Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about Russian History => The Russian Revolution => Topic started by: Valmont on January 29, 2004, 02:56:27 PM

Title: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Valmont on January 29, 2004, 02:56:27 PM
I understand that after  the Tsar was removed from power, there was someone who took control of Russia.


It was not Lenin. Who was he?
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 29, 2004, 04:14:34 PM
Alexander Kerensky was the leader of the first Provisional Government before the Bolshevik Revolution of October 1917.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Valmont on January 29, 2004, 05:20:20 PM
Yes I had that idea too, that there had been only one leader of the provisional government before the Bolsheviks overthrew the provisional government.
I checked the name on the Internet, and turns out that Kerensky was the second leader. the first was Prince George Lvov. The first time I read that name was in a letter from GD Dimitri where  he says  he sent a telegram to prince Lvov expressing his willingness to support the provisional government.
I learn something interesting today. Thanks
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Forum Admin on January 31, 2004, 10:05:15 AM
To be precise, which I was not earlier, for which I apologize:
Prince G.E. Lvov was first Prime Minister of the Provisional Govt. from March 2, 1917 until he resigned in favor of Kerensky on July 7.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 06, 2004, 11:43:01 PM
There was no single leader after the Tsar abdicated. What actually occured is that there was a tremendous vacuum. Into the void stepped the Provisional Government, which was nominally in power, and the Soviets, which were actually grass roots democratic councils throughout Russia. Into this fragile democracy, the Germans injected the Bolsheviks who overthrew the former and co-opted the later.

There was no one singularly in power in the way the tsar was until the rise of Stalin in the 1920's.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 23, 2004, 11:25:59 PM
Do not forget the Mensheviks, as well as the myriad other parties !
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Father_Nick on March 31, 2004, 06:05:52 PM
I am sure that after the Tsar's abdication, it practically accidentally fell to Alexander Kerensky to lead the disorganized and chaotic country.  Remember, there was a revolution WITHIN a revolution; Lenin was always in the background but really didn't assume actual power until the Bolshevik seizure of the Winter Palace in November of 1917.  It's fascinating, however, to muse about what would have been Russia's fate had Lennin lived and Stalin not succeeded.  I am in the minority of people who believe Lenin would have kept Russia from the extremes of terror Stalin subjected it to; who knows?  But, it's still a great topic for discussion.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Joanna Mayer on April 23, 2004, 10:34:41 PM
A  very good question indeed, considering that Lenin was often willing to go to  great extreams in order to achieve his goals. Some of his attitutudes towards the peasantry in the early 1920s were  reminicent of Ivan Grozney-- Ivan the Terrible. Of course Civil war is usually the most dreadful sort of conflict.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on April 29, 2004, 02:35:35 AM
After Michael refused to accept the Crown, following Nicholas' abdication, could it be said that there was a short period, however brief where there was no-one in real power?

The Duma was prorogued by Golitzin by Imperial decree and therefore making Rodzianko's position as the Duma President tenous to say the least. Nicholas' decree to institute Civil Rule by his Prime Minister had no legal status ... because there was no P.M. anymore.

My understanding was that Rodzianko set up a "Temporary Committee" which was deemed to be the de-facto Authority because it was set up quickly, unelected and unopposed.

Prince Lvov was not a member of the last Duma, but was selected to become the first Provisional Government Prime Minister because of his popularity and political experience as the Zemstvo Chairman. Before Lvov became the new leader, someone had to institute and decide for that selection process to take effect.

My point is that there were a few hours where any legal authority lay with this newly formed "Temporary Committee". Rodzianko was briefly calling the shots.

Grand Duke Michael also wrote in his diary on February 27 "... it was the beginning of anarchy".

Any thoughts?

:o
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 02, 2004, 08:54:59 PM
Well, it certainly wasn't the beginning of anarchy. The period between the abdication of the tsar and the 2nd Revolution was punctuated by an increasingly weak government and the concurrent rise of the Soviets, which were councils. Into this very fragile and emerging democracy, the German General Staff decided to send the Bolsheviks. This was an ultimately evil act about which it may be argued resulted in the death of millions of people - perhaps more victims than the Holocaust. And yet, one hears very little of this evil or measures taken to ensure it does not happen again. Nicholas, Alexandra, their children and retainers were among the first million people killed as a result of war time tactics in WWI having reprecussions for many generations.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 03, 2004, 12:12:49 AM
I believe the very idea of anarchy implies that there was disorder combined with political and social confusion (as defined in the Oxford dictionary).

