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 - Ortino

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 70
16

Quote
Secondly, I do not think that this has to be considered an exception. Empress Alexandra in that letter is making the case for fairer treatment for the Jews of the Russian Empire: "here it is difficult for a Jew who is always hampered by legislative restrictions", "one would like him to be justly treated and not different to the others". When she writes: "The bad ones can be severely punished", I think that she means that there are two kind of Jews: "bad Jews" - revolutionaries and "good Jews" - the rest. Whereas "bad Jews" should be punished, the good ones deserved to be treated "not different to the others."

And therein lies the anti-Semitism--there are no "good Jews" and "bad Jews." There are good people and bad people. The religion has nothing to do with it. If you cannot make out the difference, then that tells me all I need to know.


Oh, I see. Nicholas and Alexandra's views do not agree with current views of ethnic equality, so they and their children deserved to be shot and bayoneted in a cellar.

Wow, you must have reading comprehension and/or interpretation problems. Identify where exactly I said they should be shot? If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that my bone to pick was with your interpretation.

Quote
Just a question: How many Jews in 1916 shared your liberal world view, that is, were "ethnic blind" and did not divide the world in "Jews" and "non Jews"?

Relevance? These off-topic arguments are growing tiresome.


17
Quote
Several things: it's Nicholas, not Alix, who writes about "timely reading". Alexandra writes about "The Protocols of the Freemasons", no mention of Jews.

A typo on my part then.

Quote
Quote
"Previously, Russians have never seen a Jew in position of authority: neither as governor, nor as policeman, nor even as postal employee. Even then, there were, of course, better times and worse times, but the Russian people had lived, worked, and disposed of the fruits of their labor, the Russian people had lived, worked, and disposed of their fruits of their labor, the Russian nation grew and enriched itself, the Russian name was grand and awe-inspiring. Now the Jew is on every corner and on all rungs of power. The Russian sees him as head of the ancient capital, Moscow, and in charge of the capital on the Neva, and in command of the Red Army, the most perfect mechanism of [national] self-destruction. He sees the Prospect of St Vladimir bear the glorious bane of Nakhimson, the historic Liteinyi Prospect renamed the Prospect of Volodarskii and Pavlovsk become Slutsk. The Russian now sees the Jew as judge and executioner. He meets Jews at every step - nor Communists, but people as hapless as himself, yet issuing orders, working for the Soviet regime; and this regime, after all, is everywhere, one cannot escape it. And this regime, had it emerged from the lowest depths of hell, could not be more malevolent or brazen. Is it any wonder, then, that the Russian, comparing the past with the present, concludes that the present regime is Jewish and therefore so diabolical?"

So what exactly are you suggesting here? That the Jews somehow brought this on themselves? As for your sources, I could care less that the authors are Jewish. One source is nearly 100 years old and the other is nearly 25--new perspectives, not to mention information, have emerged since then.

Quote
"Who specifically incited the [Kishinev 1905] pogrom? The standard answer for this and other comparable outbreaks of anti-Jewish violence has been "the tsarist authorities." "The Kishinev pogrom happened," as Judge characterizes the traditional view, "because the Russian government wanted it to happen." Recently, scholars including I. Michael Aronson, Shlomo Lambroza and Hans Rogger, have seriously challenged this approach. Judge stand squarely within this revisionist school... The true culprits in Judge's view were local agitators."
Neil B. Weissman, Slavic Review, vol.53, Nº 1, p.250

Challenging is not debunking. And again, have you nothing more recent?

Quote
The figure of those tried for taken part in pogroms can be compared to those tried for taking part in lynchings in the US (most of the victims being black Americans).

"(From 1895 to 1900) There were 632 deaths by lynching, just 35 more than by legal executions", Charles Noble Gregory, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 15, Nº 2 (February 1902), p.461

"Not in Spain, Russia, or even Turkey, are men burned at the stake by mobs, with or without charges of crime.The American states enjoy a complete monopoly of this distinction." Albert E. Pilsbury, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 15, Nº 9 (May 1902), p. 708

"Tennessee, Kentucky and Texas passed anti-lynching laws in 1897, but from 1897-1903, though 110 lynchings occured, not a single conviction for lynching is recorded." Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 4, Nº 2 (July 1913), p. 177

"When the victim is a colored man, whether black, red, or yellow, his murderer far too frequently escapes even arrest. All over the United States mob violence and lynching go unpunished, and whether in Springfield Illionois, Coatesville Pennsylvania, or in the Southern States, murders attended by atrocities which would disgrace a savage, and which in my early days were believed to be peculiar to the North American Indians, are committed with impunity, and the public opinion of the community sustains the murderers. It has been estimated that no less than 100,000 men have taken part in lynchings of whom not one has been punished." Moorfield Storey, Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 4, Nº 4 (November 1913), p.496

What exactly are you trying to prove with this information? One has nothing to do with the other. That's like using information about the Holocaust to discuss the Rwandan genocide simply because they're both genocides.

