Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Nicholas II => Topic started by: Tim on November 18, 2006, 11:45:06 PM

Title: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Tim on November 18, 2006, 11:45:06 PM
The Russian state has been ordered to consider declaring the murder in 1918 of the country's last tsar a "political crime", a move that paves the way for the rehabilitation of Nicholas II.

The link to the article in The Independant is below:-

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1987630.ece

I'd be intersted in the views of posters on this issue
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Belochka on November 19, 2006, 03:37:15 AM
The Moscow Court in actual fact ruled that the petition filed by Mariya Vladimirovna needs to be considered before a Court.

The decision that was handed down can not be considered to pave the way towards any declaration.

Margarita
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Mexjames on October 02, 2008, 10:53:30 AM
This is interesting news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html)

Finally Russia recognized that the Tsar and his family were victims of political repression, a fact that we all know.

What are the implications going to be?

Note: I couldn't think of another forum where to put this; if it doesn't belong here please accept an apology.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: bkohatl on May 24, 2009, 09:32:53 PM
I can remember as child of nine watching TV and listening to the tragedy of Civil rights workers Michael Schwerner, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman. These young men disappeared at approximately 10:00 p.m., Sunday, June 21, 1964. It turned out that they were tortured and murdered by the Philadelphia, Mississippi Police Department for registering African Americans to vote. That story became so ingrained in my character, that I never let an act of injustice pass unchallenged. I don't apologize for it either. A conscience is a heavy burden, but it allows me to sleep at night.
There are things about Nicholas II which should be condemned, anti-semitism(which was a very common point of view at the time and in the US South when I grew up. I can actually remember kids cheering when Martin Luther King was assassinated: it made me sick), poor military leadership(I agree with General Samsanov, General Rennenkampf should have been shot. Field Marshall Paul Von Hindenburg gives Rennenkampf credit for the German Victory at The "Tannenberg Forest".)  and an inability to see that it was the support of the peasants and working class who were the strongest supporters of the Monarchy and himself.
But "Nicky" had a great strength in his ability to appreciate the need for new and better military technology, Igor Sikorsky being the greatest example. I remember that Lincoln was a man who thought that technology would be harbinger of a more civilized warfare. He actually cared for the people, the soldiers who served under him. And anyone who has ever seen the pictures from the military hospital in Livadia, knows that Olga, Tatiana and Alexandra were real nurses who came to know the real horrors of war. The Romanovs were good people.
What I don't understand, is why in defending Nicholas II, no one trumpets his role in calling for the 1899 Geneva Conference? To me, this is one of the most profound moments in the history of mankind and there are two heroes in that story, Nicholas II and, later, Teddy Roosevelt. It was they who championed Rules of War, which outlawed poison gas, war crimes, torture and crimes against humanity. To me, that is Nicky's shinning moment. And the man he was in private life.
There is so much to say in Nicky's defense which has never been said, now is the time to say it. Hopefully, certain American political leaders will learn what it means to be civilized from their example.
I think in light of current events, Nicholas II give proof that the men and women behind the Geneva Conventions should be judged among the greatest heroes of the last century and maybe in all of history.  Nicholas II and Teddy Roosevelt were such men.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on May 24, 2009, 10:38:38 PM
Reply/observations to "bkohatl" from the "other side of the Bench" : An interesting post.  In my honest opinion, I have some personal observations.  I see that this is your first post.  Do NOT expect to get much response along the lines of what you posit with this post.  Have you REALLY looked at the composition of the more recent respondents  (and topics) on this board?  MUCH of it is "cliquish" romanticized trivia about the adulation of the ill-fated Romanov family. Your entry is virtually loaded with overwhelming historical references (ranging from Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Tannenburg Forrest, Russian generals (by the way, VON Rennenkampf) etc., etc. , that will be daunting and probably ignored by the "average" (whatever that is !) poster.   The "Geneva Conventions" MAY-----just MAY---- "ring a bell," probably in regards to the present-day armed conflict discussion/s.  Your first paragraph of personal experiences may tend to cause some to disregard the remainder of the post, as a personal expression ONLY (which indeed it is) and not as a raison d'etre for the remainder of your post.   Several months ago, a youngster here was whining that they had hoped for something more "intellectual" from the Board.  I will watch very closely to see if that person gives a response to your post------the chances are excellent that they will never read it.   Meanwhile, welcome and good luck!    Regards,   AP
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: LaDuchesse on May 25, 2009, 08:41:59 AM
Reply to post #1


This was really rather interesting, and I've actually learned a lot from it.  Nicholas II was a flawed individual like us all and not the best person for his position.  Though I find he did at least try to do some good and help his people.  Like you said he cared for the soldiers serving under him, but I feel that to an extent he had to care for the peasants as well.  But since I've never heard of the "Geneva Conventions" before  :-[ I'll have to look them up  :)  From what you've said so far that does seem to be his best moment, but surely there's been more.  Anyways, it's an interesting topic you've started, so thanks for posting it.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on May 25, 2009, 09:05:02 AM

But since I've never heard of the "Geneva Conventions" before  :-[ I'll have to look them up  :)  From what you've said so far that does seem to be his best moment, but surely there's been more.

