Time Line

[heavensent]

It would be intersting to  get together  a   " Time Line "  about Russia and the Revolution...
maybe even starting back in  1880 or so...........  and listing the events and happenings that
eventually let to the cataclysm 
(including the  huge shipment of gold bullion sent to Stalin from wealthy New York bankers ..... )
I suspect theres a secret history of the revolution that many people are unaware of !

If it was  started in  this thread,  others could  cut and paste and add to the infomation

Such a time line might help us get the events into perspective.... so little is known about  the Russian
revolution in America and the west, it is one big blur and yet these events shaped the world  and perhaps
led to  Hitler and the rise of  fascism.
  My theory is that  the Empires of  Russia and  France  came together in the  era of Napoleon and
effectively crushed Prussia    ( Finally in July 1807 Napoleon and the Tsar  met on a raft in the river and signed the  'Treaty of Tilsit'.
Tilsit was really the climax of Napoleon's career....  the high point of the Empire.)
    At the end of the  2nd world war  history repeated itself  as another two empires met... 
Russia and  America  and  once again,  Prussia was crushed in the middle !

[Nicolá De Valerón]

My theory is that  the Empires of  Russia and  France  came together in the  era of Napoleon and
effectively crushed Prussia    ( Finally in July 1807 Napoleon and the Tsar  met on a raft in the river and signed the  'Treaty of Tilsit'.
Tilsit was really the climax of Napoleon's career....  the high point of the Empire.)
    At the end of the  2nd world war  history repeated itself  as another two empires met...  
Russia and  America  and  once again,  Prussia was crushed in the middle !

Very interesting and new to me theory. But I think that you have a very big imagination. Royal things do not add any sober pragmatic to the human intellect. (This is just a joke, do not be offended!) I think that "foreign help/not help", etc. in the case of Russian History was always important thing, but minor or much less important to the "native" Russian problems. I think you a little bit speculate (maybe not specifically) about foreign impacts on the Russian/Soviet/New Russian History. Russians are "helping" themselves with their dictators without any Napoleons and Hitlers or other Western "help/not help". Maybe this is off-topic, but although I pray for Mr Reagen and his good role in the Soviet History, but Soviet Union hadn't any chances without him (moribund economy, decaying party apparatus and so on).

It would be intersting to  get together  a   " Time Line "  about Russia and the Revolution...
maybe even starting back in  1880 or so...........  and listing the events and happenings that
eventually let to the cataclysm  

As to the timeline of Russia and the Revolution, interesting question! I hope you mean October one, because there is a big difference between Feb. democratic Revolution and Oct. proletariat answer to February. I think, that October Rev. was predictable long before the 1880. I'm not a socialist or something else, but I think that if you have a millions of an uneducated slaves (peasants), who lived for centuries in dust, without money and food in rotten houses, and you, as a ruler did not taken any serious and urgent measures about this case, you are a delayed-action self-killer. Only Alexander II tried seriously to made something, but anyway it was to late. Then Russian History had a typical "Russian Tsar" Alexander III who abolished all the reforms. That was the final touch to the end. Nicholas II after 1905 was forced to make concessions, but it was to late. Just my opinion.

[heavensent]

when we think of Russia we think of all that wonderful music in the 19th century and
the great  outpouring of literature too........ but then I suppose society was very elitist then..
was nt  Tolstoy an aristocrat ?

 We also   think of the  18th century and Catherine the Great.... wot a saucy lady !
.. a voyeur  !  and a contemporary of  Voltaire, Frederick the Great and  Marie Antoinette !

 Ive often wondered, what was the source of her incredible wealth.. how was she  able  to build all those palaces
then stock them with so many treasures !

Maybe we should start our timeline at the beginning of  her illustrious reign !

[Nicolá De Valerón]

when we think of Russia we think of all that wonderful music in the 19th century and
the great  outpouring of literature too........ but then I suppose society was very elitist then..
was nt  Tolstoy an aristocrat ?

