What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

[Tsarfan]

The sexism is part of that negative perception though isnt it, I'm not saying that's its THE reason but certainly part of it and Tsarfan, lets face it, race, gender etc DO play a part- they are not just 'cards' but very evident socio-political factors in the real world. Examples/evidence of that here being the observance of the 'Pauline' laws of succession in Russia at the time of Nicholas II and Alexander III's 'May laws' against the Jews etc to name but a few.

You want to see ever more proof that Alexandra's attempts to influence Nicholas were a factor in the dynasty's fall, rejecting her letters and innumerable indications in other sources as insufficient.  Yet you make the sweeping claim that the dislike of Alexandra was based in part on her being a woman, and you use the Pauline law and anti-semitism as your proof?  Remarkable.

Emperor Paul did not promulgate the succession law because his mother was a woman.  He did it because he had firsthand experience of how a consort could use that position to unseat a hereditary tsar and then usurp the rights of an heir.  Having been deprived for decades of his right to succeed his father, he wanted to make sure that it never happened again.  Russia had four female rulers in the 18th century, more than any other country.  And one of them was one of only three Russian rulers who were called in their own times "the Great".  Intolerance of women wielding power or influence just doesn't seem to me to be a huge element in the dislike of Alexandra.  I suspect that if Alexandra's influence had been thought to have been helping Nicholas become a more effective tsar, it would have been welcomed.  I am aware of no one (other than Alexandra) resenting Marie's attempts to influence Nicholas.  In fact, ministers and foreign emissaries sought her out for this purpose.  And the last time I looked, she was a woman, too.

As for anti-semitism, I don't have the faintest idea what it has to do with sexism.  Anti-semitism has been directed against men and women equally.

Because people didn't know about Alexei's condition they also could not understand why Rasputin was there, this also increased the negative perception.

I don't know where this myth comes from that no one understood why Rasputin was on hand.  The Romanovs and many others in government and society knew about Alexei's condition.  After Spala Alexei's hemophilia became the topic of international press reports.  The main Alexander Palace website has posted a New York Times article from 1912 reporting Alexei's hemophilia to the world and removing once and for all any possibility that Alexei's condition could be kept secret.

It was a Romanov and the richest nobleman in Russia who killed Rasputin, not some revolutionary factory worker who believed the rumors that Rasputin was boinking the women and girls at the palace.

Alexandra's correspondence IS a reactionary rant, but do you honestly believe that without Alexandra, Nicholas would have been a Liberal? Thats utterly ridiculous . . . .

Yes, it is ridiculous, and no one on this thread has said it.

You persist in trying to attack the arguments of others by taking their arguments beyond what was actually argued.  In my case, I have never argued that Alexandra made Nicholas less liberal than he was inclined to be.  In fact, I have said that Nicholas showed remarkable resolve and some real talent after 1906 in shaking off the shackles of the new constitutionalism.  My argument has been that the damage Alexandra caused was not in encouraging Nicholas' conservatism but in making him a less attractive tsar for conservative elements to support.  Remember my post about the five pillars of monarchical support and Alexandra's role in undercutting their confidence in the tsar?

It's not very helpful to constructive debate to try to trick people into defending positions they never took just because you think you can counter those position more easily.

[Louis_Charles]

Well, where to start?

Nicholas did not "try" to make the Duma work. It was hamstrung and ill-conceived from the first, and he devoted most of the first two years of its existence to undercutting any possible role it could have played in the governance of the empire. Among many other sources, see Figes, A People's  Tragedy.

I do not think Nicholas was a spineless jellyfish. I think he was immature and unsuited to the task he faced by either temperament or training (surely we agree on that, Vanya?). But not spineless. He clung to a discredited idea long past the time it could be demonstrated to be effective for moving Russia to a workable government, i.e. the idea that Russia was his personal property.

I fault Alexandra not because she made him do things that he might not otherwise have done, but because she reinforced his immaturity, and thereby helped reduce any chance for change. I disagree with your assessment of her influence (once again, to me your post demonstrated exactly the opposite of what you intended), but in the end it doesn't matter. What matters, or rather mattered, was what Tsarfan has pointed out. It was the perception of her influence by pillars of the throne such as the Orthodox Church, the Army, the aristocracy and the extended Romanov family (who universally loathed her and blamed her for the troubles) that ultimately turned each of these against the monarch. And it is clear from her own letters that by the time the war rolled around, Alexandra had developed a siege mentality about the outside world. Nicholas was being told that only she was trustworthy, and that each of the above entities were potential snakes in his bosom: the Church for its opposition to Rasputin, Grand Duke Nicholas for his leadership of the army, and the family for, well, being the family. As I have also said, I think Roundling's insight into Alexandra's relationship with Rasputin is right on the roubles. I think she used him as a reference point to distract from the fact that the ideas she was presenting were her own. There is no credible evidence that Rasputin was capable of the kind of political maneuverings with which the Empress filled her letters to the Emperor.