If I'm not wrong, there were two congresses, the first in 1899 (already correctly said by bkohatl), and the second one in 1907, both congresses were requested by Nicholas II for reduce armaments, there were representatives of many countries (United States, Great Britain, France...).
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: LaDuchesse on May 25, 2009, 09:28:42 AM
Thanks.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Helen on May 25, 2009, 09:58:10 AM
Did you perhaps mean the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907))
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on May 25, 2009, 10:04:02 AM
You're right, I mean exactly the Hague Conventions.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Naslednik on May 28, 2009, 09:08:01 AM
There is an interesting article I read a while ago, I believe in the Russian Review, studying the origin of the Hague.  Here the author indicates that after Nicholas broached the idea of the Hague, he and his advisors toyed with several political reasons that would make it advantageous for Russia to encourage a discussion of arms limitations. Once N began to investigate starting such a negotiating body, he found himself facing a great deal of opposition in his family (his mother and one uncle, I believe Alexei).  The concluding thesis of the article is that while the Hague was finally opened in part owing to political gains, there is no doubt that the founding premise of peace and negotiation initiated by Nicholas himself was an entirely benevolent impulse, and that the political maneuvering began later.  It is important to note that N moved forward with the Hague in spite of the opposition.  By the way, did you know that the Hague now monitors international adoption?  It sets rules and requires families with adopted children to file post-placement reports.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on May 28, 2009, 10:07:16 AM
  By the way, did you know that the Hague now monitors international adoption?  It sets rules and requires families with adopted children to file post-placement reports.

I read it somewhere, and this is possible thanks to the brilliant idea of Nicholas II, one more reason to remember him with respect, since I'm a supporter of the international adoption.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 28, 2009, 10:08:26 AM
In 1904 when the Russian Baltic Fleet was on its way to Port Arthur and its eventual defeat in the Straits of Tsushima, they accidentally fired on some British Fishing trawlers.

This incident was referred to the Hague for resolution.

http://books.google.com/books?id=3HwgF4Rl630C&pg=PA403&lpg=PA403&dq=dogger+bank+and+the+hague&source=bl&ots=feDKwLf-o7&sig=-yXyTEhUew7XzMhWyiDW6meeBLk&hl=en&ei=ZaceSqPLLNLgtgf197XsAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA403,M1
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 28, 2009, 10:12:31 AM
I believe that I read that on the eve of World War I, Nicholas II tried to refer the Sarajevo incident to the Hague for resolution.  I will do some research to find out where I read it.

But here is some information on the Hague Conferences:

Although Hague Conference of 1899 and 1907, failed to prevent the break out of World War I, the conference itself has great significance. The conference shows international efforts to protect peace from tensions and aggressions of the time. The Hague Conference called for organizations and peace conventions like Geneva Protocol to support humanity even in the midst of the war.
            However, we should clearly remember and see the original purpose of the conference: to keep peace around world. The assembly of nations did not help much to put a stop to increase of armaments nor tensions, showing the limitations of international treaties and warns of nominal conferences.


http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/pillow/pillow1.html
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Helen on May 28, 2009, 10:55:22 AM
But here is some information on the Hague Conferences:
...
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0910/pillow/pillow1.html
Thank you, Alixz,  for the reference to this term paper.

An other article on Nicholas II and the first Hague Conference is "Nicholas II and the Call for the First Hague Conference" by Dan L. Morill in "The Journal of Modern History", Vol. 46, No. 2 (June 1974), pp. 296-313.

I believe that I read that on the eve of World War I, Nicholas II tried to refer the Sarajevo incident to the Hague for resolution. I will do some research to find out where I read it.
He did. According to Marc Ferro, "Nicholas called on Britain to take up a position, to summon the Hague Court or to demand an international conference." [Marc Ferro, Nicholas II - The Last of the Tsars, p. 152] And Elisabeth Heresch discusses a telegram sent to Wilhelm II in which Nicholas II suggested to let the Hague Court decide on the matter. Wilhelm II is said to have scribbled the following words in the margin of this telegram: "All das sind Phrasen! Was fur Unsinn!" [ Elisabeth Heresch, Nikolaus II. - Feigheit, Luege und Verrat, p. 185] The Empress herself also mentioned this telegram in an unpublished letter.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Naslednik on May 28, 2009, 02:24:48 PM
Thank you Helen -- the Dan Morrill article is the one I had read.  He takes the position that there were many influences leading to the creation of the Hague, but does not doubt the sincerity of Nicholas' original intent.  Too bad that people can't get these articles easily unless they have access thru a school.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 29, 2009, 08:32:34 AM
For those non German speaking posters:  "All those are cliches! Which fur nonsense! "  That is a literal translation of the margin scribblings.

