Do you agree with Winston Churchill's summary of Nicholas?

[mcdnab]

I think firstly that you have to accept that a) Churchill was a brilliant orator both in speech and in writing, b) that he was a lousy historian c) that his approach was on the whole from a devotedly monarchist point of view and from a seriously anti communist point of view and that d) his own actions in the first world war had been seriously questionable and therefore his sympathies with other "victims" of that war was stronger than it perhaps should have been. that e) the perception of Russian actions and successes in WWI was always going to be suceptable to revisionism due to the long standing imperial rivalry between Britain and Russia despite the close ties between the two Reigning families,

[Romanov_fan]

I think Churchill's assessment of Nicholas concentrates too much on his actions in just one sphere, that of World War I. I think you have to consider other aspects of Nicholas's reign within Russia to fully evaluate him as a ruler. World War I, you could also say, contributed to the fall of the Romanov dynasty, since in times of war, ( this was also true at the time of the Russo- Japanese war in 1904) the bad conditions within Russia became even more obvious since the country was at war, and therefore putting a lot of resources into the war, which made conditions within Russia worse. The Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 both occured around the time of foreign wars. In addition, Nicholas's being away at headquarters during the war and leaving Alexandra more free reign with Rasputin's influence and her ideas about how to run the goverment, wasn't a very good move. So I feel that World War I did contribute some to the start of the Revolution, so IMO you have to factor that in, which Churchill didn't. Just my views.

[Naslednik]

a) Churchill was a brilliant orator both in speech and in writing, b) that he was a lousy historian c) that his approach was on the whole from a devotedly monarchist point of view and from a seriously anti communist point of view and that d) his own actions in the first world war had been seriously questionable and therefore his sympathies with other "victims" of that war was stronger than it perhaps should have been. that e) the perception of Russian actions and successes in WWI was always going to be suceptable to revisionism due to the long standing imperial rivalry between Britain and Russia despite the close ties between the two Reigning families,

But  a) brilliant oratory does not preclude insight, b) many would not dismiss his comments upon history, much of which he lived, as 'lousy', c) being a monarchist or anti-communist also doesn't preclude insight: on the contrary, such a perspective might countermand the prevailing attitude of the time, which was deeply influenced by the Russian aristocracy's incohesive dispersal across the globe and by the controlled release of documents by Soviet gov't.  d) Churchill's role in the Dardanelles was certainly nothing he was proud of, but it would be unfair to forget that his attitude was part of a trenchant view from multiple British generations that they maintain influence over the seas in that part of the world.  I agree that Churchill may have felt a tie with N in the defeats they both suffered at that time in history, but I add again that experience can bring insight, not necessarily prejudice.  For example, if you removed the chapters discussing hemophilia/parenting hemophiliacs out of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, would you not have a far inferior book?

So I feel that World War I did contribute some to the start of the Revolution, so IMO you have to factor that in, which Churchill didn't. Just my views.

And Imperial Angel, I agree with what you said, but I was wondering what people thought about Churchill's comment as he phrases it.  I suppose that you are saying that he limited his examples to ones that prove his point.  But he does say that N was neither a great prince nor a great soldier, so he might agree with us more than we realize, if only we could sit down and chat with him.

[mcdnab]

