revolutionary” term, and making the use thereof a criminal offense. Later, in the 1950s, the Soviets even deleted it from reprints of V. Dahl’s famous and authoritative pre-revolutionary Comprehensive Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language.

In Ukrainian, the word “zhid” was normative until the 1930s (until the 1950s in the western Ukraine), and it only took on a negative connotation under the influence of the Russian language. Even today, in Polish, Czech, Slovakian, Croatian, Hungarian and Lithuanian, the root word “zhid”, or derivatives thereof, still denotes simply a Jew.

Such well known contemporary historians of the period of late Tsarist Russia, such as Walter Laquer, Richard Pipes, Robert Nichols, Mark Steinberg, and others, have, in certain contexts, judiciously and selectively translated the word “zhid” as “Jew”, and not as “yid”.

Both Tsar Nicholas and Empress Alexandra used the words “zhid” and “evrei” interchangeably when referring to Jews. And it is interesting to note that in their private diaries they often wrote “evrei”, while writing “zhid” in letters posted from captivity which would be read by the censors, and possibly by others. (One would have expected the exact opposite: “zhid” in private, and “evrei” in public.)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 16, 2014, 09:09:47 AM
To help clarify Inok Nikolai's well thought postings, allow this Jew to add:  In Yiddish itself the word Yid means just "Jew" and nothing more.  My Dad used to often say "oh, Mr. X, he's a Yid"  and mean nothing more than he had learned an acquaintance was also Jewish.  The use of the word Yid between Jews referring to "Jew" is not at all derogatory. "Yid" comes from the Hebrew word for Jew "Yehudi".

The word "Evrei" in Russian comes from the Hebrew language word "Ivreit" (EEv-reet) which just means the Hebrew language. "Ani medeber Ivreit" "I speak Hebrew".  The Hebrew word for Jew is not "Ivreit" but "Yehudi".  So we have two different and similar words as well.The difference between "Zhid" and Evrei is nothing really more than a distinction between Jew and Hebrew.  Indeed in my Grandparents' day, Yiddish was the daily language or "Mama Loshen" (Mother Tongue) and Hebrew the language of the Torah was the "Loshen Chodesh" or Holy Language.  All Jewish men could read and understand Hebrew, but never ever used it for daily language, which was only Yiddish.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: wakas on June 16, 2014, 09:36:10 AM
So, when Olga wrote the word "Zhid" in letters to her father (cf: the Diary of Olga Romanov), it was not in a pejorative sense? It just meant "Jew"?
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on June 25, 2014, 04:58:32 PM
It’s a real pity that A. I. Solzhenitsyn’s Two-Hundred Years Together has still not been fully translated into English, although it has already appeared in other European languages.

The book’s two volumes deal with the relations between the Russians and the Jews from 1772 to 1972. As a starting point Solzhenitsyn chose the year 1772 — the first partition of Poland, when the Russian Empire gained 100,000 Jewish inhabitants.

Although the book received very mixed reviews, I found it to be an honest attempt by a serious scholar and writer to treat a very complex topic from the Russians’ point of view. Its publication in English could contribute a great deal to the ongoing discussion of this sensitive issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Hundred_Years_Together

************
Wikipedia Summary:

In the first volume, Solzhenitsyn discusses the history of Russians and the 100,000 Jews that had migrated to Russia between 1772 and the revolution of 1917. He asserts that the anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire were not government-sponsored but spontaneous acts of violence, except for some government culpability in the Pale of Settlement.
 
Solzhenitsyn says that life for Russian Jews was hard but no harder than life for Russian peasants. The second volume covers the post-revolution era up to 1970 when many Jews left Russia for Israel and other western countries. Solzhenitsyn says that, despite the presence of Jewish Leon Trotsky, the 1917 February and October Revolutions were not the work of Judaism. Solzhenitsyn says that the Jews who participated in revolution were effectively apostates splitting from the spirit of tradition. Solzhenitsyn emphatically denies that Jews were responsible for the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. At the end of chapter nine, Solzhenitsyn denounces "the superstitious faith in the historical potency of conspiracies" that leads some to blame the Russian revolutions on the Jews and to ignore the "Russian failings that determined our sad historical decline.”

Solzhenitsyn criticizes the "scandalous" weakness and "unpardonable inaction" that prevented the Russian imperial state from adequately protecting the lives and property of its Jewish subjects. But he claims that the pogroms were in almost every case organized from "below" and not by the Russian state authorities. He criticizes the "vexing," "scandalous", and "distressing" restrictions on the civil liberties of Jewish subjects during the final decades of the Russian old regime. On that score, in chapter ten of the work he expresses his admiration for the efforts of Pyotr Stolypin (Prime Minister of Russia from 1906 until 1911) to eliminate all legal disabilities against Jews in Russia.

In the spirit of his classic 1974 essay "Repentance and Self-Limitation in the Life of Nations", Solzhenitsyn calls for the Russians and Russian Jews alike to take responsibility for the "renegades" in both communities who supported a totalitarian and terrorist regime after 1917. At the end of chapter 15, he writes that Jews must answer for the "revolutionary cutthroats" in their ranks just as Russians must repent "for the pogroms, for...merciless arsonist peasants, for...crazed revolutionary soldiers." It is not, he adds, a matter of answering "before other peoples, but to oneself, to one's consciousness, and before God.”

