Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Nicolas Peucelle

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: January 03, 2010, 03:53:32 AM »
Out  of the original memories of the german Prince Max von Baden: Title of the book:  “Erinnerungen und Dokumente”. Author : Prinz Max von Baden.  Printed by “Deutsche Verlags Anstalt”. Stuttgart Berlin und Leipzig. 1927.
Quote: Page 294 Line 14:
“Das Problem der Fremdvoelker,   ja das ganze russische Problem wird von England aussschliesslich unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Erleichterung des englischen Krieges betrachtet. Jede Verfassung ist England recht, die Russland als Kriegsmaschiene tauglich erhaelt, und wuerde Iwan der Schreckliche auferstehen und Russland zu einem neuen Kampf zusammenschweissen, so wuerde er den Englaendern ein willkommener Bundesgenosse in dem “Kreuzzuge fuer die Freiheit und das Recht “ sein. Kann aber Russland keinen Krieg mehr fuehren, dann wenigstens einen Buergerkrieg, damit keine Ruhe and Deutschlands Ostfront entstehen kann….  Die Wirtschaftliche Notlage der von uns besetzten Gebiete ist ohne Zweifel schwer, aber es ist ein Zynismus im englischen Munde, davon bedauernd zu redden, den Englands Hungerblockade richtet sich gegen die besetzten Gebiete ebenso wie sie sich gegen uns richtet, gegen die Neutralen und die ganze Welt. Balfour bespricht unser Verhaeltnis zu jedem einzelnen dieser Randstaaten. An die erste Stelle setzt er die Behauptung, die deutsche Intervention in Finnland haette bezweckt , Finnland in deutsche Abhaengigkeit zu bringen, mit anderen Worten, ein deutsches Portugal zu schaffen. Welche unerhoerte Herabwuerdigung des finnischen Unabhaengigkeitskampfes, der seit Jahrzenten alle Freunde der kleinen Nationen begeistert hat! Aber Finnland hat, wie es scheint, alle Sympathien in England verloren, seit es sich durch das englische Vorgehen in Nordrussland bedroht fuehlt und von der Verbindung mit der eisfreien Murmankueste nicht abgeschnitten werden will. “
Ueber unser Verhaeltnis zu den Ostseeprovinzen, zu Polen und zu der Ukraine erhebt Balfour eine ungeheuerliche Beschuldingung. Wir seien mit diesen Laendern verfahren, sagen wir kurz, wie England mit Griechenland, d.h., wir haetten sie zum aktiven Heeresdienst gegen Deutschlands Feinde gepresst. Kein einziger Soldat ist zum Heeresdienst aus diesen Laendern fuer Deutschlands Sache gezwungen worden”. "
(Little explanation: Prince Max von Baden (than Chancelor/Prime Minister of Germany, quotes a pubic speech made by Wilhelm Solf in presence of the Press, who was than Secretary of Foreign Affairs of his government (1918). Solf replies to a speech made by Lord Balfour (Britain) concerning the destiny of the former Russian provinces in relation to suspected German goals, that Britain despite claiming to be a champion in the defense of freedom and law, wouldn’t mind to have “Ivan the Terrible” been reborn to lead Russia to a new allied crusade against Germany in the name of “Freedom and Law”, that it is cynical to worry for the economical shortcomings in the German occupied Eastern territories, because it is the British operated ocean blockade which harms the German, Russian, Neutral Countries and World populations alike. Solf refuses Lord Balfours discrimination of the new free Finnland as a German puppet and reminds the legitimate yearlong fight for freedom of this nation which always benefited of the sympathies of small nations loving persons. Solf than responds to the accusation that germany forces the new free nations people to become German soldiers as completely wrong. “Not a single soldier of these countries has been forced into active German army duties” )