I suppose that what I am saying boils down to this. I doubt there was anything that Nicholas qua Nicholas could have done to preserve the imperial throne, although I am not sure that it was an impossible task for any Tsar between 1894 and 1914. It would have required talent, and the practical ability to transform ideas into reality. There are precedents for this in Russian history, and even more specifically in Romanov dynastic history --- Peter I and Catherine II.  It would have required a flexibility and intelligence that Nicholas simply did not possess.

That being said, I do assign a fair share of the blame to his wife. No previous Empress played the role she assumed in the marriage. The fact that she obviously had influence was not nocessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Had Alix of Hesse-Darmstadt taken a clue from her mother's family playbook, she might have used her influence to try and move Russia in the general direction of a constitutional monarchy. Her Aunt Victoria certainly did in Germany, although she was defeated by Friedrich III's cancer. The argument might be made that Alexandra was defeated byAlexei's hemophilia, but I don't think it stands. There is ample evidence that she was reactionary and imperious before Alexei's birth.

In the end, I suppose my answer to the question posed by this thread is "Abdicate. As soon as possible."

[Vanya Ivanova]

Disagreeing with my arguments is one thing Tsarfan but stating that they are deliberately duplicitous (''unhelpful to constructive debate because I'm trying to trick people'') is ungracious and offensive.

The good thing however is that both sides of the argument have been represented at length and at the end of day I believe '' there are two sides to EVERY story and somewhere in the middle is the truth''

Its all recorded for posterity so hopefully it will be of some to use others in the future in formulating a balanced opinion about Alexandra and her part in the downfall of Imperial Russia. I have personally thoroughly enjoyed this debate and have learnt a great deal and want to thank all those who have taken the time to respond to my posts especially Tsarfan whose detailed knowledge and undertanding of the subject is invaluable.

[edubs31]

Louis, sorry to have not made mention of your response to my "magic comb" inquiry above that I appreciated. Good examples and an appropriate, not to mention humorous, parallel drawn between the Romanovs and the Romney's.

This is surely one of those instances where Alexandra leaves herself open to the criticisms of future historians, and deservedly so. Still I'm left to wonder how seriously Nicholas took her advice on this...he certainly ignored other suggestions that came from Alix/Rasputin camp. Maybe it was little more along the lines than an "OK I'll use the comb just to make her happy...I need luck anywhere I can get it...it probably won't help but it certainly can't hurt."

[Tsarfan]

I'm sorry to see you leave the debate, Vanya, as you have quite a bit of knowledge of the topic.  But I have to say that I found your putting arguments in the mouths of others and then labeling them "utterly ridiculous" to also be a bit ungracious and offensive.

I regret this is where we are, but it seems it is.

[Forum Admin]

I think Louis Charles points are rather valid.

While Alexandra was "a" factor, I'm not so sure how "important" a factor she was.  Had she been the "perfect" wife for the job, I don't really think things would have ended up much differently than they did.  Rasputin's influence was only really a factor for the aristocracy and immediate Court circles, and perhaps some of the intellectual middle class.  Her "meddling" wouldn't have affected Nicholas' decisions so greatly, IMO.  Nicholas just wasn't up to the job.  He tried to be "nice" to everyone most of the time.  He tried to appease all sides, rather than take decisive actions and make definitive and decisive decisions. 

World War I would have erupted regardless of Alexandra's personality.  The rapid modernization of the Russian economy, with the decidedly 18th century bureaucracy and government coupled with the complete lack of de-centralization of the transportation networks all of which failed utterly under the stress of fighting the war created the huge social unrest in the vast lower middle and lower classes.  That allowed the cracks in the armor to be exploited by the Revolutionary movements (both liberal and Bolshevik) to disseminate their ideas widely and gain popular support. 

By 1917, it was far too late.  Nicholas would have had to start no later than 1905 to change the outcome.  To lay much "importance" on Alexandra's having an effect on the fall of the Imperial Regime is to say that the pumps on the Titanic were an important factor in the sinking after striking the ice berg.  As Andrews said to Capt Smith "They will buy you time, nothing more, perhaps an hour..."  Alexandra added nothing to the Revolutionary fervor, aside from hastening the Revolution by perhaps a few months at most.  Nicholas never would have survived on the throne by the end of winter 1917 with or without Alexandra.