Following Emperor Michael's abdication there was a very brief period where there was no government per se, whether it may be defined as autocratic or elected.

What followed was indeed confusion, however brief at the top level (excluding what was happening on the streets) with a small select group of men from the now defunct Duma who acted on their own initiative before Prince Lvov was duly selected to represent the newly established Provisional Government.

After the fall of the Romanov dynasty ... there were no set rules as to what happens next. There was no protocol to follow.

The German government was planning the fall of the Romanov Dynasty for a few years. They were fighting Russia directly (WWI), and were only too pleased to assist in the country's total collapse.

The German government's secret intervention was a calculated deliberate act.

:(

 

Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 09, 2004, 11:30:51 PM
I think that you and I have very different ideas about what constitutes anarchy. Anarchy to me is the absence of government or legitimate authority and something a little more subtle - the absence of agreement about how to run a society. Russia in 1917/18 simply does not meet this standard. Maybe Somalia in the 1990's - maybe Iraq during the American invasion meet this standard, but not Revolutionary Russia.

Michael Alexandrovich was never Emperor. His vision of a Russia able to decide her future - and whether or not there would be a monarchy - never came to pass. Perhaps in time there will be a chance to fulfill what he spoke about, perhaps not.

I do not think a time of uncertainty or confusion is anarchy - as I said - it's a much more extreme condition.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 11, 2004, 02:50:27 AM
With respect Lisa I must disagree with you.

Michael was provided the right to reign by the Abdication Manifesto which Nicholas signed on March 2 at 15 hrs 5 min 1917. All inheritance passed to him. This Manifesto was an official legally binding document, plain and clear. Technically there was no legal vacuum because succession was assured.

So by virtue of this document Michael was the new Emperor.

The fact that he renounced all his Imperial rights handed to him hours before could only have been come about by being the Emperor no matter what period of time had elapsed.

It was Michael who broke the chain of succession. To achieve this legally, he signed his own Abdication Manifesto on March 3.

Emperor Michael's final deed was to effectively cause the collapse of the Romanov dynasty in Russia. He  seemed to have expected to rule as regent to Alexei, but refused to rule in his own right. The reason could lie in his own belief that Alexei's removal to rule was contrary to the Laws of Succession. He questioned the legitimacy of this act.

Michael knowingly submitted Russia to the republican cause. This he did because he was informed that his personal safety could not be guaranteed. He was effectively an Emperor without a government while being surrounded in the streets by a mutinous Army calling for destruction of the monarchy.

So he really did decide Russia's fate (future) on advice of the Committee at the fateful meeting at # 12 Millionnaya Ulitsa.

:o



Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 11, 2004, 03:24:24 AM
To continue ...

While the various meetings on Millionaya was taking place we are reminded by memoirists of the day (Shulgin and G.D. Marie etc), that at the time there were conflicting opinions everywhere. The Soviet Deputies sought a Republic, initially the Temporary Committee believed the monarchy should continue but were unaware how this should come about. These are surely indicators of confusion brought about by uncertainty of what to do next?

Crawford @ p 299 writes that the Duma Comittee were arguing over what position they were going to take. These words give me the impression that there was real uncertainty which indicates in my mind that there was the absence of agreement.

Importantly no official Orders were received in Petrograd. There was no-one to give them, because there was no leader of Russia. (see G.D. Marie p 289). She also wrote that  "... anarchy reigns in Petrograd". She also confirmed that Nicholas abdicated in favour of Michael.

By these few examples surely it could be suggested that there really was anarchy however brief and however subtle....?

As soon as the abdication of Michael was official, the Soviet Deputy Order # 1 was issued. (p 294 in Education of a Princess).
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: _Rodger_ on May 11, 2004, 11:32:56 AM
Michael never 'officially' abdicated.  He called for a free election to allow the Russian people to decide what type of government they wanted, but the words 'abdicate' or 'abdication' or any similar term were never used.    
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 11, 2004, 11:53:39 AM
The 1917 diary of Nicholas II:
3 March, Friday
..."Alexeiev comes bringing me the latest news from Rodzianko. Mischa, it appears, has abdicated.  His manifesto ended with bowings and scrapings with respect to the Assembly such that elections are to take place in six months. God only knows who suggested the idea to him to sign such a vile thing.  In Petersburg, the disorders have stopped - provided they continue thus!"