2
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: January 03, 2010, 03:35:07 AM »
Quote: Page 293 Line22: “Der Staatsekretaer bereinigte den Brest=Litowsker Frieden:  “.. Der Friede von Brest=Litowsk kam zustande auf Grund der einen grossen Uebereinstimmung zwischen der russischen und der deutschen Regierung, dass die jahrhundertelang unterdrueckten Fremdvoelker Russlands das von ihnen erstrebte nationale Eigendasein erhalten sollten. Diese Uebereinstimmung ueber das Schicksal der Randvoelker ist eine weltbedeutende Tatsache, die sich aus der Geschichte nicht mehr ausloeschen laesst. Nicht ueber das Ziel, wohl aber ueber die Methoden und die Wege, die zu dem Eigendasein der Voelker fuehren sollten, gingen die russische und die deutsche Auffassung auseinander. Unsere Auffassung ist nach wie vor die, dass der Weg zur Freiheit nicht ueber Anarchie und Massenmord fuehren darf.Zwischen der ersten Sprengung der Fesseln und der vollen Selbstbestimmungsfaehigkeit der Randvoelker liegt das natuerliche Uebergangsstadium. Bis sich die ordnenden Kraefte in den verschiedenen Laendern zusammenfinden, fuehlt sich Deutschland zum Schutz dieser Gemeinwesen berufen, im eigenen wie im allgemeinen Interesse, wie denn auch tatsaechlich Deutschland von den nationalen Mehrheiten und nationalen Minderheiten gerufen worden ist. Der Brest=Litowsker Friede ist ein Rahmen, das Bild, das darin entstehen wird, ist erst in seinen ersten Anfaengen entworfen. Die deutsche Regierung ist entschlossen, den erbetenen und gegebenen Schutz nicht zu einer gewaltsamen Annexion zu missbrauchen, sondern den bisher unterdrueckten Voelkern den Weg zur Freiheit und Ordnung und zur gegenseitigen Duldung zu oeffnen.  Meine Herren! England hat das Recht verwirkt, moralisch fuer die russischen Randstaaten in die Schranken zu treten. In ihrer namenlosen Leidenszeit  waehrend des Krieges haben sie sich einmal ueber das andere an England um Unterstuetzung ihrer Sache gewandt. Sie ist Ihnen  staendig versagt geblieben. Es gab eine Zeit, in der England das zaristische Russland schaerfer bekaempfte als irgendeine andere Nation. Als waehrend des Krieges das zaristische Russland im eigenen Lande unterdrueckte, raubte und mordete, hat England geschwiegen, ja mehr als das, es hat den russischen Tatbestand vor der Welt beschoenigt und gefaelscht, und so mordete  Russland dank Englands moralischer Unterstuetzung mit einer unerhoerten, durch das Gewissen der Welt nicht gehemmten Schwungkraft. Der Hehler darf nicht Richter sein.     
Little explanation:Prince Max von Baden (than Chancelor/Prime Minister of Germany, quotes a pubic speech made by Wilhem Solf in presence of the Press, who was than Secretary of Foreign Affairs of his government (1918). Solf explains that the Brest=Litowsk Peace Treaty has to be considered as the framework for a future peaceful reorganization of the Eastern Nations legal aspirations for their Freedom. Solf says that on this point the present Russian and German governments fully agreed, but that they disagreed on the ways to reach these states of Freedom. Germany considers that it has to protect the free peoples entities in the east on their natural and irrevocable way  towards their independent final statehoods, to be achieved without anarchy and mass-murders. The German presence is therefore temporary in these regions. There will be no forced annexations of Eastern Territories. Solf than criticizes  the British policies towards Russia as being purely selfish. Having been among the harshest enemies of Tsarist Russia in the past, the present times policy ignored the rightful claims of the oppressed nations and only the maintenance of Russia as cannon fodder supplier was their new morality. Accordingly to all this, unmasked  cynical Britain has no more honest  role to play for these freedom aspiring People in the east.)

3
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: January 03, 2010, 02:30:07 AM »
Out  of the original memories of the german Prince Max von Baden: Title of the book:  “Erinnerungen und Dokumente”. Author : Prinz Max von Baden.  Printed by “Deutsche Verlags Anstalt”. Stuttgart Berlin und Leipzig. 1927.
Quote: Page 579 Line 24: “Inzwischen erhielten wir die Gewissheit, dass in unserer naechsten Naehe ein anderer Seuchenherd wirksam war und eine unheimliche Ansteckungskraft ausuebte: die russische Botschaft. Die verdaechtigen Zeichen hatten sich in den letzten Wochen gehaeuft: auffallend reger Kurierdienst, Geruechte ueber umfangreichen Waffenschmuggel: russische Agitatoren redden in den Versammlungen der Unabhaengigen Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands: der abgerufene Attache Semkoff, so wurde berichtet, habe sich bei einem Abschiedsessen geruehmt, Millionen in das deutsche Volk gebracht zu haben, zur Foerderung der in Kuerze bevorstehenden Revolution. Am 4. November abends war die Kurierkiste auf dem Schlesischen Bahnhof planmaessig entzweigegangen. Solf berichtete am Morgen des 5., dass dabei aufruehrerische Schriften denkbar kompromittierenden Inhalts and Tageslicht gekommen waeren: Aufrufe zum Revolutionskampf und Meuchelmord. Nunmehr hatten wir die gewuenschte Handhabe gegen Joffe und seinen Stab von geuebten Revolutionstechnikern. Wir beschlossen, am Abend dieses Tages dem diplomatischen Vertreter Russlands mitzuteilen, das ser am naechsten Morgen mit seinem gesammten Botschaftspersonal Berlin zu verlassen haette. Bis dahin sollte die Botschaft unter polizeiliche Bewachung gestellt werden. Scheidemann erklaerte in dieser Sitzung: Der Boschewismus ist heut die groessere Gefahr als die Entente. Es war wohl  keiner  unter uns, der nicht von der Notwendigkeit durchdrungen war, die Mehrheitssozialdemokraten gegen die Unabhaengigen stark zu machen.”  (short explanation:  Prince Max von Baden is a relative of Wilhelm II, he is also Chancelor of Germany after summer 1918. He describes the discovery of the Bolchevik Plot to create a revolution in Germany involving the Russian Embassy in Berlin. In the evening of November 4th 1918 a Russian diplomatic shipment is on purpose “accidently” opened at a Berlin train station and the content includes Leaflets calling for murder. The same evening the german authorities inform the Russian Embassador “Joffe” that he and the entire Russian embassy staff will have to leave the next morning and till than the Embassy will be put under Police control. The SPD Member of Parliament and the government  Mr Scheidemann says that Bolchevism is a far more dangereous threat now than the western allied forces. Prince Max concludes: That all in his government agreed that the SPD (Social Democrat Party) had to be supported and reinforced against the USPD (german pro-bolchevik socialist party also present in the German Parliament in those days, later became Communist Party).

