Crimes Against Russia - Nicholas II + Family

[Laura Mabee]

Factually speaking, I don't believe he knew prior of the pogroms, but he did approve of it according to FOTR.

[Louise]

So legally speaking, Alexei can't be help accountable for his father's reign.

Louise

[Forum Admin]

Not under the principles of US law.

[Silja]

Not under the principles of EU law either  .

By the way, in a German review article about Solshenitzyn's book about Russians and Jews "Two Hundred Years Together" (don't know the correct English title) the reviewer actually writes that for decades it has been known that it was NOT the Russian Government that ordered, organized or carried out the pogroms of 1881-1884, 1903-1906, 1919-1921 (note the last date!).

The reviewer however does NOT exonerate the Russian Government AT ALL  from its guild regarding the antisemitic legislation in Russia, and he actually criticizes Solshenitzyn's book as antisemitic because it sets out to blame the Jews for Russia's suffering.

[pushkina]

i've got an idea:

let's "mock trial" this. let's choose a crime or a series of events which could be crimes, under russian law of the time (or moral/ethical law)--- the idea is to choose a code and stick to it and NOT use post-1945 law, (either international, US, EU or other; law of the time with timely social context considered) to examine this:  a prosecution team, a defense team. do our homework, write up a proper brief or two with cogent arguments and slug it out with everyone having the annotated briefs to refer to, instead of relying on what we might remember or feel.

possible events/crimes the lena goldfields massacres, alleged mismanagement of the economy, alleged corruption in government issues (financial), alleged corruption in gov't (social), alleged mismanagement of economic development (abandoning workers to the hands of unprincipled 'capitalists') alleged social abuses (i.e. abuse of workers in slums, alleged abuses invovling the violent suppression of the labor movement, alleged abuse of miltiary authority in the army/navy toward the troops, the sending of ill-equiped troops to WWI, alleged abuses involved with the creation of the trans-siberian railway.

let's choose a couple, make real teams, write real briefs and then slug it out for what it is worth.  

now that term is over, the academics of us might have more time to do this, (i.e. research, writing) and as the holidays approach, we'll all really need an outlet away from the happy, gathering families.

how about it?  

i brought the pogroms up because it was the first thing, top of my head, so to speak.  if it hadn't been so late when i wrote and my books weren't in storage, i might have pulled another. the lena goldfields is another one that i remembered as i was falling asleep, as it was the event that brought kerensky to the national limelight. also it isn't as emotional as the pogroms, altho' as i said there are reams of testimonies and research on them.

[for sentimental reasons, i hesitate to apply current international human rights standards to NII, because he was the first (that i can remember) to avail himself of modern international law: he went to the hague for mediation in the dogger bank incident. seems mean to then go back and use the hague process to posthumously proceed against him. ]

[Belochka]

I believe that you should only use the Laws which prevailed as at 1917. Which is why I asked originally, which jurisdictiion needs to be applied to investigate any 'criminal activity' for a Russian Head of State?

The US has no standing, the Permanent Court of International Justice (World Court), nor the League of Nations under which that judicial body was formed, did not come onto the world stage until after WWI.

Hypothetically, it is not correct to use Laws which prevailed after 1945 because Nikolai was not in any position to defend himself should the need arise.

Perhaps a better starting point would be to bring back Kerensky as the chief prosecutor. After all Kerensky did arrest and detain Nikolai and his consort in the Alexander Palace. Due to lack of evidence, they were never brought before the Enquiry Commission (unlike the high ranking members of Nikolai's administration).

The first charge for the Defense would have to be unlawful detention of the entire I.F.

It must be remembered that they were detained without any specific charges held against each member.

One must try to first examine which laws could Kerensky apply to enforce detention of the whole family?  

The Imperial Government was no more, and therefore those Laws became defunct. While the newly formed Provisional Government had no time to legislate suitable laws to cover this situation at the time of arrest.

[pushkina]

did kerensky leave behind any of his ideas for this process/trial?

as minister of justice he would have had to create the code for the PG; any clues left behind?

[Belochka]

There is a seven volume compilation called Padeniye Tsarskogo Rejima which contains all the extracts of the investigation before the Commission before it was disbanded for want of jurisdiction.

This collection is available at the Hoover Institute.

[pushkina]

well, that makes sense as hoover / stanford is where kerensky ended up in the end. however, stanford, while dear to my heart becasue of its californian-ness, is very far from where i have ended up now, sydney.  and even if i was back in the land of my birth, seven volumes is a bit much to go through for this list. do we have any clues as to which law code kerensky was going to use, why he chose that code and perhaps some short versions of guides as to on which crimes he was concentrating?

[pushkina]

oh, and one other thing:

no matter how guilty NII and AF could be proven, neither alexei n. nor any of the girls could be guilty, hence they should not even have been held.  in my mind,their only guilt was association with their parents.