[Vanya Ivanova]

I couldn't agree more with Forum Admin's assessment of Alexandra's influence - perfect! I had got to the point where I felt I was repeating myself and there's no profit in that.

Louis Charles, I hope you don't feel I was putting words in your mouth and I never meant your assessment was in any way ''ridiculous''. Its just that my 'perception' of the essence of your and to some extent Alixz'z and Tsarfan's argument is that - what little ability Nicholas had as a ruler was further weakened by both Alexandra's actual advice and the negative way in which she was 'perceived' in the country as a whole and that it was a 'factor' only. Please correct me if that's not roughly accurate.

My point is that I don't disagree with the part that the 'negative' perception of her would have been a factor in the regime's downfall but as Forum Admin pointed out beyond the closed circle of the court and perhaps some intellectuals it wasn't necessarily a very widely held perception which would have meant it was a very minor factor. So any disagreement there is based on degree I suppose.

The part that appears to be a fundamental difference of opinion however, is in how much Alexandra personally influenced Nicholas's decisions. In this my genuine 'perception' of the argument 'for' this (posted on this thread) is based on her constantly badgering him to be stronger/firmer with people and discussing politics and military strategy in her correspondence with him (ample examples supplied by Tsarfan). My point was that and my quotes of Nicholas's correspondence showed examples that Nicholas had asked Alexandra to help him in this, disagreed with her opinion, played down the value of Rasputin's advice and thanked her for her involvement.

This was taken (again correct me if this is not the case) by yourself and Alixz as not showing that at all but quite the reverse, in fact because you believed it was just further evidence (and both of you stated this in your posts (to quote Alixz specifically as I did before) that Alexandra's opinions had been ''dunned'' into Nicholas in private. Again I really hope that's not perceived as putting words into anyone's mouth and that is why I have quoted Alixz's expression ''dunned'' again. Now if that's an incorrect assessment of the 'for'  arguments then please correct me.

It was based on this 'perception' of Nicholas thanking Alexandra for her help etc being just FURTHER proof of the hold she had on him that I was challenging (and Louis Charles that is my understanding of why you said my posts of Nicholas's correspondence only further promoted Alexandra's influence over her husband). That being because it appeared to rely very heavily on Nicholas being ''dunned'' in private and that for me was too much of an assumption. Furthermore I gave the my specific example of the Minister of the Interior being discussed, Alexandra evidently against keeping the man, Nicholas for keeping him, and it transpiring that the man was kept on. This is at least some evidence that whilst Alexandra's views were undoubtedly very forcefully given there IS evidence Nicholas didn't just do as she told him.I appreciate your arguments is more that her constant 'bullying' weakened him overall perhaps more than anything specific, but again in my opinion thats too much of an assumption.

Therefore as Forum Admin, Edubs, and Tim have pointed out also, in the respect of the actual personal influence Alexandra wielded over Nicholas if there was any it was in my opinion again a very minor factor and motivated not by ambition but by a desire to support him.

[Tsarfan]

While Alexandra was "a" factor, I'm not so sure how "important" a factor she was.

I think a distinction has to be drawn between what Alexandra actually did and what she was thought to be doing.  The first might not have helped bring on the final debacle, but the latter certainly did.

Letters from the front to soldiers' families throughout 1916 were filled with tales that were passing among the troops about Alexandra and Rasputin, for instance.  As the military discipline required to keep St. Petersburg under control in February 1917 broke down Viktor Shkovsky, an armored division instructor, reported that the Rasputin affair had “finally broken the soldiers’ loyalty to the Tsar”, even in what were thought to be the most reliable garrisons kept near the capital.

As Figes put it in A People's Tragedy (p. 284):

"Much of the public hysteria was focused on the court, where a pro-German clique around the Tsarina was widely believed to be conspiring to bring about Russia’s defeat.  The idea of treason in high places, which started with the Miasoyedov affair and the Great Retreat, gained momentum in 1916 as rumors spread of a ‘black bloc’ at court, which was said to be seeking a separate peace with Berlin.  The growing domination of the Tsarina . . . the anti-war sentiments of Rasputin, the large number of German names at the court, and the Tsar’s promotion of Stürmer to the status of a virtual ‘dictator’ (by June he had assumed the powers of Prime Minister, Minister of the Interior, Foreign Minister, and Supreme Minister for State Defence) all helped to fuel the speculation . . .  The point of these rumours was not their truth of untruth, but their power to mobilize an angry public against the dynasty."