4
The Russian Revolution / Re: Trotzky and Russia and ...
« on: December 28, 2009, 03:51:09 PM »
Salonfaehig.. that is a german old fashionned word meaning.. "suitable to appear in a good society" or in their saloon.. like a social meeting place with some good standards. Having accepted soviet delegates (of whom some where convicted terrorists also to german standards) and later Mr Leon Bronstein alias Trotski at the official conference table with a Bavarian Prince as a discussion partner.. the German Imperial authorities made the Bolchevics "salonfaehig". The decision to recognize them as a Government and give them their Embassy in Berlin was the other recognition. That is what I mean..  (the correct spelling should be "a" with 2 points on top of the "a".. but my keybrod has no german letters.. sorry. 

5
The Russian Revolution / Re: Trotzky and Russia and ...
« on: December 28, 2009, 02:47:35 PM »
quote:
all book is here: http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/ (Sutton wrote on the basis of dokuments, you can prove it)
..............
Hello.. thank you.. this is very interesting..  entering the dark zones of history... In Trotski's writings (a few I read) he mentionned something about his problems to leave the american continent.. but now you add more infos on this. (Please also look at my discussion "Wilhelm II sponsor, accomplice and victim of bolchevism?" This discussion could be unified. Don't know how to link the groups.. sorry.) But if you have evidence of Wilson himself sponsoring Trotski.. this is quite tough.. considering that Wilson would have helped to destroy the Kerenski government?? But Wilson was it in his interest that Russia would quit the war? Maybe Wilson was such a true man of peace that he wished to break the allied unity which implied that any would refuse to negotiate with germany???  I read also that the german Embassy in Sveden was somehow the "bank" or cash supplier of the early Bolcheviks trying to get their foot into the Kerenski State.  (By the way I consider that the germans were thinking that after achieving peace with the western allies, their army in the east would easy clean up the Soviet regime and return Russia to a kind of acceptable rule...

6
The Russian Revolution / Re: Mark Twain on the Romanovs and Revolution
« on: December 28, 2009, 02:34:43 PM »
I found a book preview of Mark Twains Autobiography.  When Mark Twain describes the fun he had with his youth friend "Mars Wales" who is forcing a mulatto slave girl to have sex and making fun out of her slave mother in the same time, than I understand that Mark Twain did not always have the same ideas about human slavery. Younger poeple think different than older ones.. The older he became .. the more he mentionned murder and dynamite to solve such problems...



http://books.google.com/books?id=UmBnM07AzlUC&pg=RA1-PA277&lpg=RA1-PA277&dq=Albert+Bigelow+Paine+wilhelm&source=bl&ots=WnqoysqwaD&sig=zcZ8AWHiYLlFB1LRplTy38t0UxE&hl=en&ei=QdU3S-mbN5_J_gahqrCGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CB8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false

7
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: December 28, 2009, 02:18:28 PM »
I think so, too. I had no time to translate the german original text into english.. yet.. but the german text of these memories says so..  they were satisfied to weaken the russian army with bolchevik agitation.. than dealed with them in Brest Litovsk, and underestimated the effect a soviet State (recoginized by Imperial Germany!!) will do on their home grown revolutionaries..  Those soon agreed.. that.. "we'll do the same back home, too..". The short story could be: Wilhelm (his own top advisers) light a fire in Russia and get their own house burnt soon after. Than they cry "Fire, Fire!!" and flee the scene.

8
The Russian Revolution / Re: Mark Twain on the Romanovs and Revolution
« on: December 27, 2009, 03:14:15 PM »
Dear Sir, thank you for the weblink to Mark Twains writings. He is just a great writer.. and he catches me just by his style and humor. I copy paste here one example and invite other people of the Forum to check your link. Of cause Marc Twain did not live long enough to see what happened after the "evil Tsars" and some of these Siberia Slaves once they got hold of the power in Russia... Each person is somehow the child of his time, and he was a great american free man probably unable to live very long in Russia under any circumstances.
Quote (1) (Mark Twain:)
What is the Czar of Russia but a house afire in the midst of a city of eighty millions of inhabitants? Yet instead of extinguishing him, together with his nest and system, the liberation-parties are all anxious to merely cool him down a little and keep him.