Yes, Tolstoy was a rich aristocrat. Moreover he was a rich aristocrat from the ancient Russian noble family.

Good and sober point of view! When people think about Russia and Imperial period they imagine royal chatter in palaces, the balls and so on. They accidentally forgot about Imperial repressive police, persecution of the Jews and Poles, brothels and doss-houses for poor in Petersburg, peasants, etc. If we'll comparable 5% of the population: nobility, aristocracy, wealthy landowners, etc. and other 95% of population: peasants, then our view about Russian History would definitely change dramatically;).

We also   think of the  18th century and Catherine the Great.... wot a saucy lady !
.. a voyeur  !  and a contemporary of  Voltaire, Frederick the Great and  Marie Antoinette !

 Ive often wondered, what was the source of her incredible wealth.. how was she  able  to build all those palaces
then stock them with so many treasures !

Maybe we should start our timeline at the beginning of  her illustrious reign !

Catherine the Great was indeed a "great" woman without any quotes! In her times Russian Empire changed (or started changing) from the backward peasant country to modern state. Moreover, there are some real documents today, that she even was thinking about liberation of the peasants and giving the constitution. Sadly, that she didn't do these things. But I think that timeline of the Revolution started much earlier then in the times of her rulership. Moreover she was an exception from this "deadly timeline", because she tried to made Russia to more modern country (maybe in addition in order to prevent the possible revolution). As to her money, this is very simple! Russia was always been very resource-rich country with oil and gas. But these sources were always been available for "minority", even today!;).

[heavensent]

 
It was nt only in the 2nd world war that Prussia got it in the neck
in Dec 1805 at ...Austerlitz ......Napoleon achieved perhaps his greatest victory and defeated a combined Russian and Austrian army.

The 'Holy Roman Empire' was abolished and Napoleon began to
organize satellite states with a pro-French affiliation.

Prussia at last decided to move, only to be destroyed at 'Jena' and 'Auerstedt' in October 1806
Napoleon then marched into Berlin and enforced the blockade of
Britain ....................... his arch enemy !
He demanded the surrender of all Prussian territory
Frederick William 3rd fell back into East Prussia hoping for Russian help.

Napoleon gave the Russians another bloody nose in Feb 1807 at the battle of Eylau


Finally in July 1807 Napoleon and the Tsar met on a raft in the river Neman and signed the 'Treaty of Tilsit'.
Tilsit was really the climax of Napoleon's career.... the high point of the French Empire.
There were also secret agreements... France promised to aid Russia against the Ottoman Turks and Russia promised to join the trade embargo against Britain.

Prussia was carved up... her Polish aquisitions became part of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw
Her lands west of the Elbe went to form the new Kingdom of Westphalia (given to Napoleon's brother Jerome )

Prussia was effectively stripped of half of her territory.
Prussia's army was to be limited in size and she was to close her ports to British trade.
" Tilsit "was Napoleon's high point.... his 'glorious afternoon'
from this point on it was to be downhill all the way.

So at the "Treaty of Tilsit " effectively Russia and France got together to carve
up Europe for themselves and poor old Prussia got crushed in the middle.

Was n't the end of the 2nd World War a repeat of history.... with another two
Empires... ...America and Russia ....... getting together to carve up the world and once again Prussia ( ie Germany ) was crushed in the middle....plus ce change !

[Sergei Witte]

@Nicola

I feel I have to defend my favourite Alexander III again. Once again you are portraying him as if the only thing he is remembered for is "he abolished all the wonderful reforms of Alexander II". In fact, he did bring back order in the country when the country was in a chaos after the Turkish war and the Nihilist-attacks. Now the causes of the October Revolution were more diverse than you say. Social inequality was one reason but the A-political character of Nicholas II was another and also important factor.

Social inequality was everywhere in 1900 or so, and in Russia indeed it was worse. There still is social inequality in the world and it is still worse in Russia. So, there will be revolution again?