[Sergio]

In the "Dictator of the month" website, we can see this score card used for each dictator:

Score Card Explanations

Charisma/ Popularity with the Population
1. Very unpopular- widely hated
2. Unpopular
3. Population ambivalent/ indifferent
4. Popular
5. Zealous following- demagogue status

Danger Rating (Foreign policy)
1. Started no wars- not overtly hostile to other nations and posing little risk of expansion
2. Participated in small wars- hostile to other countries but no risk of starting major world war
3. Participated in numerous small wars- but little potential to start world war
4. Caused numerous wars with tens of thousands of casualties- potential to start major war
5. Caused major war with millions of casualties

Oppression Rating (Internal policy)
1. Relatively benevolent
2. Oppressive
3. Extremely oppressive, but causing limited exterminations to own population
4. Totalitarian- caused extermination of parts of population
5. Absolute Totalitarian causing major holocaust to own population

Number of Domestic victims
1. Less than 1000
2. More that 1000
3. More than 10000
4. More than 100000
5. More than 1000000

Longevity
1. Died/ killed in first 2 years of power
2. 2-5 years in power
3. 5-10 years in power
4. 10-15 years in power
5. More than 15 years in power

Economics
1. Caused major depression or irreparable damage to economy
2. Known for poor and destructive economic policies
3. Stable economic policies
4. Positive economic impact
5. Caused economic miracle or huge turn-around to own economy

Notariety/ Infamy
1. Unknown outside of own country
2. Little known outside of own country
3. Well-known outside of own country
4. Widely known world-wide
5. Household name

Statesman Factor
1. Terrible statesman
2. Poor statesman
3. Average statesman
4. Good statesman
5. World class statesman

Extremism
1. Very mild political dispensations
2. Not strongly tending towards extremism but not mild
3. Solidly entrenched policy
4. Strongly leaning towards radicalism
5. Absolute extremist/ radical

Progressiveness
1. Destructive and regressive policies
2. Typically regressive but not destructive
3. Somewhat progressive
4. Very progressive, instituted many positive changes
5. Extremely progressive ideas, extended widespread reforms

Nicholas II has the following evaluation:

Charisma/ Popularity: 1.5
Danger Rating (Foreign Policy): 2.5
Oppression Rating: 3.5
Number of Domestic Victims: 1.88
Longevity: 5
Economics: 2.5
Notoriety/ Infamy: 3.25
Statesman Factor: 2.5
Extremism: 1.5
Progressiveness: 2.38

Total Score (50 max): 26.5


I think this will help the discussion! Each one can also made the evaluation of Nicholas using the same score card!

From: http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Romanov/Feb2003RomanovEN.htm

[Belochka]

Thanks Sergio,

According to this assessment Nikolai was a moderate compared to Stalin who rated the highest score so far.

This probably a good starting point. Let the votes begin!

[Louise]

Thanks Sergio for that neat site and the check list. I love lists BTW so that is cool.

Unfortunately for me and maybe fortunate for some, I have my finals coming and a week of prep time in class for the exam, so my time will be limited on this fine thread.

That said, and after reading the terrific contribution by both Belochka and Pushkina, I can't wait to see how this thread unravels. With the comments from Pushkina I think we can or at least I can say with certainity that Alexei would be allowed to survive no matter if he was heir or not. He still belongs to the "cute kids" category that 99.9% of people agree should not be killed.

So that still lives the question of what to do with Alexandra.

Is she tried along with her husband for being a severe reactionary who didn't want change for her country. Should she be tried for being a pain in the butt nagging wife, who hounded her husband, and then, trying to assist him, made more than a couple of bad administration foul-ups?

Oh and BTW, I would be one of the people that would love to defend Nicholas and if she is brought to court, Alexandra.

Louise

[JaneEyre5381]

I would have to say that defending them would be a noble thing to have done.  Nikolai believed wholeheartedly that his way of ruling is correct, because that's what wsa taught to him in his childhood, and that's all he saw as an example from his father.  One cannot be punished for his/her beliefs, or convictions.  I admire him for sticking to what he believed, because it takes real courage to do so.

As for Alexandra, she was being a supportive wife, and though not a good co-regent, she tried her best with the information she had.  She couldn't go and alter the government, and she knew that no matter what, her husband wouldn't do it either.  She did what any person who supports his/her spouse would do, and that is just that...support him.  Does she deserve to die for that?  No.  Once again, she deserves respect.

The children, in my opinion, did not at all deserve to be slaughtered.  They had no participation in the government, and if being children of a ruler all of a sudden became a crime, then the world has a long way to go.  No child should be punished for what his/her parents did.  It's not humane or just for that matter.

What should have been done?  An exile with no possibility to return.  Not even for future generations, if the Communists were so paranoid.  It would have spared lives and given the rebels what they wanted.  

Of course I'm speaking in terms of an ideal situation.  I understand that the world is and never has been kind to ex-Emperors.  A good ex-Empeor is a dead one, and that is what the revolutionaries believed.  They applied that to the whole family, and that's what is not right.  This is what I think is the real crime here.

Dasha

P.S.  I hope I made some sort of sense here.

[Belochka]

Yes Dasha,

It should be the murderers of the Imperial Family who should be put on trial and not the Emperor of Russia. The Emperor does not have the blood of Russia on his hands.