I believe the specific word Michael used was "I renounce the Throne" I can't find my source material off hand.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: _Rodger_ on May 11, 2004, 12:12:38 PM
'Appears' is not 'abdicate.'  

'That car appears to be a Porsche Speedster, but upon closer inspection, it is actually a fiberglass copy.'  

Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 11, 2004, 12:13:49 PM
With extreme respect to the other posters and the FA, Michael never abdicated. There's a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with Kerensky's ridiculous contention about Michael's physical safety not being "guaranteed". (As if any Romanov would be expecting this!).

The reason is, Michael consulted the best available expert on the Fundamental Law, Nabakov, in crafting his Manifesto (and it was a manifesto, not an abdication). It is very likely that Nabakov told him that Nicholas' abdication on behalf of Alexis was illegal. Thus, he was correct to neither accept nor reject the throne.

I will also concede to Belochka that there was likely a very short period of anarchy where political authority was uncertain.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: _Rodger_ on May 11, 2004, 12:36:51 PM
As neither the term, nor any semantic analogue of the word or act 'to abdicate' appears in the body of the text, it would be appropriate for the Website to remove the grossly inaccurate reference to 'Michael's Abdication' from the title.  

To abdicate is to renounce one's God-given rights.  Michael didn't do so.  If the people of Russia wished him to do so, he would have ruled.   That is not abdication.

It should be pointed out that this was the first time in Russia's history that common ordinary people were given the opportunity to choose the form of government they wanted to have, and not have it imposed upon them.  

The people of Russia were denied this opportunity by Kerensky, and the subsequent Soviet governments.

It is therefore, a disservice to Michael's wishes to label his proclamation as 'abdication' when clearly it was no such thing.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 11, 2004, 01:48:29 PM
"By my brother's will, a heavy burden was placed upon me when I was assigned the All-Russian Imperial Throne during a time of unprecedented war and popular unrest.

Inspired, together with all the people, by the single thought that the good of our motherland is above all else, I have firmly resolved to assume supreme power only if that should be the will of our great people who will be required by popular vote, through their representatives in the Constituent Assembly, to create a form of government and new fundemental laws for the Russian State.

Therefore, in appealing for God's blessing, I ask all citizens of the Russian Empire to obey the Provisional Government, which arose at the initiative of the State Duma and was vested with full power, until such time as the Constituent Assembly expresses the will of the people concerning their preferred form of government after being convened in the shortest time possible and by holding a general, direct, equal, and secret vote.
Michael
3 March 1917, Petrograd "
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: _Rodger_ on May 11, 2004, 02:30:56 PM
Right.  No 'Abdicate,' 'Bequeath Our Rightful Inheritance' et cetera to be found anywhere in the body of the text.  

Again, it would be most reasonable to remove the misleading reference to abdication from the title of that particular section of the website.  
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 11, 2004, 07:54:05 PM
I'm not sure where the label being referred to is, but I agree with what Rodger is saying about Michael's manifesto. I cover it in my biography of Michael posted on this website.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 12, 2004, 01:25:14 AM
Rodger I completely agree with you that the final document which we are now discussing is very important. Bearing Micheal's signature it sealed the fate of the Romanov Dynasty.

Pipes @ p 319 (The Russian Revolution) noted that it was both Vladimir Nabokov and Boris Nolde ..."were sent for to draft Michael's manifesto renouncing the crown."

Crawford @ p 309 provides  that Nicholas' Manifesto was thought by both these legal minds to contain constitutional legal flaws, because for the sake of political expediency Constitutional errors were made. The reason for this legal consideration was that there was no justification in the Laws of Succession for "...Nicholas to abdicate on behalf of his son". What resulted was a simultaneous duel abdication.

Similarily with all else happening in Petrograd, could it not be suggested that a similar state of affairs prevailed with the document which Michael signed. Michael was advised by the Committee that he must renounce the Crown in order to prevent violence and a Civil war (Pipes p 318). The simple question he asked about his safety was just the final pretext to commit himself to what he was about to sign. Safety was indeed an issue because there was no guarantee that he would not be murdered by his enemies. The circumstances on the streets predicated this response.