It seems to me that this is illogical -- idiotic, in fact. Suppose you had this granite-hearted, bloody-jawed maniac of Russia loose in your house, chasing the helpless women and little children -- your own. What would you do with him, supposing you had a shotgun? Well, he is loose in your house -- Russia. And with your shotgun in your hand, you stand trying to think up ways to modify" him.

Quote (2)
Of course I know that the properest way to demolish the Russian throne would be by revolution. But it is not possible to get up a revolution there; so the only thing left to do, apparently, is to keep the throne vacant by dynamite until a day when candidates shall decline with thanks. Then organize the Republic. And on the whole this method has some large advantages; for whereas a revolution destroys some lives which cannot well be spared, the dynamite way doesn't. Consider this: the conspirators against the Czar's life are caught in every rank of life, from the low to the high. And consider: if so many take an active part, where the peril is so dire, is this not evidence that the sympathizers who keep still and do not show their hands, are countless for multitudes? Can you break the hearts of thousands of families with the awful Siberian exodus every year for generations and not eventually cover all Russia from limit to limit with bereaved fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters who secretly hate the perpetrator of this prodigious crime and hunger and thirst for his life? Do you not believe that if your wife or your child or your father was exiled to the mines of Siberia for some trivial utterances wrung from a smarting spirit by the Czar's intolerable tyranny, and you got a chance to kill him and did not do it, that you would always be ashamed to be in your own society the rest of your life? Suppose that that refined and lovely Russian lady who was lately stripped bare before a brutal soldiery and whipped to death by the Czar's hand in the person of the Czar's creature had been your wife, or your daughter or your sister, and to-day the Czar should pass within reach of your hand, how would you feel -- and what would you do? Consider, that all over vast Russia, from boundary to boundary, a myriad of eyes filled with tears when that piteous news came, and through those tears that myriad of eyes saw, not that poor lady, but lost darlings of their own whose fate her fate brought back with new access of grief out of a black and bitter past never to be forgotten or forgiven.

If I am a Swinburnian -- and clear to the marrow I am -- I hold human nature in sufficient honor to believe there are eighty million mute Russians that are of the same stripe, and only one Russian family that isn't.

Mark Twain (7).
Quote (3)
THE AMERICAN CLAIMANT, 1891

Coinciding with the visit of Stepniak in early 1891 was Twain's work on The American Claimant. The book is peppered with references to Siberia and Russian tyranny. In chapter 18 Twain has his protagonist Colonel Sellers proposing to buy Siberia:

Where is the place where there is twenty-five times more manhood, pluck, true heroism, unselfishness, devotion to high and noble ideals, adoration of liberty, wide education, and brains, per thousand of population, than any other domain in the whole world can show?"

"Siberia!"

"Right."

"It is true; it certainly is true, but I never thought of it before."

"Nobody ever thinks of it. But it's so, just the same. In those mines and prisons are gathered together the very finest and noblest and capablest multitude of human beings that God is able to create. Now if you had that kind of a population to sell, would you offer it to a despotism? No, the despotism has no use for it; you would lose money. A despotism has no use for anything but human cattle. But suppose you want to start a republic?"

"Yes, I see. It's just, the material for it."

"Well, I should say so! There's Siberia with just the very finest and choicest material on the globe for a republic, and more coming -- more coming all the time, don't you see! It is being daily, weekly, monthly recruited by the most perfectly devised system that has ever been invented, perhaps. By this system the whole of the hundred millions of Russia are being constantly and patiently sifted, sifted, sifted, by myriads of trained experts, spies appointed by the Emperor personally; and whenever they catch a man, woman or child that has got any brains or education or character, they ship that person straight to Siberia. It is admirable, it is wonderful. It is so searching and so effective that it keeps the general level of Russian intellect and education down to that of the Czar" (11).

The American Claimant was serialized in the Sunday edition of the New York Sun in early 1892 and in various McClure syndications as well as England's Idler.


_____


9
The Russian Revolution / Re: Trotzky and Russia and ...
« on: December 27, 2009, 02:04:48 PM »
Where did you find this "Trotsky" quote?  Can I know the context and when he made it? Did he write that, or is a part of a speech? It seems that today Trotsky is still "salonfaehig" for some red idealists. I'd like to improve my knowledge about this person.