18
Quote
Well, I don't agree. First of all, they did NOT know him. Grand Duchess Olga knew him. Alexandra and Nicholas did not know him. They took their time, in the middle of a war which had produced hundred of thousands of invalids, widows, orphans, refugees... to attend the petition of one man who was Jewish. I think that these "little" things (I suppose that for the wounded man was not so little thing) show where one stands. It is certainly not what could be expected from a Jew hater.

I'm not sure why you're fixating on Nicholas and Alix, since the imperial family consisted of more than just them, but I'll go along with this. They didn't need to know him directly--Grand Duchess Olga knew him and could vouch for him. He had a name and known history and was therefore removed from the larger, more abstract group of people known as "the Jews." That is why they may have felt more inclined to help him. And does petitioning for one man somehow compensate for the thousands of Jews that died in pogroms or suffered due to both longstanding and newly-instituted laws? When you're the most powerful couple in the Empire, capable of instituting major change and improving people's lives on a grand scale, the "little" things as you call them hardly matter. Not to mention that this was during the war, when they needed all of the good, loyal soldiers they could get.

Quote
Secondly, I do not think that this has to be considered an exception. Empress Alexandra in that letter is making the case for fairer treatment for the Jews of the Russian Empire: "here it is difficult for a Jew who is always hampered by legislative restrictions", "one would like him to be justly treated and not different to the others". When she writes: "The bad ones can be severely punished", I think that she means that there are two kind of Jews: "bad Jews" - revolutionaries and "good Jews" - the rest. Whereas "bad Jews" should be punished, the good ones deserved to be treated "not different to the others."

And therein lies the anti-Semitism--there are no "good Jews" and "bad Jews." There are good people and bad people. The religion has nothing to do with it. If you cannot make out the difference, then that tells me all I need to know.

Quote
On February 14 1917, just two weeks before the Revolution, Sandro (Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Nicholas' brother-in-law) wrote in a letter to his brother Nikolai Mikhailovich about a conversation with Nicholas and Alexandra:

"In my conversation with A and N, I also touched on two subjects, which have been raised by Protopopov [Minister of Interior, Empress Alexandra's protégé], the expropiation of landowners' land in favour of the peasants and equal rights for the Jews. It´s typical that Alix did not voice any protest on these questions, while he objected to the first and then appeared confused about the second, replying that it was equality only in the sense of widening the Pale of Settlement; I protested as strongly as I could, saying that concessions or new rights for the Jews were unthinkable, that we could not afford to be merciful to a race the Russian people hate even more now because of their negative attitude towards the war and outright treason; it was noticeable that Alix didn't protest, obviously such projects do exist."

Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko, A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra, p.532

Let's examine this more closely, shall we?

This is Nicholas' reaction:

"while he objected to the first and then appeared confused about the second, replying that it was equality only in the sense of widening the Pale of Settlement."

So basically his interpretation of "equality" is expanding the giant ghetto the Jews were forced to live in. A real advocate for Jewish rights there.

This is Sandro's reaction:

"I protested as strongly as I could, saying that concessions or new rights for the Jews were unthinkable, that we could not afford to be merciful to a race the Russian people hate even more now because of their negative attitude towards the war and outright treason."

I think that speaks for itself.

As for Alix? Not protesting is not the same thing as advocating.