[Nicolá De Valerón]

Sergei,

I can only envy for your devotion to this man, but I again can only wonder, how is your beautiful nickname from the most intelligent/liberal Russian minister match with your love to Alexander III. If we will talk seriously, I must say that this is not me, who actually portray him as I do. Main amount of modern, sober and free-minded professional historians (I know some of them personally or in absentia) portray him in the same way. Once again: I don't have any personal "claims" to Alexander III. Nothing personal! He was a typical conservative Russian Emperor with common intellect, who succeeded by the Russian law ("conservation/liberalization/conservation and again....") liberal Emperor Alexander II. I think that the main problem in your views about him is - exceeded expectations of his non-existent actions. Of course we can imagine that in his deep soul Alexander III was a "hidden liberal", who decided firstly to conserve Russia and make strong economic/infrastructure, with the help of Mr Witte (because he saw what happened with his liberal father), then to start liberal reforms. Dear Sergei, I would be happy to imagine this fairytale, but I can't! I wish you also to be more sober-minded in this case. In fact Alexander III was another Emperor, again - with common intellect, who knew only one theory: "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Russian light nationalism", and no more. This is sad truth.

Btw, if we'll talk about daydreams, I've always had a regret, that Alexander III was chosen as an Emperor. If it were possible, I would have changed the Russian law on the throne succession and appointed on the place of Alexander III, other man - liberal and free-minded, like a great Russian liberal and right hand of Alexander II GD Konstantin Nikolayevich, who would definitely continued all of his great reforms. But this is only a dream.....

@Nicola
There still is social inequality in the world and it is still worse in Russia. So, there will be revolution again?

Sergei, you amazes me! But I've said nothing about social inequality. You misunderstood me. Of course social inequality is a sad, but mandatory item in the all free, liberal and democratic societies. I don't believe (I hope you also) in "universal equality and fraternity" for all. Only what you earned, only that you get. If you are poor, this is your problem. But,....there is a big difference between Russia and developed countries in this case. If you have a 50-60% of free, intelligent, liberal minded, politically active and working people, people who were studied free market and Liberalism on one hand, and 20-25% of less wealthy, less intelligent, less politically active, more "socialist like" people on the other - this is one situation. This we can see in Europe. Of course there is always a significant amount of disaffected minority, but their role is not so significant. If their role will be the major, European countries on the next elections would elect communists, socialists, etc. This would be the end. But Russia has a totally different situation! Sergei, this is absolutely opposite: only 10-15% of free and liberal-minded people and 80% of people with "slavish psychology" for ages. Thanks to the Russian tsars. That's why, if you have 80-90% of peasants you must do something, if you are not a self-killer. 90% of peasants (tens of millions) and minority of "endlessly dissatisfied socialists" in Europe - is a very different things.

[Sergei Witte]

how is your beautiful nickname from the most intelligent/liberal Russian minister match with your love to Alexander III.

Sergei Witte served under both Alexander III and Nicholas II. He admired (even cherished) Alexander III because of his strong and trustful character. On the other hand he pitied the weak character of Nicholas II. Sergei Witte even claims that Alexander III, in the end of his life, had become liberal. I have trouble believing that but when Witte says so, who am I to dispute.... If I may qoute Witte: Perhaps he (Alexander III) did not have a good mind if the word is taken to mean mind-intellect (um-rassudka). But he had an outstanding mind in the sense of mind-heart (um-serdtsa), the kind if mind that enables one to look ahead, to sense what is coming. Such a mind is more important than mind-intellect.

By the way you make good points. It is just I can't get over the prejudice that all the misery in Russia began with Alexander III, he is always portrayed as being stupid, neanderthaler by example.

[Nicolá De Valerón]

Sergei Witte even claims that Alexander III, in the end of his life, had become liberal. I have trouble believing that but when Witte says so, who am I to dispute.... If I may qoute Witte: Perhaps he (Alexander III) did not have a good mind if the word is taken to mean mind-intellect (um-rassudka). But he had an outstanding mind in the sense of mind-heart (um-serdtsa), the kind if mind that enables one to look ahead, to sense what is coming. Such a mind is more important than mind-intellect.