You make some interesting points to answer a few of them -
No it doesn't preclude insight however it can often mean that the gifted writer and orator's opinions are taken more seriously. Also there's the prevailing view of Churchill to take into account in his writing - firstly that after the outbreak of the second world war he was seen as one individual who had been right about european politics (and to be fair he was right) despite facing harsh criticisms for those views during the thirties that has often meant in post war Britain that he has been viewed as being right about many other things when he wasn't. He was undeniably a gifted wartime leader but he was an average peacetime prime minister. His historical writing is significantly  dictated by his personality, background and political views all of which would have leant him a more sympathetic view of someone in Nicholas II's position. Personally I find it frequently dodgy and luckily it is merely one of many views and interpretations of history around - to "LIVE" history is no guarantee that you will report it fairly particularly when you have an ego the size of Churchills and were naturally, he was only human, concerned about your own place in history.
I think he naturally felt that Russia's role in WW1 is often overlooked and there are significant historical reasons for it - in the West the collapse of Russia into revolution eventually forcing them out was a bitter blow partially because a two front war was putting enormous pressure on Germany - in those circumstances it is perhaps natural that the men who wrote the initial history of conflict just like Churchill weren't going to give credit to a former ally with an unacceptable government who was seen as having betrayed the allies and to many of those men with only the reports of British and French Ambassadors to go on it was perhaps natural to also place significant blame for that collapse on to Nicholas II's shoulders. Churchill may well have felt he was addressing the deficit with his comment. In the twenties and thirties with a communist government in power again there was little political capital to be made out of looking back at Imperial Russia's contribution to the Great War, in the post war period again Russia was hardly likely to receive credit for her role in the first war though in fairness I don't think her heroic contribution to the second world war is as overlooked.


But  a) brilliant oratory does not preclude insight, b) many would not dismiss his comments upon history, much of which he lived, as 'lousy', c) being a monarchist or anti-communist also doesn't preclude insight: on the contrary, such a perspective might countermand the prevailing attitude of the time, which was deeply influenced by the Russian aristocracy's incohesive dispersal across the globe and by the controlled release of documents by Soviet gov't.  d) Churchill's role in the Dardanelles was certainly nothing he was proud of, but it would be unfair to forget that his attitude was part of a trenchant view from multiple British generations that they maintain influence over the seas in that part of the world.  I agree that Churchill may have felt a tie with N in the defeats they both suffered at that time in history, but I add again that experience can bring insight, not necessarily prejudice.  For example, if you removed the chapters discussing hemophilia/parenting hemophiliacs out of Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra, would you not have a far inferior book?

So I feel that World War I did contribute some to the start of the Revolution, so IMO you have to factor that in, which Churchill didn't. Just my views.

And Imperial Angel, I agree with what you said, but I was wondering what people thought about Churchill's comment as he phrases it.  I suppose that you are saying that he limited his examples to ones that prove his point.  But he does say that N was neither a great prince nor a great soldier, so he might agree with us more than we realize, if only we could sit down and chat with him.
[/quote]

[Naslednik]

mcdnab, I agree with a lot of what you said and perhaps I should have put the date Churchill wrote these tasty tidbits of prose in my original post.  Unfortunately, I can't find that date now, perhaps 1928.  This is part of the fascination, why people hold certain beliefs at certain times.  In the '20s and '30s it was not common to pitch a semi-favorable review on NII unless you knew him well (Gilliard, Hanbury-Wms, etc).  So it is intriguing that he voices an unpopular opinion.  I like your point about the discomfort of speaking well of a former ally-gone-bad, so to speak, and that must really weigh in on the still-popular view that the Russian Imperial Army was of no consequence.  I just asked a very well read friend of mine why he thought the eastern front lines in WWI and WWII were in such different places, and he told me that he thought that most of WWI took place in France and W. Europe. 

Churchill may well have felt he was addressing the deficit with his comment.

Yes, I do think he was trying to fix an unfairness of attitude, and provoke thought.  And he succeeded in the latter!

[Alixz]

I think that the millions of Russian soldiers who died on the Eastern front might disagree with your "well read" friend.

In World War One - the Germans began fighting on both side at once.  In World War II, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin and so could concentrate on the Western front in the beginning.

Then Hitler disregarded the pact and attacked the Soviet Union after he had just about gotten Western Europe under control.  IMHO that is why there is such a difference in where the front lines were.

The Germans never made it to St Petersburg (Leningrad) in #1 but certainly had the man power to do it in #2.