10
(Reply continued from part 1)....
Only the ointed Tsar will be a real one, and once he will be so by the Patriarch, than his Tsardom is to be recognized by all. If he is able and loved he will restore the Tsardom day by day by his good actions and faith into his mission. The Romanov Dynastie started through an election. A vote…. By Russian free men of that time. A new vote for a new Tsar by Russian free men is absolutely a possibility especially if the modern leaders of Russia will see an advantage in this measure. The problem of the nobility of Russia is also that no more fresh blood is added to their class by a sovereign who compensates natural decline and disproportional low numbers of aristocrats with his power to make some more . People with merits who join the “club” and get accepted over time and refresh their till now ever shrinking world full of regrets. Imagine that some day the real Russian leadership “sponsors” their own Tsar, and that he will make counts and dukes out of them, if they wish so… (that their children will be full of money and other privileges)….  That this monarch will allow them into newly instaured knight orders, have a lot of medals with nice designs to attribute..That kind of Tsardom coupled with the support of their church is always an option. The first Tsar will have to be a smooth puppet in their hands and play the game. But it may work out fine for Russia. I seriously consider this option as not from the table for ever.

11
Reply (Part 1 (because limit of 7500 caracters)
Maybe we can start with: "Never say Never" ?? I am not a specialist of constitutional law, but in this Forum I guess also normal people can have a place to express their "view". Let's look back at Russia's history: But "precisely"... The "legal" power of Nicholas II has been delegated by himself in march 1917 to his son. A few hours later he changed his mind and "in the name of his child" also delegated the power of his child to Mihael Alexandrovich Romanov who was Nicholas II younger surviving brother. Here we can note a first "irregularity" which may have led to complications in case the son of Nicholas II (Alexei) would have lived till his majority (I guess 21 years, than). It may have not, but it is very possible that Alexei could have claimed "back" his throne from Mihael later on. Especially if the wife of Mihael was continued to be considered as a morganatic spouse of Mihael. In this case Alexei would have "simply" inherited the throne from Mihael after his "reign" ending by natural death or abdication in favor of Alexei. Now everybody knows that Alexei is dead and this explanation is ow just usefull to explain in which way the "holy power" of a Tsar was handled by the Tsar himself and what could have been the consequences without speculating too far. So maybe Nicholas II wished by abdicating his son, which is a disputable action in the long term, to free this child from the pressure of official burdens, especially in 1917 when the country was not in the best shape. The Tsar Nicholas is quoted as having said "No they will not have him". This was in response to the "blackmail" (by the court staffers,military or government people or whoever able to pressurize the Tsar at that moment), which he did not consider when signing the first version of his own and sole abdication, that this Tsar Child will have to take "office" with a regency and live without his parents in the vincinity. Nicholas, allone, without his wife made this choice to have his son have a most happy life as a child. So the abdication had to be retyped, and as it seems, the second version had the date and time of the first abdication placed on it. This choice having been done as a measure to keep his child out of trouble is an easy ground to later dispute its durability in time. Alexei was murdered, so the qestion is now to analyze how much Nicholas as the last undisputed legal leader of the Russian people was considering the transmission of his Imperial power to his brother Mihael as a final solution: This may be important when monarchists consider also the will of the last will of the sovereign to be of importance, beside other rules. I suggest here that Nicholas (even with the option of a return of his son later on in mind) was considering that his brother Mihael was the most rightfull heir to the throne of Russia after him and his son Alexei. Considering that the abdication precisely mentions the name of Mihael Romanov and that the brother as the only legal power able to decide about this choice was Nicholas II, a monarchist can consider that Mihael was rightfull to consider himself the legally designated new Tsar in the moment he was informed about this new situation by the persons bringing him the news in official fashion. So what did Mihael Romanov with this legal decision of his brother Nicholas II? He did not immediately wished to accept the succession to his brothers position and made a written statement that the choice about the new Tsar must be left open till the Russian people will have the time to plebiscite on this question. I do not know precisely if in that document signed by Mihael Romanov it was just a matter to mount an election concerning his precise Person as future Tsar, or if the choice will be open to any other pretender or even if Tsardom can be “voted out” and the country be changed into a Republic for good. But I guess that this document signed by Mihael Romanov is in fact the last “legal” document to be of value for the Russian monarchists when considering a next, fully legal step towards a new Russian regime. I considered it a big chance for them, that Mihael left behind this option in writing and probably this document is still existing? According to Nicholas II abdication and the following decision of Mihael Romanov to let the Russian government run the state affairs till “the elections” the Kerensky administration of Imperial Russia is still to be considered a legal form of Russia through monarchist eyes.. I guess that the change of the Russian Empire into a “ Russian Republic”, as it was done by the Kerensky government later in 1917 cannot be considered as “legal” any more, considering that the Russian people had never time in 1917 to fairly get an occasion to vote on the matter. When Kernsky and his men had to flee from Russia  from Lenin’s Bolcheviks, the legality of any further decision in the matter of statehood is interrupted for good. We may consider a total interruption of “legality “since late 1917 and the entire Bolchevik Era as a period to “ignore” when trying to look for a new start connected to the legal proceedings with Nicholas II and his brother Mihael. ---------- So when I started my comment with “Never say Never” I wished to attract attention to the “incredible-incroyable ” which happened before our eyes! The red bolchevik regime degenerated in front of us, and broke down. Who would have imagined that the Imperial Eagle of Russia will be raised again (not the Russian republic Eagle without Imperial crown of 1917!!), especially inside the Parliament of Russia today??? I mean.. with the Imperial crown , crests and all the rest? Will this be just a movie décor for the TV programs or is it a much deeper need which the Russian people wish to satisfy sooner or later? It may be worth to look more closely at the document signed by Mihael Romanov in 1917. Did he allow the Duma (Parliament) to have “anybody” be elected by them to be the next Tsar of Russia? Wasn’t the question of a constitutional monarchy not anyhow the only envisioned option? The disputes of present day Romanov Family members may not be too relevant in this case. The Russian Duma may be allowed to define who is the next Constitutional Monarch of Russia and with what kind of powers. The position of the Orthodox Chruch is most important, too. (First part of my reply.. to be continued with part 2)