19
Quote
Empress Alexandra:

"7 April 1916 I send you the petition of one of Aunt Olga's  wounded men. He is a Jew. Has lived since 10 years in America. He was wounded and lost his left arm on the Carpathians. The wound had healed well, but he suffers fearfully morally as in August he must leave, and loses the right of living in either the capital or other big town. He is living in town only on the strength of a special permit, which a previous minister of the Interior gave him for one year. I read a letter of his to little Vera's English governesss and Aunt Olga says he is a man with good education, so to speak. 10 years ago he left for the United States to find the opportunity to become a useful member of human society to the fullest extent of his capabilities, as here it is difficult for a Jew who is always hampered by legislative restrictions. Tho' in America, he never forgot Russia and suffered much from homesickness and the moment war broke out he flew here to enlist to defend his country.
Now that he lost his arm serving in our army, got the St George medal, he longs to remain here and have the right to live wherever he pleases in Russia, a right the Jews don't posses. As soon as discharged from the army, as a cripple, he finds things have remained the same as before, and his headlong rush home to fight, and loss of his arm has brought him no gain. One sees the bitterness, and I fully grasp it - surely such a man ought to be treated the same as any other soldier who received such a wound. He was not obliged to fly over here at once. Tho' he is a Jew, one would like him to be justly treated and not different to the others with similar losses of limb.
With his knowledge of English and his learning he could easier gain his bread in a big town of course; and one ought not to let him become more bitter and feel the cruelty of his old country. To me it seems hard upon all - it's so cruel to my mind.
The bad ones can be severely punished. Can you tell me what decision you write on the petition; as Aunt Olga wanted to know."

Nicky to Alix - 7 April - Mogilev

"My own Lovebird,
Only a few lines, because me again has no time, the ministers having sent me hills of papers - probably before Easter.
I wrote on that petition of the wounded Jew - to allow living in any place of Russia and sent it to Sturmer [Minister of Interior]
..."

Source: Andrei Maylunas and Sergei Mironenko, "A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra, p.465

These entries refer to a single person, someone the family knew. It is easy enough to sympathize when there is a personal connection. I have seen little evidence to suggest that they cared about the plight of Russian Jews in general. In fact, in 1918, we find these entries in their diaries:

In Alexandra's diary:

Tobolsk 26 March/8 April ...

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

Nicholas wrote in his diary the next day:

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

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which were published during Nicholas II's reign and have since been attributed to the Cheka, discuss a supposed Jewish plot to take over the world. The fact that they were reading these mere months before they died says enough. And Alix's reference to it as "timely reading matter" clearly suggests that she viewed the Revolution as some Jewish plot. I don't believe in degrees of anti-Semitism--one is either anti-Semitic or one is not.

If you need further proof, read about the series of pogroms that took place at the beginning of the 20th century. Nicholas would have been well aware of them and in some cases, he and his government helped incite them.

Quote
"... American Jews played an important role in the Communist Party USA. According to Alfred Kutzik, the chairman of the National Jewish Commission of the Communist Party from 1989 to 1992, during most of the CPUSA's existence, almost half of its membership and a quarter of its leadership were Jewish." Herbert Romerstein, The Venona Secrets, p.391

Jews were not politically, socially or economically opressed in the United States.

I'm not sure how this relates to my original post. We were talking about the Russian Revolution and I made no reference to American Jews at all. How many Jews were members of the American Communist Party around the turn of the 21st century has no bearing on this discussion.



20
I generally dislike questions like this, since they attempt to assign blame to one particular person, group or thing. Events in history are shaped by many people and things--some just have a bigger impact than others. Were there Jews who participated in the Revolution? Certainly. Many Russian Jews were still living in the Pale of Settlement though and would not have had the political or financial resources to carry out a coup on a large scale.

A disclaimer should it prove necessary: I'm Jewish.

Quote
The memoirs of Pierre Gilliard and Lili Dehn blame the Jews for the revolution and murder of the Imperial Famly.

I wouldn't put much stock in such accusations--the imperial family itself was anti-Semitic, as indicated by both their writings and actions. Anti-Semitic sentiment was unfortunately rather universal during that period.

Quote
Furthermore, the Nazi justified their persecution of the Jews since they were identified as Bolsheviks.

I haven't really heard this. If anything, the Nazis spent more time pointing at Jews as representatives of the evils of capitalism.

Quote
A) A greater number of Jews lived in urban areas where the movement started.

I wouldn't say that was the case. There were only about 20,000 Jews living in Moscow circa 1905. Some restrictions were loosened towards the end, but most Jews still lived in the Pale of Settlement or other parts of the Russian interior. Those that did live in large cities faced the threat of expulsion--Certain groups of Jews living in Moscow, for example, were expelled during the early 1890s and in 1905. There were also restrictions on how many Jews could enter institutions of higher learning and how many could hold certain professions.

Quote
C) There is a higher concentration of both wealth and intellectualism within Jewish communities making them attractive targets/recruits for communist propaganda.

Intellectualism has always been prevalent among the Jewish community, but most Russian Jews were desperately poor under the czarist regime. One need only watch Fiddler on the Roof to get a sense of that. As I mentioned, there were also restrictions on the number of Jews in certain professions. Were there some wealthy Jews during this period? I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority were not.

Quote
D) with Jews being historically persecuted by Christian dominated autocratic regimes it stands to reason that they would find a political movement promising them greater security and power attractive.