I agree that this document never contained the word Abdicate. But it may be be suggested that this was because both Nabokov and Nolde held doubts about the legality of Nicholas's Manifesto as it stood. Erring on the side of legalistic caution, they worded Michael's document to reflect their understanding of the constitutional problem presented to them.

I agree that Michael understood this problem perfectly, but this was not the sole factor for him to renounce his right to the Crown. To complicate his decision it must be remembered that Nicholas believed he was no longer emperor. Nicholas sent Michael a telegram (Crawford, p 308) addressed to His Majesty the Emporer Michael...

Time was pressing, they had no precedent to follow, so they penned words as best they could in the time available. Importantly, there would not be a Constitutional Court which would scrutinize nor argue the legalaity of any of the words written in either document.

Within the document Michael claimed  ... "I have taken the firm decision to assume (accept is used by Pipes @ p 319) the Supreme Power only if such (will) be the will (desire) of our great people (nation),[Pipes differs here considerably] whose right it is to establish (determine) the form of government and the new basic laws (in the new Constitution) of the Russian state..."

Michael knew that he did not have the support of "our great people(nation)" he also turned the tables around completely by endorsing the words ... "whose right it is to establish the form of government...".

The new successor to the Crown whether we like to argue otherwise was indeed Michael. It was he to whom Nicholas' declaration for succession was passed (whether legal or not is a moot point).

By using the same words from Michael's document "thrust upon me by the will of my brother..."  we must conclude that the constitutional issue here is that Michael became Emperor immediately after Nicholas signed his Manifesto. These words cannot be disputed for surely the words speak for themselves here?

Nabokov and Nolde had to undo what had been done, for the Laws of Succession do not allow the Imperial Crown to become vacant. Therefore by this analogy it must be realized that only two things could happen. Michael could reign or he could abdicate.

It can be further postulated: How could these great people (or nation) in reality later choose the form of government to be autocratic at a later date when the chain of succession was to be severed, and thereby compromising the very essence of the Fundamental Laws?

Numerous persons who were there on the day including Kerensky and also including a number of Romanovs (G.D. Marie and G.D. Nikolai Mikhailovich) all recognized Michael's succession.

Pipes @ p 320 states that ... "two abdication manifestos ... were published on the same broadsheet on March 4.

Michael's signature provided the required signal to the Provisional Government that power was theirs to take. Everything else snowballed from that day.

To my mind to Abdicate implies that a person formally renounces the Crown which belongs to them.

:)
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 12, 2004, 01:34:17 AM
Sorry I cannot get rid of the Smilies -

at para 4 refers to Pipes @ p 318,

at para 6 refers to Crawford @ 308.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 12, 2004, 01:56:12 AM
We can argue forever about the constitutional legalities of what passed in the modern context.

Is it not the fundamental consideration here ... that Nicholas himself believed that he renounced the Crown in favor of Michael?

:)
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Anya on May 18, 2004, 02:33:40 PM
I was studying the Russian Revolution and my History teacher said that Prince Lvov ruled with Kerensky before the Bolsheviks took the power...

What is this Lvov relation with the family???
(Is he Nicholas' cousin or something like this??)

Thanks,
Anya
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 18, 2004, 11:38:57 PM
Prince L'vov was a well-regarded member of the Imperial Duma and a Red Cross official prior to becoming the first Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. It's a bit of a stretch to say L'vov "ruled". The Provisional Government was in power less than a year and this first PM in power much less than this. Kerensky was a minister - I believe of Justice - during the time when L'vov was PM. After his fall, Kerensky became Prime Minister.

I know of no familial relationship between Prince L'vov and Nicholas II and no personal relationship either.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 19, 2004, 01:43:20 AM
Prince Georgi Yevgenyevich L'vov (b. Tula, 1861 d. 1925 Paris) was of noble aristocratic birth, but not a member of the Imperial family.

As Lisa highlighted there was no direct familial association with the Romanovs. The fact that he bore the title of Prince Knyaz' does not imply he was related to the Romanov family. The English term Prince has a different connotation.

His family traced their roots to The Grand Prince Velikii Knyaz' Rurik who was the founder of Rus' at Ladoga.

Prior to becoming the Prime Minister of the Provisional Govenment L'vov was the Chairman of the Zemstvo (an Assembly of rural landed gentry).