I would have translated it to - "All those words - for nothing (or nonsense)."

Obviously Nicholas II was still trying to work for peace but the Kaiser now had the bit in his mouth and as usual was disregarding anything that didn't suit him.

Thank you bkohatl for starting such an interesting topic.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Helen on May 29, 2009, 01:04:48 PM
"What nonsense!" indeed isn't the kind of reply one would expect from a ruler when asked to agree with arbitration in such an important issue.  :(

And thank you, Naslednik, for telling us about the purport of Dan Morrill's article.

The Peace Palace in The Hague actually is one of the things I want to go and see this summer. According to its website, in the Small Jall of Justice is a life-size portrait of Nicholas II Sophie Hirschmann (1871-1937): http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/S._Hirschmann_Nicholas_II_of_Russia_1907.jpg
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 29, 2009, 01:40:17 PM
I am so glad that the portrait is still in place.

The official seat of the court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.[6][55] The court is currently housed in interim premises on the eastern edge of The Hague.[56] The court intends to construct permanent premises in Alexanderkazerne, to the north of The Hague.[57][56]

The ICC also maintains a liaison office in New York[58] and field offices in places where it conducts its activities.[59] As of 18 October 2007, the court had field offices in Kampala, Kinshasa, Bunia, Abéché and Bangui.[59]

The ICC's detention centre comprises twelve cells on the premises of the Scheveningen branch of the Haaglanden Penal Institution, The Hague.[60] Suspects held by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are held in the same prison and share some facilities, like the fitness room, but have no contact with suspects held by the ICC.[60] The detention unit is close to the ICC's future headquarters in Alexanderkazerne.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 29, 2009, 01:44:07 PM
...As desirous of peace, he made an unprecedented suggestion to the world early in his reign — that all nations come together and meet in order to cut down on their military forces and submit to general arbitration on international disputes. The result of his proposal, the Hague Peace Conference, was convened on May 18, 1899, and served as the precedent for the later League of Nations and United Nations. As a giver of mercy he was unparalleled in Russian history pardoning criminals, even revolutionaries; giving away vast quantities of his own land to alleviate the plight of the peasants; and countless other charitable deeds of which only God knows. And, of course, few mourned as he did, and few were persecuted unjustly as he was.


This is quoted from a Pravda site.       http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=244023  It is a little more religious than historical, but interesting none the less.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: bkohatl on May 30, 2009, 06:52:07 AM
Nicholas II and "The Daughter of Time"

I remember that when I was in college my Russian History Professor, Dr. Paul Johnson(Georgia State University), discussed how Nicholas' proposal that the disputes arising from the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo be submitted to an international tribunal for arbitration. If only the world had listened to him, 20,000,000 people wouldn't have been slaughtered needlessly. And there would have been no WWII, no Hitler and no 50,000,000 dead.
I remember a very spirited debate in class as to whether this suggested "tribunal" was in fact a precursor of the United Nations. I think it was. I remember writing a paper about those who sought war and those who sought to stop war. With all due apologies to several generations of historians, how in the world did WWI become The Great War? There is an old Irish saying that the worst or most ferocious battles aren't between right and wrong, the worst battles are between right and right.
World War II was "The Great War" because it was a battle between good and evil. After learning about the role of the British in the  Zimmerman Telegram and Oswald Rayner's late dinner at Moika Palace, Lenin's trip across Germany with the help of the Kaiser and worst of all, Serbian secret service(and government?) involvement or knowledge of the plot by "The Black Hand" to assassinate Franz Ferdinand.
It sure sounds like that in a world filled with cynics, Nicholas was one of the few who possessed true character.

I think it is time that someone tell people what Nicholas did right.