[Janet Ashton]

I think Roundling's insight into Alexandra's relationship with Rasputin is right on the roubles. I think she used him as a reference point to distract from the fact that the ideas she was presenting were her own. There is no credible evidence that Rasputin was capable of the kind of political maneuverings with which the Empress filled her letters to the Emperor.

Virginia Rounding in her excellent book is only the latest of several authors who have said this. It started life in a PhD thesis by Martin Kilcoyne in the early 60s, but the first commercial book which posited this was written a generation later by a Mr King....:-)

[Louis_Charles]

I certainly wasn't offended by anything you wrote, Vanya, and hope you can say the same about my posts!

That being said, I disagree with both you and Rob. There is indeed evidence that Alexandra was difficult to deal with in private, and that Nicholas frequently gave in to her merely to keep the peace. That's not an opinion, or an inference; it's a documented fact. As Tsarfan points out, her role was viewed as malign throughout the country by the middle of the war (unfairly, I grant, from the point of view of where her loyalties were placed, not so unfairly when you look at what she was actually doing in terms of ministerial appointments).

Could the Revolution have been avoided? I think it is telling that the Bolshevik leadership did not see it happening until almost the moment it actually did --- most of the leadership wasn't even in the country at the start of the February uprising. Was World War I inevitable? Hard to say, but if I might draw an analogy:  at the end of World War II and well into the 1960s, it was certainly believed that an American/Soviet nuclear war was inevitable, and in fact we came to the brink of one in 1962. And yet it never happened. Why? A variety of factors, but most historians agree that a major cause was the personality and ability of John F. Kennedy.

And that is really all I am saying about Nicholas and Alexandra --- in reverse. I don't think anything is "inevitable" in history, and you don't have to subscribe to the Nietzschean concept of the uberman for that to be true. Had the car carrying Franz Ferdinand not slowed down right in front of Princip, had the Captain of the Titanic heeded ice warnings, had Hitler been killed in World War I --- nothing is "inevitable". But can things be made worse? Yes. And Nicholas and Alexandra made things worse. I think she made things much worse, only because the stakes were that much higher during the last reign.

Simon

[Louis_Charles]

Janet,

Sure, and all credit to the others, but Roundling made it cogently, and also piggy-backed it onto a very lucid discussion of Alexandra's medical history, both physical and psychological.

Best,

Simon

[Alixz]

I believe that Alexandra's behavior was important not only to the closed circle of the Imperial Family and a "few people" in St Petersburg.

If that were true then the revolution, which was a general uprising of the proletariat and the desertion of the enlisted and conspired men and even the "crack" guards at Tsarskoe Selo would not have happened.

Even the famous bread riots and the soldiers pushing through to break open the sacks of grain was not done by the Imperial Family or a few people in St Petersburg.

This was the ordinary Russian, who may have at one time, seen Rasputin as the peasant who got close to the court, but as Rasputin moved around St Petersburg bragging and spreading innuendo and hinting at "close contact and the ability to make "the old girl" do what he wanted, then even the proletariat began to see that there was something rotten in the palace pantry.

And I do believe that from 1894 on, Alexandra set herself on a course to push Nicholas whether he wanted to be pushed or not. I agree that the whole scene at Livadia when Alexander III was still alive as wrong. Alexandra had no business pushing Nicholas into the forefront when his father was still Tsar and his mother was still Empress. Yes, it was understood that Alexander did not have long to live, but all Alexandra did was muddle up the process of dying and mourning while she, Alexandra, was already pushing Marie out of the way!

In that case, I might not be too pleased with my daughter in law either and not inclined to like her or help her very much in the future.

I haven't had a lot of time to do the research that I want to do, but I do plan to get to it.

Do I think that Alexandra caused the downfall of the dynasty? No. Do I think she contributed to it. Yes. But I also know that Nicholas II himself did a lot of damage to his beloved autocracy after 1905.

And I am not sure that Nicholas made the decision to take over the army all by himself (I know he wanted to go) but had not done so. Alexandra was on a campaign to get rid of Grand Duke Nicholas and if Nicholas II had any thoughts that going to the front might be wrong, Alexandra gave him all the encouragement he needed to take control from a seasoned military man and take it himself - a rank amateur.

I do know that Nicholas asked Alexandra to take over the reins of government while he was away, but all he did was give her her head and allow her over inflated sense of importance to drive her.

I know this supposition, but maybe, just maybe, Nicholas was more at ease being advised and directed by mail then he was by Alexandra in person. I think that going to Stavka took him out of the fray both at home and in the city where he could pretend that he was still in charge of something. Even if it was only walks in the woods and games of dominoes.