[mcdnab]

 My apologies i was assuming it was a post second world war comment hence my original comments about his reputation - if it was in the twenties then i think my point about his background and his willingness to go against the trend probably still stand. Personally I think Russia's contribution is often overlooked for a variety of reasons however the size of that contribution if i am honest relies very little on the personal abilities of Nicholas II.

mcdnab, I agree with a lot of what you said and perhaps I should have put the date Churchill wrote these tasty tidbits of prose in my original post.  Unfortunately, I can't find that date now, perhaps 1928.  This is part of the fascination, why people hold certain beliefs at certain times.  In the '20s and '30s it was not common to pitch a semi-favorable review on NII unless you knew him well (Gilliard, Hanbury-Wms, etc).  So it is intriguing that he voices an unpopular opinion.  I like your point about the discomfort of speaking well of a former ally-gone-bad, so to speak, and that must really weigh in on the still-popular view that the Russian Imperial Army was of no consequence.  I just asked a very well read friend of mine why he thought the eastern front lines in WWI and WWII were in such different places, and he told me that he thought that most of WWI took place in France and W. Europe. 

Churchill may well have felt he was addressing the deficit with his comment.

Yes, I do think he was trying to fix an unfairness of attitude, and provoke thought.  And he succeeded in the latter!

[Naslednik]

I think that the millions of Russian soldiers who died on the Eastern front might disagree with your "well read" friend.

In World War One - the Germans began fighting on both side at once.  In World War II, Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin and so could concentrate on the Western front in the beginning.

Trust me, I agree with you and all those soldiers!  But I point it out as an entrenched view here in the West, even among folks who dabble in history.  We have something of a superiority complex, and it probably played a small piece in the US' reluctance to go shoulder-to-shoulder with a Tsarist (gasp) Army.  Or at least that excuse came in handy in appeasing the neutrality crowd.  And have you ever noticed how most TV documentaries on WWII focus on the Western Front?  Anyway, I'm way off topic so I will cease!

however the size of that contribution if i am honest relies very little on the personal abilities of Nicholas II

  Yes, well this is hard to measure, but the 'spark' as Churchill mentions, is certainly there.  It is hard to tease out the contribution of the symbol of a fighting force from the fighting force itself.  We have many soldiers' memories recorded who comment upon seeing their king/tsar.  Some undoubtedly disliked their leaders, but many felt a wave of patriotism in meeting them.  Did that have an effect overall?  Hard to say.  But NII would have had an effect at Stavka, if only in his moral view of Russia's obligations.  I wonder how many times he may have reinforced this view among the staff.

[Constantinople]

i think there is a lot of truth in Churchill's statement except for his statement about who else could have led Russia.  Alexander lll and Nicholas denied anybody with talent the possibility to do that.  I think that from the 18970s onward, Russia has as many brilliant minds in politics as it did in arts and science but they were all denied the possiblity to implement ideas because Tsars wanted to retain absolute power.

[AGRBear]

 All of us, including Churchill and most  authors,   view Nicholas II through our own eyes.

Through the years  I can, now, tell (without looking at the author's name and background) if he or she is old, middle age, or young, where they grew-up (country) as well as their political views.... etc. etc. .

Example #1: Children born and raised in Russia under Stalin never read anything that wasn't created to make Stalin the hero and Nicholas II the villian.  [The exceptions were the Russians who rubbed elbows with different views who were from the  outside world].

Example #2: Churchill was British and up to WW I, most of the ruling British believed they could rule the world better than anyone else.  


Churchill did not view Nicholas II as his equal at any level accept for their social rank.   Churchill  called Nicholas II  "ruler"  and even then,  according to what he wrote,  he viewed him as a  mere "captain" and a "prince" instead of "Commander and Chief"  and "Emperor".

Since I'm new to this thread,  I have to give more thought about Churchill's view of   Nicholas II since Churchill did give Nicholas II a shared credit  in some of the Russian victories.

AGRBear

[Constantinople]

Churchill had a lot of foresight and was one of the few Brits who wanted to give the Tsar and his family exile and was for full blown intervention in Russia to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

[Constantinople]

He said of Lenin, the worst thing was his birth and the next worst his death.

[Naslednik]

What a wordsmith!  But of course, he proved to be correct about a lot of his quips. I suppose he was saying that Stalin was worse.  How about Churchill's comment on predicting Russian action: "It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma."

[Constantinople]

obviously he had seen the dolls.

[Naslednik]

A matrioshka, of course!  I was imagining something more along the fortune cookie persuasion...