Author Topic: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?  (Read 41672 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2004, 01:22:54 AM »
It was 7 March 1917 (O.S.), the day before Nikolai was expected to return to his family at the Alexander Palace, when Alexandra and her family were officially placed under arrest by the Provisional Government on the orders of  Alexander Kerensky, but it was Lavr Kornilov, the commander of the Petrograd military district who was assigned the task.

Alexandra's Diary entry for Wednesday 8 March states that " From now on are considered pris: shut up - maybe see nobody fr. outside"

Prior to this time Alexandra was protected by the normal Tsarskoe Selo garrison.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2004, 02:05:18 AM »
Roger is perfectly correct.

The Prime Minister Prince L'vov agreed to Nicholas' request (of 4 March [O.S.]) to permit he and his family to travel to Romanov (now known as Murmansk) for the purpose of gaining temporary exile in England, until the conclusion of WWI.

Perhaps unknowingly at the time it was Kerensky who sealed the ultimate fate of the Romanov family. The fact he may have felt bad about the consequences of his actions pales into insignificance for he ensured his long survival in exile but could not accord the same to the Romanovs.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2004, 08:53:15 AM »
I had seen Lvov spelled Lwow(?) which to my ignorant mind sounds somewhat Polish - not that it matters... ( I gather it just depends on who translated the Cyrilic characters into Roman letters.)
I have read that he was a real humanitarian- involved in all manner of famine relief work before the war.

Please, does anyone have any information on his name?

Offline Mike

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
    • View Profile
    • Erast Fandorin Museum
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2004, 11:55:07 AM »
There is an informative Russian webpage on Prince George Lvov, complete with his portrait and his political role's appraisal (not too favorable) by Milyukov, Nabokov etc.  

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2004, 03:36:20 PM »
Mike,

Thanks for the webpage  information - but sadly my poor russian is not quite up to the challenge (at least not just yet!)  ;)

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #35 on: June 19, 2004, 12:02:43 AM »
Quote
I had seen Lvov spelled Lwow(?) which to my ignorant mind sounds somewhat Polish Please, does anyone have any information on his name?


The city of L'vov/L'viv which is the largest city in Western Ukraine, is seen spelt in 5 different ways. The style I prefer emphasizes the soft L as it is spoken in the Russian language.

While each is version is correct, it also readily identifies the souce from where the name is used:

L'vov - direct Russian transliteration
Lvov - the accepted Russian style (most common usage)
Lwov - the Polish version
L'viv - Ukrainian version
Lvoff - French version (not often used)

The Russian word for lions is l'vi and lev is a single lion. The term L'vov is just a derivation.
;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Belochka »


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #36 on: June 19, 2004, 08:14:22 AM »
Belochka,

Spasiba!

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2004, 03:47:45 AM »
Mike thanks for the very interesting article about L'vov.

It was obvious to many in the Provisional Government that L'vov was unable to satisfy the increasingly radical demands of the general population and attend to his ministerial responsibilities. His passive nature and general fear of violence made him totally unsuitable to lead and therefore provide a strong new presence after the collapse of the autocracy.  

In his earlier years as the previous leader of Zemgor (Union of Zemstvos and Cities), an organization which provided relief for the sick and wounded and including the procurement of Army uniforms and boots, he was often fustrated by the the obstruction by minor bureaucratic officials who disliked any voluntary organizations which encroached upon their own sphere of responsibility. Perhaps this should have provided a strong signal to any observers, that he was unable to overcome any middle level management problems. Unfortunately this deficit was overlooked when L'vov was selected to head the newly formed Provisional Government.

L'vov was remembered for his significant contributions made to the war effort. It was for this for which he became noted and respected by political liberals and Imperial Army commanders.

Both Nabokov and Milyukov (from Mike's hyperlink) emphasized L'vov's lack of management skills which would have been necessary to lead and be decisive, skills which were imperative in a country which was rapidly showing renewed anarchic tendencies.

Milyukov as Foreign Minister himself was forced to resign two months before his leader L'vov, who followed the same path of resignation.
:o


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2004, 05:56:20 PM »
If Nicholas II held the power to skip over his son Alexis and give the crown to GD Michael then GD Michael was in power the moment the ink was wet on the offical papers.

Michael 's title would have been the uncrown Tsar of Russia but this didn't eliminate the power he had from that point forward in time.  He was number one, the head guy, the ruler of All The Russias.

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2004, 12:17:25 AM »
Quote
GD Michael was in power the moment the ink was wet on the offical papers.
AGRBear


I agree with you AGRBear absolutely! There was no vacuum created at that point. The process of succession however faulty it may have been deemed to have been constitutionally speaking, still progressed serially and directly to G.D. Michael.

From that exact point in time it was completely upto the new Emperor Michael to enforce his will as he saw fit. This he did by renouncing his Imperial rights. He could not have done this had he not had the inherent power to do so. :)


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline PAVLOV

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #40 on: July 28, 2010, 10:08:18 AM »
Question. What if Michael had not renounced his rights to the throne of Russia, put down the anarchy, and entered into peace talks with the Germans, and announced a Constitutional monarchy ?
Would the dynasty have survived ?
Or had things gone too far to be reversed ?

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #41 on: July 28, 2010, 10:34:58 AM »
I always like to do a "what if" on anything that happened in history - Russian or not.

However, FA just moved a thread "What if Russia had not entered WWI" to the having fun section.  I hate to see this thread be moved there as well.

Evidently Michael didn't feel he had the power or the resources to do anything but abdicate.  I think he was hoping to preserve the Provisional Government and his own life.  Unfortunately, he lost his life anyway and the Provision Government fell.

Too bad.  But it doesn't seem that Michael was any stronger than Nicholas when it came to being Tsar. 

Nicholas abdicated because the Duma wanted him to.  Michael abdicated because he wanted the consent of the constituency.  Neither had the strength to take a stand as an autocrat.  They both wanted approval.  Neither got it.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #42 on: July 28, 2010, 11:31:59 AM »
Alixz, I appreciate your opinion, however; Michael did not abdicate. He never accepted the  throne. One cannot abdicate from something one does not have. If you or anyone else reads his statement, it is a declination, not an abdication.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2010, 12:20:08 PM »
I was replying to the thought that the succession was continuous and that whether or not Michael accepted his brother's decree that decree (which might not have been official or correct) made Michael emperor.  If he was automatically emperor then he could abdicate or decline or renounce but he couldn't stop the process from passing to him.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: WHO WAS THE FIRST LEADER AFTER NICHOLAS II ABDICATED?
« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2010, 11:43:17 AM »
"A heavy burden has been thrust upon me by the will of my brother, who has given over to me the Imperial Throne of russia at a time unprecedented warfare and popular disturbances.

Inspired like the entire people by the idea that what is most important is the welfare of the country, I have taken a firm decision to assume the Supreme Power only if such be the will of our great people, whose right it is to establish the form of government and the new basic laws of the Russian state by universal suffrage through its representatives in the Constituent Assembly

Therefore, invoking the blessing of God, I beseech all the citizens of Russia to obey the Provisional Government, which has come into being on the initiative of the Duma and is vested with all the plenitude of power until the Constituent Assembly, to be convoked with the least possible delay by universal suffrage, direct, equal and secret voting, shall express the will of the people by its decision on the form of government."

Signed: "MICHAEL."

[AGRBear Note: He signed it with the Imperial MICHAEL and not GD Michael or citizen Michael Alexanderovich Romanov.]

English translation from
MICHAEL AND NATASHA
by Rosemary and Ronald Crawford
p. 311

"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152