Following the downfall of the Romanov Dynasty he was selected by the Temporary Committee, rather than elected to become the leader of a new republic - the Provisional Government. He had the duel role of also being the Minister of the Interior.

He was forced to relinquish his role after a few months to his Minister of War and the Admiralty (previously held the position as Minister of Justice), Alexander Kerensky in July, who then became the second and final Prime Minister of the Provisional Government.

As you can imagine the title of Prince did not augur well with the new philosophies of the Provisional Government which quickly started to erase all vestiges of its Imperial past.

Both these men exiled to Paris.

;)

Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 20, 2004, 03:37:08 PM
Once again, gentle readers, the same spammer from Denver Colorado from a few weeks ago keeps trying to disrupt the forum...Many different email addresses, all either fake or suspended, and the IP's are all from Denver again, just like before. Sorry this keeps happening, am trying to stay on top of it though.
FA
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 27, 2004, 12:55:23 AM
Rodger, Rodger, Rodger, where is your source for this? The Empress was arrested before there ever was a Provisional Government. The Emperor was arrested before Kerensky became Prime Minister. Kerensky did interogate the former sovereigns, but he was not responsible for their arrests.

Kerensky was hardly a "radical" in 1917 Russia. He was more of a moderate, if there indeed was such a thing. The radicals were the SR's or Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Bolsheviks, who need no introduction. AFAIK. Kerensky was a Trudovic, which was a moderate Socialist. In the US, we consider Socialists radicals, but in 1917 Russia, they were not.

Prince L'vov made alot of money and collected lots of free meals by telling half truths and outright lies about the Imperial Family. I studied under a Professor who knew AFK very well for many years, and as I stated in another post, Kerensky sincerely felt bad for theultimate fate of the family and felt they would be safer in Tobolsk than in Petrograd.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 27, 2004, 01:22:54 AM
It was 7 March 1917 (O.S.), the day before Nikolai was expected to return to his family at the Alexander Palace, when Alexandra and her family were officially placed under arrest by the Provisional Government on the orders of  Alexander Kerensky, but it was Lavr Kornilov, the commander of the Petrograd military district who was assigned the task.

Alexandra's Diary entry for Wednesday 8 March states that " From now on are considered pris: shut up - maybe see nobody fr. outside"

Prior to this time Alexandra was protected by the normal Tsarskoe Selo garrison.


Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on May 27, 2004, 02:05:18 AM
Roger is perfectly correct.

The Prime Minister Prince L'vov agreed to Nicholas' request (of 4 March [O.S.]) to permit he and his family to travel to Romanov (now known as Murmansk) for the purpose of gaining temporary exile in England, until the conclusion of WWI.

Perhaps unknowingly at the time it was Kerensky who sealed the ultimate fate of the Romanov family. The fact he may have felt bad about the consequences of his actions pales into insignificance for he ensured his long survival in exile but could not accord the same to the Romanovs.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: rskkiya on June 18, 2004, 08:53:15 AM
I had seen Lvov spelled Lwow(?) which to my ignorant mind sounds somewhat Polish - not that it matters... ( I gather it just depends on who translated the Cyrilic characters into Roman letters.)
I have read that he was a real humanitarian- involved in all manner of famine relief work before the war.

Please, does anyone have any information on his name?
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Mike on June 18, 2004, 11:55:07 AM
There is an informative Russian webpage (http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/lvov.html) on Prince George Lvov, complete with his portrait and his political role's appraisal (not too favorable) by Milyukov, Nabokov etc.  
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: rskkiya on June 18, 2004, 03:36:20 PM
Mike,

Thanks for the webpage  information - but sadly my poor russian is not quite up to the challenge (at least not just yet!)  ;)
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on June 19, 2004, 12:02:43 AM
Quote
I had seen Lvov spelled Lwow(?) which to my ignorant mind sounds somewhat Polish Please, does anyone have any information on his name?


The city of L'vov/L'viv which is the largest city in Western Ukraine, is seen spelt in 5 different ways. The style I prefer emphasizes the soft L as it is spoken in the Russian language.