Solzhenitsyn also takes the anti-Communist White movement to task for condoning violence against Jews and thus undermining "what would have been the chief benefit of a White victory" in the Russian Civil War: "a reasonable evolution of the Russian state.”


-- Also see the section on the book under the general heading on Solzhenitsyn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn

************

But it seems that once a few critics claimed “anti-Semitism”, it frightened off any prospective professional translators or publishers.

Solzhenitsyn himself addressed the accusation of his supposed “anti-Semitism” in his talks with David Remnik.
See:  “The Exile Returns”, The New Yorker, February 14, 1994, p. 75.

At present, the book reviews in English are by those relatively few people abroad — scholars and academicians — who are able to read Russian. It’s a rather closed club: “We will tell you about the book, but you may not read it.” But what of the general English readership? It almost seems like another form of censorship. Why not put the entire book into English and let a wide circle of serious readers decide for themselves?

Even if one disagrees with Solzhenitsyn’s conclusions, isn’t it important to be familiar with the ideas of such a famous author whose writings will influence and shape the views of many others for years to come?

And it is an especially sad irony that this reluctance to print the book in English has been interpreted as a “Jewish conspiracy” — the very sort of thing that Solzhenitsyn himself derided and scoffed at. And the several chapters that have been translated into English are to be found on neo-Nazi, pseudo-Aryan, white-supremacy web-sites!

Surely the Russians, the Jews, Solzhenitsyn, and we -- all deserve better than that!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Forum Admin on June 26, 2014, 09:11:34 AM
So, when Olga wrote the word "Zhid" in letters to her father (cf: the Diary of Olga Romanov), it was not in a pejorative sense? It just meant "Jew"?

Yes that is correct. There was no other word for her to use actually, in Russian.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: wakas on June 26, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
Thank you, FA.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on June 27, 2014, 03:31:32 PM
...The difference between "Zhid" and Evrei is nothing really more than a distinction between Jew and Hebrew...

An additional nuance which I forgot to mention above:

In Russian, “evrei” would be used when one is referring to ethnic or national group; “iudei” stresses religious affiliation.

But then, that raises the age-old question of what is “Jewishness”: nationality or faith?

And I’m not going there, because that matter is still being hotly debated among the Jews themselves! :)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on July 08, 2014, 06:09:04 PM
The book "Easter in Kishinev" by E. W. Judge is an excellent account of the Kishinev Pogrom and why it happened. It also looks at anti-Semitism in this area and why it was so extreme. In reading this book the Pogrom was mainly do to a mixture of incompetence and anti-Semitism of the local authorities not do to any orders from St Petersburg.

There is another book called "Bloodlands" by Tim Snyder which deals with Eastern Europe in the 30s and 40s and all the violence and killing that went on there including anti-Semitic violence.

In reading these two books and the book "Harvest of Sorrow" by Robert Conquest. Nicholas and the Russian government got really blasted for what happened in Kishinev by all or nearly all of the western media. Stalin who carried out the famine/genocide in Russia in the years 1930-34 did come under fire from some of the Western media. There were others who said there was no famine in Russia ect and that the others were liars. A reporter named Walter Duranty was one of the worst offenders. I hope this is of some information.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Belochka on July 08, 2014, 06:56:52 PM
The book "Easter in Kishinev" by E. W. Judge is an excellent account of the Kishinev Pogrom and why it happened. It also looks at anti-Semitism in this area and why it was so extreme. In reading this book the Pogrom was mainly do to a mixture of incompetence and anti-Semitism of the local authorities not do to any orders from St Petersburg.

Many thanks for providing this reference, which I will order later today.

Luckily I have all the other books you have listed.

Regards,

Margarita Nelipa
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on July 09, 2014, 04:46:58 PM
Glad to be of help Margarita. I thought your book on Rasputin was great.  I'll read your bio on Alexander III one day. If you have a question on historical or military matters just ask I'll see if I can help.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Inok Nikolai on September 08, 2014, 10:00:03 AM
A couple more tidbits of information pertinent to this topic:

1) According to the prominent Russian-Israeli historian, Felix Kandel, the massive and indiscriminate expulsion of the Jewish population from the theater of war instigated by Grand Duke Nicholas Nicholaevich was immediately halted as soon as Tsar Nicholas II assumed supreme command during WW I.

(Felix Kandel, Ocherki vremeni i sobytii. Iz istoria rossiiskikh evreev, Jerusalem: 1994, pp. 309-310.)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Kandel
Since 1987 Kandel initiated an ambitious project of writing a popular history of the Jews that lived on the territories comprising the Russian Empire. The resulting volumes titled, Books of Times and Events, appeared over the next 20 years in Russian and were well received by the public and the critics. All six volumes were published in Russia since 1994. Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities’ courses on Jewish History use it as reference source, and it is widely used in Jewish schools throughout the former Soviet Union.]