12
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: December 27, 2009, 11:56:12 AM »
More information about Wilhelm II and his relations with the Russian Bolshevik Government:
Quoted out of the book: Title: "Kaiser und Revolution", Author: "Alfred Niemann", Oberstleutnant a.D. Editor: "August Scherl G.m.b.h., Berlin SW68" Printed in 1922. Extract: Page 62 Line 6:  “Der Kaiser brachte seinem neuen Staatssekretaer des Auswertigen gerade im Hinblick auf dessen Vertrautheit mit den Zustaenden des zaristischen Russlands ein unbedingtes Vertrauen entgegen und hatte sich davon ueberzeugen lassen, dass man die Sowjetregierung als tatsaechliche Staatliche Macht bewerten muesse und es darauf ankomme, auf dem Verhandlungswege fuer Deutschland herauszuholen, was sich eben nur herausholen lies. Die ploetzliche Rueckkehr des Staatssekretaers Helfferich aus Moskau verstimmte den Monarchen. Mann stellte ihm diesen wohlueberlegten Schritt als seine Art von Fahnenflucht dar. Ich hatte um die Mitte des Monats eine laengere Aussprache mit Major Schubert, der Mitglied der Moskauer Mission gewesen war und zur Berichterstattung in das Grosse Hauptquartier kam. Schubert gab ein eingehendes Bild von dem falschen Spiel der Bolschewiken und legte dar, dass schon ein entschlossenes Loesen aller Beziehungen seitens Deutschlands den Zusammenbruch der ganzen Sowjetherrlichkeit bedeuten wuerde. Seine Darlegungen erschienen mir so ueberzeugend und so ungemein bedeutungsvoll, dass ich General von Winterfeld bat, einen Vortrag Schuberts entgegenzunehmen. Das ist geschehen. Dagegen lehnte es der Reichskanzler ab, Schubert zu empfangen. Mit dem Kaiser, den die Entwicklung der Dinge in Russland besonders interessierte und der sich taeglich ueber die dortigen Begebenheiten von mir eingehenden Vortrag halten liess, habe ich wiederholt ueber die Moeglichkeiten eines Sturzes der Sowjetregierung gesprochen, fand aber immer die festgegruendete Ueberzeugung, dass die Richtigkeit der von seinem berufenen politischen Ratgeber befolgten Politik ueber allen Zweifeln erhaben sei. Erst spaeter, als die Ergebnisse der Maulwurfsarbeit des Herrn Joffe bedrohend in Erscheinung traten, wurde der Kaiser stutzig. Seinem persoenlichen Eingreifen ist es zu verdanken, dass man dem russischen Kuriergepaeck eingehende Aufmerksamkeit widmete, eine verdaechtige Kiste auf dem Bahnhof Friedrichstrasse den Aufzug hinunterfallen liess und entdeckte, dass diese Kiste mit revolutionaeren Flugschriften angefuellt war. Herr Joffe war damit entlarvt, die Giftsaat seiner Propaganda konnte aber nicht mehr ertoetet werden, sie ging auf und trug reiche Fruechte.”  (End of quote. Little explanation: The Colonel Niemann writes that he made himself a daily briefing to the Emperor Wilhelm II about the events in Russia. Wilhelm was particulary interested by events from Russia. Wilhelm II was very disappointed by the behavior of his Minister of Foreign Affairs “Helfferich” who by August 1918 considered that Bolcheviks are dishonest and relations must be cut and departed back to Germany earlier than planned. Especially after the same Minister Helfferich had been considered by the Emperor as the ideal representative in Moskau to deal with the Soviet Governement  which has been described to the Emperor as a  "the veritable state power" which through negotiations should be offering to germany as much as possible. Wilhelm II apparently refused to listen to those who returned from Moskow with alarming news about the Bolcheviks (including his Minister of Foreign Affairs??!!). He remained convinced that his “usual political advisors” were right to keep relations with Soviet Russia. Niemann than credits the Emperor with having “only later” got suspicions about the activities of “"Joffe”" (Representative of SovietRussia having his Embassy in the Center of Berlin and benefiting from diplomatic imunity!). Wilhelm is credited further by Niemann with having had the idea to break open a wooden crate on delivery to the Soviet Embassy. Result: Filled with illegal Bolchevik Propaganda leaflets! Joffe was “unmasked”. But unfortunately the destruction work Joffe had started “could not be stopped any more”..  So this is the “official” version how Wilhlem II finally understood who were Lenin and his men??? I point out here that this is all written in a book printed by a supporter of Wilhelm II trying to defend him. He could not avoid to mention that despite the most  bad news from most qualified german witnesses in  Moskow the German Emperor preferred to believe that deals with Soviet Russia will be fine. A kind of prostitution of “aristocratic ideals” I suppose which may be the result of “modern warfare” ?)