While each is version is correct, it also readily identifies the souce from where the name is used:

L'vov - direct Russian transliteration
Lvov - the accepted Russian style (most common usage)
Lwov - the Polish version
L'viv - Ukrainian version
Lvoff - French version (not often used)

The Russian word for lions is l'vi and lev is a single lion. The term L'vov is just a derivation.
;)
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: rskkiya on June 19, 2004, 08:14:22 AM
Belochka,

Spasiba!
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on June 20, 2004, 03:47:45 AM
Mike thanks for the very interesting article about L'vov.

It was obvious to many in the Provisional Government that L'vov was unable to satisfy the increasingly radical demands of the general population and attend to his ministerial responsibilities. His passive nature and general fear of violence made him totally unsuitable to lead and therefore provide a strong new presence after the collapse of the autocracy.  

In his earlier years as the previous leader of Zemgor (Union of Zemstvos and Cities), an organization which provided relief for the sick and wounded and including the procurement of Army uniforms and boots, he was often fustrated by the the obstruction by minor bureaucratic officials who disliked any voluntary organizations which encroached upon their own sphere of responsibility. Perhaps this should have provided a strong signal to any observers, that he was unable to overcome any middle level management problems. Unfortunately this deficit was overlooked when L'vov was selected to head the newly formed Provisional Government.

L'vov was remembered for his significant contributions made to the war effort. It was for this for which he became noted and respected by political liberals and Imperial Army commanders.

Both Nabokov and Milyukov (from Mike's hyperlink) emphasized L'vov's lack of management skills which would have been necessary to lead and be decisive, skills which were imperative in a country which was rapidly showing renewed anarchic tendencies.

Milyukov as Foreign Minister himself was forced to resign two months before his leader L'vov, who followed the same path of resignation.
:o
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: AGRBear on July 01, 2004, 05:56:20 PM
If Nicholas II held the power to skip over his son Alexis and give the crown to GD Michael then GD Michael was in power the moment the ink was wet on the offical papers.

Michael 's title would have been the uncrown Tsar of Russia but this didn't eliminate the power he had from that point forward in time.  He was number one, the head guy, the ruler of All The Russias.

AGRBear
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Belochka on July 02, 2004, 12:17:25 AM
Quote
GD Michael was in power the moment the ink was wet on the offical papers.
AGRBear


I agree with you AGRBear absolutely! There was no vacuum created at that point. The process of succession however faulty it may have been deemed to have been constitutionally speaking, still progressed serially and directly to G.D. Michael.

From that exact point in time it was completely upto the new Emperor Michael to enforce his will as he saw fit. This he did by renouncing his Imperial rights. He could not have done this had he not had the inherent power to do so. :)
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: PAVLOV on July 28, 2010, 10:08:18 AM
Question. What if Michael had not renounced his rights to the throne of Russia, put down the anarchy, and entered into peace talks with the Germans, and announced a Constitutional monarchy ?
Would the dynasty have survived ?
Or had things gone too far to be reversed ?
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Alixz on July 28, 2010, 10:34:58 AM
I always like to do a "what if" on anything that happened in history - Russian or not.

However, FA just moved a thread "What if Russia had not entered WWI" to the having fun section.  I hate to see this thread be moved there as well.

Evidently Michael didn't feel he had the power or the resources to do anything but abdicate.  I think he was hoping to preserve the Provisional Government and his own life.  Unfortunately, he lost his life anyway and the Provision Government fell.

Too bad.  But it doesn't seem that Michael was any stronger than Nicholas when it came to being Tsar. 

Nicholas abdicated because the Duma wanted him to.  Michael abdicated because he wanted the consent of the constituency.  Neither had the strength to take a stand as an autocrat.  They both wanted approval.  Neither got it.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 28, 2010, 11:31:59 AM
Alixz, I appreciate your opinion, however; Michael did not abdicate. He never accepted the  throne. One cannot abdicate from something one does not have. If you or anyone else reads his statement, it is a declination, not an abdication.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Alixz on July 28, 2010, 12:20:08 PM
I was replying to the thought that the succession was continuous and that whether or not Michael accepted his brother's decree that decree (which might not have been official or correct) made Michael emperor.  If he was automatically emperor then he could abdicate or decline or renounce but he couldn't stop the process from passing to him.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: AGRBear on September 30, 2010, 11:43:17 AM
"A heavy burden has been thrust upon me by the will of my brother, who has given over to me the Imperial Throne of russia at a time unprecedented warfare and popular disturbances.