When I was 10, I read Josephine Tey's "The Daughter of Time". And, by the way, Truth is the daughter of time.
I learned that all extant portraits of Richard III had been retouched by Tudor painters. Despite the wonderful imagery of Shakespeare, Richard III was never a hunchback.
"Richard was the handsomest man in the room except his brother Edward."
Countess of Desmond 1475
"Such was his renown in warfare, that when ever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his generalship".
Dominic Mancini, 1483
"Thank God, the giver of all gifts, for the support received from our most loving brother".
Edward IV,Writing to Pope Sixtus IV, 1482
"On my trouth I lykyd never the condicions of ony prince so wel as his; God hathe sent hym to us for the wele of all..."
Thomas Langton - Bishop of St. David's
"King Richard, late mercifully reigning over us was piteously slain and murdered to the great heaviness of this city".
York City Records, 1485

Not quite Shakespeare. St. Thomas More wrote the biography of Richard III upon which Shakespeare's Richard III was based. St. Thomas wrote from what he had been told as a child when he served as a page for Cardinal Morton, a protege of Henry Tudor. He finished it several years before his death. But he never published it. Very strange.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 30, 2009, 09:26:35 AM
I know that at the time the war was called the "Great War" because it was the largest and most all consuming war up until its time.  It wasn't until after the war in the 1940s that it was renamed the First World War because now we had a second big and all consuming war.  And the second war was "greater" (bigger) than the first one.

It was also called the "War to End all Wars".  Fancy that!

I do agree with you that wars are fought between "right" and "right".  The side considered wrong is the side that loses.  No one goes into a war thinking that they are on the wrong side.  I don't want to get into the semantics of what is right and wrong or what is a crime against humanity.  (War, to me, is a crime against humanity)  But at least the "Great War" was not fought for religious reasons.  It is one of the very few that wasn't.
To my opinion, the Great War was a continuation of the wars of the 1800s where countries wanted to consolidate their power and build bigger Empires.  Also, any slight or loss of the 1800s was to be redressed by the fighting and winning of the "Great War".

The Second World War may not have begun as a war for religious reasons, but became such as Hitler filled the Concentration Camps with those who did not fit his idea of the "ideal" Aryan.   His criteria included religion and race and nationality.  Hitler wanted more land, but he also wanted to "purify" to his definition the human race.

This is totally OT - so I suggest that I stop and that everyone else go back to "redeeming" Nicholas II.  The man was not completely the "Bloody" tyrant that he has been painted to be.

Along with his mistakes , he was instrumental in starting the Hague.  I am sure there are other actions by which we can see that he showed great courage and intellect.

That is when he wasn't listening to his uncles, his mother and his wife.

Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Helen on May 30, 2009, 03:36:04 PM
The Dan Morrill article is the one I had read.  He takes the position that there were many influences leading to the creation of the Hague, but does not doubt the sincerity of Nicholas' original intent.  Too bad that people can't get these articles easily unless they have access thru a school.
Single articles from this journal are also available for purchase on JSTOR through scholar.google.com.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: bkohatl on May 30, 2009, 08:40:15 PM
In remembrance of Ivan The Terrible, it should be called "The Terrible War".
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Alixz on May 31, 2009, 01:42:04 AM
i am currently reading Rasputin the Saint who Sinned  by  Brian Moynahan.  This book is tough on both Nicholas and Alexandra.  There is no redemption to be seen in any of the pages.  Nothing that was good about either of them has made it into this book.

In fact, there is much in this book quoted from Anna Vyrubova that Massie also quoted in Nicholas & Alexandra but the slant is on the ineptitude of Nicholas and the willful stubbornness of Alexandra.

I think it will be very hard to find much good said about Nicholas in most of the biographies of the other people who were part of his world and lived during his time on the throne.
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Naslednik on June 02, 2009, 03:33:38 PM
Quote
I think it will be very hard to find much good said about Nicholas in most of the biographies of the other people who were part of his world and lived during his time on the throne.

This is true, history is written by the victors, but I wonder how different their memoirs might have been had things turned out differently, even only marginally different.  So many of the memoirs contain warm descriptions of Nicholas' personality (not just his charm), particularly early on:  Sandro's, Kschessinska's (of course!), GD Olga's, even Witte's, and we know how little they liked each other.  I think that most contemporaries admit to his courage in the face of physical harm and personal loss.  Also, some of those loyal to him stayed in St. Petersburg and faced execution, thus we don't hear those voices in autobiography.

Back to redemption!  For me, his redemption is not about legislation.  I'm sure that we can find plenty of good things that he did, and of course, that the artistic legacy of the era of his reign will always be glorious by any measure. But personally, he redeems himself by an extraordinary combination of simplicity and moral strength in the face of years of profound sadness, independent of what happened after March 1917.

Title: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: Lucien on July 17, 2009, 02:28:57 PM
A day of remembrance of events 91 years ago to this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWY-9UihgYg&feature=related
Title: Re: Tsar Nicholas II: Redemption and Rehabilitation
Post by: RomanovsFan4Ever on July 17, 2009, 03:02:17 PM
A day of remembrance of events 91 years ago to this day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWY-9UihgYg&feature=related


Wonderful video and wonderful Anthem...God save the Tsar!

91 years already, and we still remember, and we will never forget!, rest in peace Romanov family, and the other people who died in that horrible night in Ekaterinburg (Dr. Botkin, Trupp, Demidova...).