13
Nicholas II / Re: why not marrying a russian?
« on: December 27, 2009, 09:57:34 AM »
BTW, many would disagree with me, but the marriage rules above concerned only Romanov grand dukes and princes, not the Tsar.  Alexander II married his mistress, a non-royal Russian aristocrat, and there is anecdotal evidence he was considering making her empress and their children grand dukes and grand duchesses.  As autocrat, he had supreme power; who could stop him?
[/quote]                                   ......I quoted this here before..but how can I make this look "blue" ????
..........................................
My reply:
Yes Sir I also consider that Alexander II was about to modify the laws in his favor. It is worth a deeper study. In fact I suspect that the terrorist bomb attack on this very interesting man modified terribly the destiny of the "world". It is a fact that Alexander II had signed the document providing further freedom to some of his subjects the day he was killed. It was his son Alexander III who apparently throw that document which was not yet transmitted to the ministers straight in the fire. Alexander II because of his personal understanding what life is about and humans as "weak not always perfect beings" seems to have been very much enclined to modify his Empire into something more modern. This would have included a reform of the Romanov Family rules, as you mention. It is really a terrible pitty that these social revolutionary terrorists who killed the Tsar Alexander II ignored how much "revolutionary" was in fact this Tsar building up an entire second familly inside his Palace... He was acting free as he wished in his most private sphere, first somehow hidden, and than more open ( p.ex. wedding with his former mistress and mother of his children) and how can be doubted that a man leading such a struggle in his own home would remain hostile to similar aspirations of other people in his Empire? The killing of Alexander II lead to a "reactionary" normalization which maybe his son Alexander III was able to lead as a winner (as Autocrat).. but when we see the psychological portrait of his son NicholasII, we may understand that for such a person the Empire left behind by an Alexander III was just too "hard" to manage.  Therefore the death of the "reformer" Tsar Alexander II may be considered as one of  the key event in recent history. (And showing that terrorist plots involving few actors can derail the path of world history)

14
Nicholas II / Re: why not marrying a russian?
« on: December 27, 2009, 08:47:27 AM »
Thank you for reading my comment. I wish to add here something more: The question of "Ebenbuerdigkeit" or Equality concerning brides of Royals is I suppose even a bit more complicated: You mention that in Russia "nobody can be equal to the Tsar Family" and therefore cannot be married to them. But I was reading that till the times of Peter the Great Childhood, or lets say till the times when his own father (a "pure russian bloodlined Tsar") where looking for brides, that the rule was completely different than what you explain: Any healthy woman could become a spouse to the Tsar and a kind of "public" announcement was done so that families may send their daughters to the jury in Moscow. Please check on this. This ressembles a bit the "ferry tale" way.. but it was really the law than. Of cause there were girls getting punished for having dared to show up.. because hostile other parties succeeded to "prove" bad intentions of bride candidates who "should have known ahead of time" that they were not suitable.. even a provocation.. to dare to show up.. and therefore eligible to harsh punishment... (p.ex. a girl not being a virgin could not just show up and than play the innocent one.. she would get punished etc..). But the rule was different and you will confirmme this because you know a lot I noticed on the forum. Now coming to the "equality" of Tsar Peters The Great Days... he has by his first "russian style made up children to children wedding" a fully russian wife by ancestry and birthplace. Here again we have confimration that Tsardom was able to regenerate itself without import of foreign females. Especially as a routine measure. Now what is Peter doing with this "traditional wedded wife" ? You know he got rid of her and obliged her to "marry Jesus" which was the legalway to divorce a woman in those days.. if that woman decides to chose Jesus and a Monastery. Peter had her dropped off in a Monastery and he was free to have a new wife. That one he found some time later in present day "Latvia or Estonia and she was from Lithunania".. I think. Probably she spoke also German? Anyhow.. it was in fact this "Maid" working for a protestant german tongue Protestant Priest who was the first "imported" bride to a russian Tsar in newer times. (Not to mention here the era of the vikings etc.) This counterdicts now completely what you wrote about "russians not being equal and high enough". Because that precise woman who even governed all by herself at the end, was not equal with anybody according to your criterials of "equalness". Sure is that she was not part of any former Boyard clan.. this can fit your arguments. So we may.. I say we may.. consider the "fashion" this new urge to "import" foreigners as the result of only Peters The Great first time in history choice to do so through this completely "abnormal" event of having a most basic communer and even not russian to become his wife and later also a crowned head of his state with his full consent during his life time. And it will be this kind of "newcomer" in the russian monarchy who will in fact avoid the choice of "real" russians as a perpetuation (except if Saltykov is father of PaulI). What can be the reason than? You write.. to avoid problems and rivalry. Very possible. It looks that when we use this argument that Tsardom had to stay out of "russian" society in ordert to remain on top of that crowd not being able to get allong as a functioning society? It is very possible that this policy was good for the old Russia since a lot of "foreigners" felt more attracted by a regime where "multinational" values could be shared and germans, svedes, french and british families could participate as part of the Imperial "team". This all will of cause add to the perception of the nobility as a cast of foreigners and artificial "add-ons", who are not like the russian people at all any more. But than we come to the point.. what is Old Russia than? Can it be just "russian" without all these "foreigners"? (Peter the Great said "NO"). Now to finish a few notes about the "equivalence" among the houses in western europe: For the Hohenzollern it was good enough that there was an ancestry having governed something.. so even if your family had hundreds of cousins, mostly unemployed.. and no territories under their control, the eligibility to become a bride was defined by the fact that the candidate bride family once had someone governing something like a kind of little state. So that made a woman "equivalent" to a Tsar in the 19th century.. but than we need to knwo that there have been a lot of descendants of former other Tsar families in Old Rssia and not just of the Romanovs(and not just first degree cousins). Other than Romanov Families who governed long before areas, more vast than what some of these western families were able to demonstrate in their family histories. So there must be still something else which made the choice of the 18th 19th centuries Tsars and Tsarinas favor the foreigners. I think it is also about feeling more comfortable among themselves.. since the Tsars were somehow "foreigners" in their own Empire? Thank you for more infos.