Inspired like the entire people by the idea that what is most important is the welfare of the country, I have taken a firm decision to assume the Supreme Power only if such be the will of our great people, whose right it is to establish the form of government and the new basic laws of the Russian state by universal suffrage through its representatives in the Constituent Assembly

Therefore, invoking the blessing of God, I beseech all the citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has come into being on the initiative of the Duma and is vested with all the plenitude of power until the Constituent Assembly, to be convoked with the least possible delay by universal suffrage, direct, equal and secret voting, shall express the will of the people by its decision on the form of government."

Signed: "MICHAEL."

[AGRBear Note: He signed it with the Imperial MICHAEL and not GD Michael or citizen Michael Alexanderovich Romanov.]

English translation from
MICHAEL AND NATASHA
by Rosemary and Ronald Crawford
p. 311

Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: AGRBear on October 07, 2010, 12:40:59 PM
I was studying the Russian Revolution and my History teacher said that Prince Lvov ruled with Kerensky before the Bolsheviks took the power...

What is this Lvov relation with the family???
(Is he Nicholas' cousin or something like this??)

Thanks,
Anya

Prince L'vov was a well-regarded member of the Imperial Duma and a Red Cross official prior to becoming the first Prime Minister of the Provisional Government. It's a bit of a stretch to say L'vov "ruled". The Provisional Government was in power less than a year and this first PM in power much less than this. Kerensky was a minister - I believe of Justice - during the time when L'vov was PM. After his fall, Kerensky became Prime Minister.

I know of no familial relationship between Prince L'vov and Nicholas II and no personal relationship either.

Prince Gregory Yevgenevich (1861-1925)
>>Social reformer and statesman.   He was...chairman of the All-Russian Union of Zemstvos. He formed a provisional government at the request of the provisional committee of the state duma  Feb 1917 following Nicholas II's abdication...<<   COMPANION TO RUSSIAN HISTORY  by John Paxton.

However, this does not mean that Lvov was ruling Russia, so I agree with Lisa.

Herein lies the reason.

Although the Duma continued to be present,  earlier Nicholas II had set a decree that the Duma no longer exsisted.  So, from that point forward, the Duma was acting on it's own.  

Nicholas II had given the crown to his brother Michael, therefore,  the uncrown Emp. Michael I was ruler of Russia.

Meanwhile some of the rebellious Duma set up a provisional committee, who  chose Lvov as it's minister to be in charge of setting up a Provisional Govt.

The uncrown Michael I was Emperor and Tsar at this time, and,  was in the position to rule Russia, however,  this would just be a paper rule since Michael I turned to the Provisional minister Lvov and his committee to set up an election.....

No election for the new head of the new government occurred between March to July of 1917, while Lvov and the committee churned out promises of free elections, a constitution, and abolished the secret police.... religious freedoms...

When all this was happening,  The deputies of the Soviet Workers and many of their leaders were preparing for their own little revolutions....

Germany had packed up Lenin with a train load of gold had sent him back to Russia.

Back to the Provisional Govt.,  Alexsnder Fedorovich Kerensky, a "moderate socialist" and a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Pary, was given the post of minister of justice (Feb.) and minister of the navy (May) as a  leader in the war which was still being fought, and, in July replaced Lvov as "Prime Minister".


I suppose to be more accurate,  the uncrown Michael I, who had not abdicated,  was withholding any active power, while waiting for the free elections [which never occured by the way]  under the supervision of the  Provisional Govt. Committee head by Lvov then Kerensky ....

21 Aug,  7 p.m., the Provisional  Govt  and order signed by Borois savinkov, "Director of the War Ministry" read:
>>To the Commander-in-Chief of Petrograd Districh.  Based on the revolution of the Provisional Government an order is given to arrest the former Grand Duke Michael Aleksandrovich as a person whose activities are a thread to the defense of the country...."<<  p. 327 Crawfords  MICHAEL AND NATASHA.

I believe:  This was the "deal breaker"  between  the uncrown Michael I and the Provisional Govt., who had failed to have free elections.

During Red October [o.s.]/ Red November [n.s.],the Bolsheviks seized power and established the Soviets under Lenin....