I'm not an expert on the politics and social undercurrents of this period, but I think this would lie closer to the truth. Jews were continually politically, socially, and economically oppressed under Romanov rule, so it makes sense that they would find solidarity with those facing similar hardships.








 

21
I generally dislike questions like this, since they attempt to assign blame to one particular person, group or thing. Events in history are shaped by many people and things--some just have a bigger impact than others. Were there Jews who participated in the Revolution? Certainly. Many Russian Jews were still living in the Pale of Settlement though and would not have had the political or financial resources to carry out a coup on a large scale.

A disclaimer should it prove necessary: I'm Jewish.

Quote
The memoirs of Pierre Gilliard and Lili Dehn blame the Jews for the revolution and murder of the Imperial Famly.

I wouldn't put much stock in such accusations--the imperial family itself was anti-Semitic, as indicated by both their writings and actions. Anti-Semitic sentiment was unfortunately rather universal during that period.

Quote
Furthermore, the Nazi justified their persecution of the Jews since they were identified as Bolsheviks.

I haven't really heard this. If anything, the Nazis spent more time pointing at Jews as representatives of the evils of capitalism.

Quote
A) A greater number of Jews lived in urban areas where the movement started.

I wouldn't say that was the case. There were only about 20,000 Jews living in Moscow circa 1905 and similar numbers I imagine in St. Petersburg. Some restrictions were loosened towards the end, but most Jews still lived in the Pale of Settlement or the Russian interior until 1917. Those that did live in cities faced the threat of expulsion--Certain groups of Jews living in Moscow, for example, were expelled during the early 1890s and in 1905. There were also restrictions on how many Jews could enter institutions of higher learning and how many could hold certain professions.

Quote
C) There is a higher concentration of both wealth and intellectualism within Jewish communities making them attractive targets/recruits for communist propaganda.

Intellectualism has always been prevalent among the Jewish community, but most Russian Jews were desperately poor under the czarist regime. One need only watch Fiddler on the Roof to get a sense of that. As I mentioned, there were also restrictions on the number of Jews in certain professions. Were there some wealthy Jews during this period? I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority were not.

Quote
D) with Jews being historically persecuted by Christian dominated autocratic regimes it stands to reason that they would find a political movement promising them greater security and power attractive.

I'm not an expert on the politics and social undercurrents of this period, but I think this would lie closer to the truth. Jews were continually politically, socially, and economically oppressed under Romanov rule, so it makes sense that they would find solidarity with those facing similar hardships.








 

22
Quote
I'm not sure why the Prince of Wales wasn't chosen; I suspect everyone felt he'd be a security headache. Of course, he'd been to Russia not too long ago for the funeral of Alexander III.

The future Edward VI, right?

You're off by one--Edward VII!

23
Quote
It was a pivotal moment in Russian history: every move Nicholas II made after 1896, every effort to deal with the problems the empire faced, was viewed through the lens of his response to Khodynka.  In turning triumph to disaster, the last Tsar unwittingly sowed the seeds of revolution.

As I said, Nicholas never really wanted to be Tsar.  Also, his father, never properly prepared him.  Of course, Alexander III never thought he'd die so young (he was 49, my age), so he no doubt thought he'd have lots of time to get Nicholas ready.

The same could be said for Alexandra.  Her predecessor, MF, lived in Russia for nearly twenty years before AIII became Tsar, so she had plenty of time to prepare.  Alexandra, on the other hand, was just thrown into the fray from Day One.  

If Nicholas and Alexandra had been better prepared, one has to wonder if they would have handled things better in the wake of Khodynka and, perhaps their reign would have been much more successful.

Alas, we'll never know.


Things may have been better if they had more time to prepare. However, personality played a enormous role in their downfall. As you pointed out, Nicholas had little desire to be Tsar and Alexandra certainly had little interest in assuming the role that was expected of her. They tried to live like a simple, ordinary, bourgeois family, which they obviously were not. Alexander III and MF attempted something similar, but counterbalanced it by staying involved in the going-ons in St. Petersburg. MF had a huge advantage over Alexandra in that she was partook in the parties, gossip, fashions, etc. If Nicholas II and Alexandra had kept the support of the aristocracy, their future might have been rather different.



24
The Alexander Palace / Re: Semi-Circular Hall
« on: July 11, 2016, 12:18:41 PM »
I see no reason to believe it wasn't held there- the photo shows the doorway and 2 fireplaces that are on the opposite wall of the Semi-circular Hall. The 2 large paintings over the fireplaces have also remained in place.