15
The Hohenzollern / Re: Kaiser Wilhelm II
« on: December 27, 2009, 07:53:25 AM »
More information about Wilhelm II and his thoughts and relations concerning the russian Bolshevik Government:
Quoted out of the book: Title: "Kaiser und Revolution", Author: "Alfred Niemann", Oberstleutnant a.D. Editor: "August Scherl G.m.b.h., Berlin SW68" Printed in 1922. Extract: Page 123 Line 22: "Am 1.November (1918) in den fruehen Nachmittagsstunden findet in der Villa Fraineuse die Aussprache statt. Ich habe die Zeit zu einem Spaziergang benutzt. Ploetzlich hoere ich die Hupe des kaiserlichen Autos. Der Kaiser laesst halten, winkt mich zu sich in den Wagen. Mit leuchttenden Augen erzaehlt er mir von dem was vorgefallen. "Sie haetten sehen sollen, wie der Feldmarschall sich vor seinen Kaiser stellte!-- Dass der ruhige Groener so in Harnisch geraten kann! Der hat Drews gehoerig klargemacht, wo die Hauptgefahr fuer das Vaterland liegt, nicht in der Uebermacht unserer Feinde, sondern in der Zersetzung und Auflehnung der Heimat. Dass es gerade ein sueddeutscher General war, der so fuer den Deutschen Kaiser und Koenig von Preussen eintrat, wie hat mir das wohlgetan".--- Der Monarch hat klar erkannt, dass hinter der ihm gestellten Zumutung mehr steckt als der toerrichte Glaube, durch Beseitigung desjenigen, der die Kriegserklaerung unterschrieb, eine groessere Einigkeit des verhetzten  und gequaelten deutschen Volkes zu erreichen und die Alliierten einem Verstaendigungsfrieden geneigt zu machen. Nein, wie wir einst den Bolschewismus benutzt hatten, um Russlands Widerstandskraft zu laehmen, so benutzen jetzt unsere Feinde den Geist der Auflehnung innerhalb des deutschen Volkes dazu, um die Moeglichkeit einer nationalen Erhebung gegen ein furchtbares Diktat, dass sie uns zudenken, im Keime zu ersticken." (End of quote and Little explanation: The Staff Colonel Niemann writes about a conversation he had with Wilhelm II right after a german politician "Drews" send from Berlin to the Spa Headquarters, suggested officialy to the Emperor that he may better abdicate to please the allies and make peace terms negotiations more easy. The main interesting part of this conversation is that the argument "The allied want to trick us germans with the same method we used in Russia by paralyzing the nations defenses through use of Bolchevism" but that will not work with us... is quite relevant about the attitude towards Bolchevism as a treacherous way to fight but which they  (The Kaiser, too) openly admit as having used to start with!. I hope the quote isn't too long here.. but it had to remain in the context of the entire event, Nov 1st 1918. Itmust be known that Niemann was writing and publishing hs books with consent of the Abdicated Emperor Wilhelm. Niemann somehow tried to serve his former Master by quoting the words of the Kaiser very frequently and trying to write a justification for the fomer Leader who was not well understood in his time when he was still in charge of Germany's Governement and Armed Forces.

Pages: [1] 2