[Tsarfan]

People far, far closer to the situation in time and place than we can ever be dished heaps of blame onto Alexandra for damaging the monarchy, among them Romanovs, ministers, ambassadors, military commanders, and the senior nobility.  I really don't know why people today -- sitting a world and an age away -- become so sure that she did not cause the harm those people saw.

It's not just folklore that the senior Romanovs were plotting to force Nicholas to put Alexandra away or, should he refuse, to stage a coup against him.  A memorandum circulated among the family about the feasibility of various options, and a meeting was actually scheduled that was postponed . . . and then the revolution intervened.  Grand Duchess Elizabeth -- Alexandra's own sister -- was unceremoniously dismissed from the Alexander Palace when she made an appeal for her sister to return to reason.  And a month earlier a Grand Duke and a Prince had resorted to murder in an indirect strike at Alexandra . . . and most of the Romanovs (not to mention many in government) cheered the act.

Is it really conceivable that they had it all wrong and Alexandra's modern-day defenders have it all right?

If we are unwilling to lend weight to what direct observers saw and did, then why bother to study history?  Just make it up the way we'd like it to have been.

[Petr]

Dear Louis Charles

Of course not but as I have repeatedly said it is easy to judge NII and AF in hindsight and through modern eyes (and prejudices) but it is a lot harder to understand their thought processes without putting them in context of their time, place and class and, in particular, the psychology of the Russian Aristocracy in the late Victorian period (and, for that matter, the European Aristocracy as well). I quoted a homily because it illustrates another important influence  which tends to be discounted in this secular age and that is the traditionally close relationship between Church and State in Russia of that time (some might say that is under going a renaissance today) which is, of course, anathema in the US and most liberal western democracies. Without judging whether this relationship was right or wrong or good or bad, it seems to me perfectly understandable that NII and AF believed that he had a God given duty to preserve the throne and by that I mean the autocracy he inherited from his forbears.  As I have said many times before honor and duty meant something back then.  That NII failed in his duty and that his and AF's mistakes were legion cost him and his family their lives, but that does not excuse the 80 years of misery perpetrated on the long suffering Russian people by those who brought the government down -- misery, death and destruction far exceeding anything perpetrated by generations of Romanovs.

Would Russia have been better off without a monarchy may be a debatable point given its history, size and diversity of ethic groups and economic classes and the answer may perhaps lie more with the predilections of the commentator than with objective reality.  Again, to place all of what happened entirely at NII’s doorstep, other than on the basis of “the buck stops here”, is in my view a simplistic and perhaps convenient analysis.


And finally, yes Tsarfan I am awaiting Margarita’s biography of AIII because I believe she will bring a new and fresh objective look in her usual balanced, thorough and methodical way at a historical figure who has received a lot of unfavorable and, I believe unmerited, press from liberal historians and in the liberal media  (for example, allegations that he was a drunkard, which were definitively refuted by Margarita on this site).

Petr      
            

[Tsarfan]

. . . yes Tsarfan I am awaiting Margarita’s biography of AIII because I believe she will bring a new and fresh objective look in her usual balanced, thorough and methodical way at a historical figure who has received a lot of unfavorable and, I believe unmerited, press from liberal historians and in the liberal media  (for example, allegations that he was a drunkard, which were definitively refuted by Margarita on this site).
            

In 2007, in a discussion in which Margaria Nelipa was trying to explain the mystical nature of Nicholas' authority, she posted the following on this site:

"According to Dominic Lieven, the Emperor could not just stand above all classes and its factions 'but almost above the human condition itself. Not prey to nomal temptations, interests or frailties, he ruled on the basis of of a pure heart and an Orthodox Christian conscience.'"

Not believing that she could be serious, I asked her directly whether she believed this herself, asking for a simple "yes" or "no".  She refused to answer.

I do not find her either balanced or objective as a historian but rather someone who participates in a level of historical revisionism that would have made a Soviet-era historian proud.

. . . but that does not excuse the 80 years of misery perpetrated on the long suffering Russian people by those who brought the government down -- misery, death and destruction far exceeding anything perpetrated by generations of Romanovs.

One of the most sobering aspects of the years from 1917 to 1921 is how often the fledgling Bolshevik authorities found themselves not leading but trying to keep up with and then take credit for the upswell of murderous resentment that swept across Russia from peasants and urban workers.  In many ways, when it came to the revolution the Russian people were the tail wagging the Bolshevik dog.

The tsarist government was not brought down.  It collapsed.  There is a difference.