Yes, I know that Sergei Witte met Alexander III at the end of Alexander life, just before his death, and later he claimed that Alexander III understood his bad politics (conservation and abolishing of the Alexander II reforms), and even intended to start another politics. But this is only rumor from the man, who served to the Alexander III, and of course by the "usual human theory" Witte, as a loyal man to Alexander III could have easily invent this rumor. There are no official documents about the sudden awareness of the disastrous situation in the country by Alexander III and his possible changes in politics.

By the way you make good points. It is just I can't get over the prejudice that all the misery in Russia began with Alexander III, he is always portrayed as being stupid, neanderthaler by example.

Thank you,

Sergei, do not distort my words, I didn't said those things. I think that other historians do not say these things too. I've only said that he was another typical (common and conservative) big Russian Emperor. I don't remember words, like "stupid" or even "neanderthaler". I think that the words "common" and "stupid" are very different by nature. Moreover, I even like him as a good father and husband or even handsome man, but....this is absolutely another thing, which do not connected with my attitude to him as a Russian Emperor with it's catastrophic mistakes. Just sober view and nothing personal.

P.S. Sorry for off-topic, but Sergei, what do you think about Witte memoirs in general? As I remember Witte memoirs (I read them long ago), he "destroyed" and criticized their maybe all of the court, different staff and other close to Nicholas II people, and the family itself, excluding few people like Drenteln. I don't want to reproduce here his words about Alexandra Feodorovna and Stolypin for example;).

[Sergei Witte]

Nicolá

I don't know of other sources indeed of the fact that Alexander III would have become more liberal towards the end of his life. Here in Holland I have great difficulty in achieving books on him. They are very rare. It is a pity that I don't read Russian. I agree it could have been something that Witte made up out of his admiration but it is true that Alexander III was better is relationship with ministers than Nicholas II who was influenced by all sorts of figures who, out of self interest, manipulated him in very important decisions.

I know you didn't call AIII stupid etc. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. It is just a common belief of many people that he was. I think he had more to offer than we generally think (see the Witte quote on his um-serdtsa). He certanily had more faith in his ministers which would have been very important during the revolutionary years.

I want to say some more about the Russian Revolution. I know that the social inequality was one of the causes, maybe the main cause. But I was just comparasing it to other situations to make ik clear that it was not the only reason. The poor judgments of Nicholas was another cause, perhaps just as important. Furthermore, the social inequality was there for centuries. So you can hardly blame this on the last two tsars. It was almost impossible to change this. So I think that a revolution would still come only in other circumstances it would not have been a communist revolution because before 1917 the communists were a very tiny fraction in Russian politics. Only in 1917 they grew so that they could take power with all the unfortunate consequences.

I am reading the Witte memoirs right now after having to wait longtime. (The seller would not deliver he book first).
I love the book. It is obvious that he was a protegee of Alexander III and he is clearly admiring him. It is very informative. I must go to work right now. But I will come back on this.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

I want to say some more about the Russian Revolution. I know that the social inequality was one of the causes, maybe the main cause. But I was just comparasing it to other situations to make ik clear that it was not the only reason. The poor judgments of Nicholas was another cause, perhaps just as important. Furthermore, the social inequality was there for centuries.

When the serfs were liberated, but didn't get (full) ownership of all the land they tilled, a dangerous, revolutionary vacuum came into being, according to reports from Imperial Russia. Because the peasants had a deep religious belief that the land rightfully belonged to them - and that it once again would come into their posession, if needed through violence.

[Nicolá De Valerón]

Nicolá

I don't know of other sources indeed of the fact that Alexander III would have become more liberal towards the end of his life. Here in Holland I have great difficulty in achieving books on him. They are very rare. It is a pity that I don't read Russian. I agree it could have been something that Witte made up out of his admiration but it is true that Alexander III was better is relationship with ministers than Nicholas II who was influenced by all sorts of figures who, out of self interest, manipulated him in very important decisions.