AGRBear

Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Alixz on October 08, 2010, 01:51:04 PM
Bear,

Do you mean the "uncrowned emperor" Michael II?
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: AGRBear on October 08, 2010, 05:00:18 PM
There were no Emperor Michaels of Russia, only Tsar Michaels [I, II and III] before  Peter I "the great" declared himself Emp. in 1721, and, those that followed took up the crown of Emperor or Empress, therefore,  the brother of Nicholas II became  uncrown Emperor Michael I and Tsar Michael IV.  They are two separate titles. 

Historians often times choose to use Tsar instead of Emperor even though Emperor is the highest rank.  And, for some reason,  the Russians add "I" to the title for Paul I and the "uncrown" Michael I.

AGRBear

List of Emperors of Russia
Emperor Peter I - 1721
Empress Catharina I - 1725
Emperor Peter II - 1727
Empress Anne - 1730
Emperor Ivan - 1740
Empress Elisabeth - 1741
Emperor Peter III - 1762
Empress Catharine II - 1762
Emperor Paul I - 1796
Emperor Alexander I - 1801
Emperor Nicholas I - 1825
Emperor Alexander II - 1855
Emperor Alexander III-1881
Emperor Nicholas II - 1894
"uncrown" Michael I - 1917







Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 08, 2010, 05:21:40 PM
After 1721 Tsar was a colloquialism, not an official title. There was no Tsar Michael IV in conjunction with any other title or otherwise.
 The I behind Paul's name is a presumption that there would be others  eventually.
Title: Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
Post by: AGRBear on October 09, 2010, 12:42:41 PM
After 1721 Tsar was a colloquialism, not an official title. There was no Tsar Michael IV in conjunction with any other title or otherwise.
 The I behind Paul's name is a presumption that there would be others  eventually.

Both Emperors Nikolai II and Aleksander III used the same full titles. Other emperors and empresses had various additions and subtractions to their list of territories.

Tania has posted a very good list of the full titles of Emperor Nikolai II, but I do see a few things that need to be adjusted, it could be that she simply omitted a word when typing the list, or transposed a word as I have done this when I have typed out the full titles. My changes and additions will be in bold type.

Emperor and Autocrat of all the Russias, Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod, Tsar of Kazan, Tsar of Astrakhan, Tsar of Poland, Tsar of Siberia, Tsar of Touric-Cherson, Tsar of Georgia, Lord of Pskov, Grand Duke of Smolensk, of Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia and Finland, Prince of Estland, Livland, Courland and Semigalia, Somogotia, Bialstock, Karelia, Tver, Yougouria, Perm, Viatka, Bulgaria, and other countries; Lord and Grand Duke of Lower Novgorod, of Chernigov, Riazan, Polotsk, Rostov, Yaroslav, Belozero, Oudoria, Obduria, Condia, Vitebsk, Mstislav and all the region of the North, Lord and Sovereign of the countries of Iveria, Kartali, Kabardinia, and the provinces of Armenia, Sovereign of the Circassian Princes and the Mountain Princes, Lord of Turkestan, Heir of Norway, Duke of Schleswig Holstein, of Stormarn, of the Ditmarschen and of Oldenbourg, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


1. No Tsar of Moscow, Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod but rather Emperor and Autocrat of these four cities.

2. The word Tsar is repeated in front of the names of each of the territories of Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, Touric-Cherson, Georgia.

3. The Russians use the words Estland and Livland in the titles. Estland has not always been equal to Estonia but rather what is today Northern Estonia. Livonia includes Southern Estonia and Northern and Eastern Latvia, Livland is a smaller territory.

4. I really prefer the word Kartali to the word Cartalinia. This is the Principality that the Princes Bagration-Moukhransky once ruled.

5. The names of these German duchies are spelled Stormarn and Ditmarschen.

6. The titles of Princes, Kings and Emperors are usually ended in et cetera (always three times) or ec. (no 't', always three times). The Russians end the Imperial titles with [ch1080] [ch1087][ch1088][ch1086][ch1095][ch1072][ch1103], [ch1080] [ch1087][ch1088][ch1086][ch1095][ch1072][ch1103], [ch1080] [ch1087][ch1088][ch1086][ch1095][ch1072][ch1103]. Meaning et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


David Pritchard



The title of Nicholas II does use "Tsar".

According to David and Robert,  the  title of Tsar  Michael IV of Moscow, etc. etc. etc.  would not have been used, however, he could have used the word "Tsar" as did Nicholas II.

 I stand corrected.

AGRBear