Compare the photo above with this one of the Hall:



25
The Yussupovs / Re: The Youssupov jewelry
« on: June 11, 2016, 01:47:40 PM »
Hi everyone,

Sorry to resurrect a very old thread, but does anyone know the source of these images and/or the current location of this album of Yusupov jewels? Any other information relating to its creation/history would also be very helpful. Thank you!

http://members2.boardhost.com/royal-jewels/msg/archive/1327402202.html


26
The Alexander Palace / Re: Pictures of the Interiors as they were
« on: January 09, 2016, 05:46:36 PM »
I wanted to post these since I didn't see them mentioned/discussed elsewhere (full disclosure: the following two photos are from the Russian Imperial Family website) ...I'm fairly sure that these were taken in the Grand Duchesses' bathroom, which we have thus far seen very little of:





According to Yakovlev's description, the bathroom had a stenciled frieze of the sea with sailboats, flowers and plants. One can see elements of this in the photo of Marie. Yakovlev also mentions that there is a table in the middle of the room that records the height and weight of each child. The furniture that can been seen in the photos corresponds with that visible in this watercolor as well:



With this in mind, I think we can finally lay to rest the mystery of where Anastasia took her "selfie"--one can see the same table and chair set reflected in the mirror in the photo with Marie. The shoe, footrests, and linens(?) also all make sense in this context. I also just noticed that to Anastasia's right, one can see the outline of the bar that we know was suspended in the doorway of Olga and Tatiana's bedroom.


27
Not a mistake.

Maria Ilynichina Miloslavskaya

Ack! You are right. I stand corrected!

28
Another small error:

Pg. 68: "Alexandra looked magnificent, if rather uncomfortable, ornately dressed as the Tsaritsa Maria Miloslavskaya in a heavy gold brocade costume and unwieldy crown."

Alexandra dressed as Maria Ilyinichna for the 1903 ball.

29
I started rereading Four Sisters and stumbled upon two small errors in succession in the text:

pg. 5: "a stencilled frieze of pink roses and bronze butterflies above pink coloured wallpaper had been chosen by the younger sisters Maria and Anastasia."

Maria and Anastasia's bedroom walls were grey and from what I understand, the girls' rooms were painted, not wallpapered. I'm not trying to be nitpick, but I find it a tad surprising that the author would include such elementary mistakes in her book....

30
I was browsing through Hoogstraten's website and found the addition of a new exhibition catalog. Its based on the exhibition from last November in Washington D.C. at the Hillwood museum (did anyone see it?).



description from amazon
Quote
Franz Xaver Winterhalter (1805-1873) was the most renowned portraitist of European aristocracy of his day, expertly capturing the refinement and opulence of his distinguished sitters. Born and trained in Germany, Winterhalter settled in Paris in 1834, where he became the official court painter to King Louis-Philippe. He gained such international acclaim for his state portraits that he painted all but a few of the monarchs in Europe. In Paris in 1855, at the pinnacle of his career, he painted the noble portrait Empress Eugénie and her Ladies-in-Waiting, which would go on to symbolise an entire era. His 1865 portrait of the Austrian Empress Sissi is also known the world over. The lavishly illustrated publication complements Winterhalter's magnificent portraits of crowned heads of state with selected items of clothing by the contemporary and sought-after couturier Charles Frederick Worth.

Contents:
Director's Foreword; Acknowledgments; Lenders to the Exhibition; Introduction by Richard Ormond; The Ultimate Court Painter by Helga Kessler Aurisch; Franz Xaver Winterhalter and the Black Forest by Tilmann von Stockhausen; Winterhalter's Italian Interlude by Eugene Barilo von Reisberg; Franz Xaver Winterhalter and French Painting: Echoes of the Salon by Laure Chabanne; Franz Xaver Winterhalter: Painter of Women by Mirja Straub; The Confections of Winterhalter and Worth by Elizabeth Ann Coleman; The Plates; Select Bibliography; Index.

The only book on Winterhalter that I know of is Richard Ormond's exhibition book for the National Portrait Gallery in the late 80s so its exciting to see another one! Its hardback, in English, and has 256 pages. Amazon will start selling it at the end of January, 2016 but you can pre-order it at the moment for $70.


I work at Hillwood and am not sure what exhibition you are referring to....My understanding is that it is intended to accompany forthcoming exhibitions in Europe. Helga Ausrisch, the author of the book in question, gave a lecture on it at Hillwood last month. I was not able to attend, but from what I heard from colleagues, it was very interesting.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 70