I know you didn't call AIII stupid etc. Sorry if I didn't make that more clear. It is just a common belief of many people that he was. I think he had more to offer than we generally think (see the Witte quote on his um-serdtsa). He certanily had more faith in his ministers which would have been very important during the revolutionary years.

I want to say some more about the Russian Revolution. I know that the social inequality was one of the causes, maybe the main cause. But I was just comparasing it to other situations to make ik clear that it was not the only reason. The poor judgments of Nicholas was another cause, perhaps just as important. Furthermore, the social inequality was there for centuries. So you can hardly blame this on the last two tsars. It was almost impossible to change this. So I think that a revolution would still come only in other circumstances it would not have been a communist revolution because before 1917 the communists were a very tiny fraction in Russian politics. Only in 1917 they grew so that they could take power with all the unfortunate consequences.

I am reading the Witte memoirs right now after having to wait longtime. (The seller would not deliver he book first).
I love the book. It is obvious that he was a protegee of Alexander III and he is clearly admiring him. It is very informative. I must go to work right now. But I will come back on this.

Sergei,

I'm glad that you understand me more clearly. I can add, just for the total clarity;).

If I'm saying something negative or I don't like politics (not only I, but the majority of modern historians) of Alexander III, it doesn't mean that I respect all of the actions of Nicholas II for example or other Emperors! Why do you think up of what is missing in my words? I agree with your sober statement about the causes of Russian Revolution. Indeed Revolution (especially October Rev.) was the answer for an endless mistakes, done by the Imperial regime. Back to AIexander III, I can only add, that they both with Nicholas II made an endless amount of catastrophic mistakes. Alexander III by his "political conservative line" and "freezing of an endless problems of the country, rather than solving them, while Nicholas with his closed from the public family, saga with Rasputin (so compromising the family, that even most sober-minded of the Romanovs turned away from them, even Marie F.), appointing himself as a Chief of the Russian Army during the WWI, leaving the capital Petersburg alone without Emperor!, etc......So, if I criticize Alexander III, this is doesn't mean that I love Nicholas II. But Nicholas II at least tried to do something after the "1905" Revolution, including with the Stolypin help, and that's why I respect him more, because if you are starting reforms in Russia - you are a very brave man or even "self-killer", but that was very weak and backward attempt because Nicholas II by his nature was more like a conservative man like his father, than like his grandfather liberator Alexander II.

Oh, it's sad that Witte memoirs is a rather rare thing today in Netherlands. But I'm glad, that you got them. I read them a long ago, and I must say, that this is a good reading. I highly recommend to all.

[Sergei Witte]

A Time line of the Russian revolution up to 1914 can be found here:

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Nat/Rus/Rus00.htm

[heavensent]

I cant remember the peasants doing that well in the  french  revolution either,
I dont think they got hold of any land....
 I have a suspicion that the  real  beneficiaries of the french rev  were the  middle classes,
the professional  classes    the  entrepreneur classes....

the  church and the  clergy and the  disolute  aristocracy  were in the way,
the monarchy had total control of all the tax spending , the king appointed all his ministers
etc and ruled from far away in Versailles.

They were in effect like a road blockage  holding back the new age of  science and industrialization.
The violence of the  revolution blew  that  road blockage away... the antiquated laws of the church
and    all the   control the  aristocracy had was like a cap on a volcano that finally erupted in violence.



France eventually became the middle class, bourgoise  country it is today  and  the peasants
became France's working classes.

[heavensent]

quote

A Time line of the Russian revolution up to 1914 can be found here:

http://cnparm.home.texas.net/Nat/Rus/Rus00.htm

end  quote

thanks  for the link,  but any chance of a better  link... that one just   leads
to  a kind of  dead end,  I  cant navigate off it .