2) On August 4, 1915, the Council of Ministers authorized the Ministry of the Interior to grant Jews the right to live anywhere in the Russian empire “except for in the two capitals [i.e., Petrograd and Moscow] or those places located within the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Court or the Minister of War”. Tsar Nicholas II gave his approval to the measure, which, de facto, abolished the Pale of Settlement.

(Vazhneishie zakoni, ukazi, i rasporozheniia voennogo vremeni, Petrograd: 1915, vol. 2, p. 297.)
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on September 21, 2014, 11:22:16 PM
So is it fair to say he was  no longer  Anti  Semetic  at the end of his life or    not   so    much as he had been
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 07, 2014, 12:16:17 AM
It is difficult to judge an essentially 19th century monarch by 21st century standards. I would say that based on 21st century standards, Nicholas II had some anti-Semitic views throughout his life. However, he was also an intelligent man and so I think some of his life experiences softened some of these views subtly over time.
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Romanov_Fan19 on February 02, 2015, 02:55:03 PM
thank you 
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: JamesAPrattIII on February 17, 2015, 06:08:53 PM
Another good book on this subject:
"Pogrom Anti-Jewish violence in Modern Russian History"

Among the interesting points in this book:
The Russian Newspapers of this time even ones with good reputations in the west. If they said anything about jews it was usually bad.

Tsar Alexander III on the 1881-3 pogroms He was saddened and disturbed to find out that his soldiers would like to attacked the Jews not the rioters and he was also shocked the that an officer was found taking part in a Pogrom!

Many Russian thought the May Laws or Temporary laws were too easy on the Jews.

Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: Ally Kumari on March 18, 2020, 04:31:59 AM
The police inaction was explained as I wrote earlier. The lower level "on the street" police were sympathetic to the pogrom and the man in charge was dismissed with Nicholas' permission for his mis handling of the events:
"Plehve secured the tsar's agreement to dismiss von Raaben because of his poor handling of the disturbances.  He sent his director of police, A.A. Lopukhin to Kishniev to investigate the conduct of the local authorities at the time of the pogroms.  Lopukhin did not discover any trace of premeditated preparation of the pogrom, but he concluded that the events could not have taken place without the participation of the lower police ranks. "

Here is Spiridovitch's take on Nicholas, from his memoir:
There was an opinion widely repeated in which the Emperor had detested the Jews.  That is incorrect.  As he was a Russian, and a man well versed in political and social history, the Emperor would not love the Jews, however he never once displayed the slightest hatred toward them.  He always showed himself to be as equally fair in regards to them as he was to many other groups.
     Those who created the anti-Jewish policies were acting in accordance with their own personal beliefs, and were hiding behind the Emperor and were trying to make him the scapegoat for them.  All of that was for nothing."


Also, several soldiers of the Orchestra of Nicholas' own Praeobrazhenskaya Regiment were Jews, there was a huge row when Dombadze tried to have them expelled from Yalta during one of Nicholas's stays at Livadia.

Hello! I realize I am 14 years late to this discussion, but would it be possible to share the full citation of the Spiridovitch´s quote? I would like to use it in my thesis, but I do not own the book and it would take weeks before it would get here. Not to mention, at present, I have no idea if the bookstore is even accepting orders.....
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: slhouette on May 18, 2020, 08:34:29 PM
I know this! It's buried somewhere in "The Great War and February Revolution 1914-1917." It's separated into 3 books so it's a lot. It's online in Russian at this link: http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/spiridovich_ai/index.html

It's interesting but extremely biased. I'd be interested to know what your thesis is - I really hope it's not Nicholas II apologia :-( This particular forum discussion took place many years ago, but it's helped me in my own research in the specific subject. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if Nicholas felt particularly wrathful towards Jews; just the fact that he didn't actively and forcefully advocate for an oppressed people, such as disbanding the Pale/similar restrictions, or dispersing the Black Hundreds, is inherently antisemitic. It's kind of useless to make a systematic issue so deeply personal by debating in circles on Nicholas' personal view/feelings. If Nicholas chose to defend/benefit a government system that upholds antisemitism, he was antisemitic. :-( !!!!
Title: Re: Nicholas II and Anti-Semitism.
Post by: slhouette on May 18, 2020, 08:46:28 PM
Oh, I forget if these have been mentioned back in this thread, but I was recently reading some of the Sokolov depositions and found some interesting bits that are really incriminating to how Nicholas felt about Jews post-revolution:

From Kaudia Bitner: "I don't think [Nicholas] knew the people. He had this attitude towards the people: kind, good, soft people. He was confused by the skinny [?] people in this revolution. Its rulers are "the Jews". But this is all temporary. It'll all pass. The people will come to their senses and there will be order again." This is my own translation so I'm not sure what she meant by "skinny."

From Alexandra Tegleva: " I know the views of the Princesses on the revolution. They, of course, expressed the views of their parents. They said that it was a product of Germany, which acted for the collapse of Russia through the Bolshevik leaders, mainly Jews."

These depositions are up online in Russian. Here's a link to Tegleva's since it's already right in front of me: https://runivers.ru/doc/d2.php?SECTION_ID=6596&CENTER_ELEMENT_ID=150758&PORTAL_ID=6600