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

[Petr]

I think it is fair to say that the Russian Army was unprepared for WWI, however, I think to ascribe this totally to the regime is somewhat unfair. Obviously, to use Harry's maxim the "buck stops here" so the blame for any unpreparedness always falls on the government in power. But the same could be said of France and England as well (which were equally unprepared for what followed). Undoubtedly at the commencement of the war Russia was undersupplied with weapons, but unlike Germany which had been preparing for war for a number of years and was fundamentally a militaristic regime, Russia's army was a peacetime army so just like the US (both in WWI and WWII) it took time to ramp up. By 1917, however, wartime production was supplying the front lines with adequate supplies of machine guns, artillery, planes and tanks. Should Nicholas' government have recognized the German threat earlier and begin rearmament sooner, probably. Then again Russia's defensive strategy was always to be based on shear numbers of its army (which is the strategy followed by the soviets in WWII) and, in any case, the general popular wisdom was that it was going to be a short war. Up until WWI all wars were relatively local affairs which did not deploy the massive forces over lengthy front lines and did not involve the enormous logistical problems and total national mobilization which characterized WWI (the first real modern war). Up until WWI Russia's wartime experience involved regional skirmishes like the Russo-Turkish war and before that the Crimean War so there really was no experience on which to fall back on (frankly I believe that at the outset the German generals probably outmatched the Russian general staff)  and unlike the Germans the Russian general staff had not developed elaborate wartime plans in advance.     

[Constantinople]

Unlike Harry Truman, Tsar Nicholas was an autocrat, which means he had complete control of all aspects of government.  Not only did he have control, but he fought hard against any form of power sharing, so the buck did start and end with him.  First rule of autocracy, if you want to be in control and your power comes from God, then make sure God is feeding you informatiion about your potetnial enemies.  Rule two, make sure that if you have absolute power, you know what you are doing and what you are doing with that power.

[Sergei Witte]

And why weren't the soldiers equipped? because of the fallout of Bloody Sunday and a number of pogroms, the Jewish lobbies and mass media had a field day with Nicholas

Constantinople, what do you mean with this? I don't understand what you are saying.

You also said the Duma was refusing credit for the army? Where did you read this?
I never heard the Duma had the power to do that.

[Sergei Witte]

I think it is fair to say that the Russian Army was unprepared for WWI, however, I think to ascribe this totally to the regime is somewhat unfair. Obviously, to use Harry's maxim the "buck stops here" so the blame for any unpreparedness always falls on the government in power. But the same could be said of France and England as well (which were equally unprepared for what followed). Undoubtedly at the commencement of the war Russia was undersupplied with weapons, but unlike Germany which had been preparing for war for a number of years and was fundamentally a militaristic regime, Russia's army was a peacetime army so just like the US (both in WWI and WWII) it took time to ramp up. By 1917, however, wartime production was supplying the front lines with adequate supplies of machine guns, artillery, planes and tanks. Should Nicholas' government have recognized the German threat earlier and begin rearmament sooner, probably. Then again Russia's defensive strategy was always to be based on shear numbers of its army (which is the strategy followed by the soviets in WWII) and, in any case, the general popular wisdom was that it was going to be a short war. Up until WWI all wars were relatively local affairs which did not deploy the massive forces over lengthy front lines and did not involve the enormous logistical problems and total national mobilization which characterized WWI (the first real modern war). Up until WWI Russia's wartime experience involved regional skirmishes like the Russo-Turkish war and before that the Crimean War so there really was no experience on which to fall back on (frankly I believe that at the outset the German generals probably outmatched the Russian general staff)  and unlike the Germans the Russian general staff had not developed elaborate wartime plans in advance.     

I would like to make a few comments on your post:
No country was prepared for a all pervasive, year lasting war. Indeed they expected to "be home before christmas". But the Russian army was especially quick in being out of munition. I believe after a few months of war. This was partly due to the fact that transportation was especially difficult in Russia. The harbours were blocked with mines but also a reason was lack of infrastructure.

I am not so convinced that German politics was the main cause of WWI. Although Wilhelm II no doubt was an irresponsible, and very vain man, he is not solely to blame for all the war threat that was present at the time. All countries had battleplans, all countries were eager to humiliate the enemy, some countries were eager to overcome an internal crisis with a quick victory and, most of all, all countries were suffering from delusions on how romantic war was. Indeed, previously, wars had been fought with  armies into the ten thousands and who could have foreseen that this one would be with armies in the millions.
Although there were people with especially future-casting gifts, like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Gotlib_Bloch

But, since you have a very famous grandfather, you may know much more on this subject than me. So please enlight me!

[Petr]

Unlike Harry Truman, Tsar Nicholas was an autocrat, which means he had complete control of all aspects of government.

I'm not sure you are correct. Perhaps in theory he had "complete control of all aspects of government" but in practice he had to deal with a large and unwieldy 19th century bureaucracy. I think that there's this thought that all he had to do was snap his fingers and his will was done because he was an "autocrat", but reality is not that simplistic. Governments don't work that way even totalitarian ones (both Hitler and Stalin had to deal with their own bureaucracies but of course they were much more ruthless and quick to liquidate any opposition) and the pre-revolutionary Russian government was notoriously inefficient (I think that in fact that was the greatest contribution to Russia's unpreparedness for WWI and not whatever Nicholas did or failed to do). Actually the civil service was quite static with a rigid ranking system which made advancement slow and difficult and penalized initiative (does that have a familiar ring?). He could fire a minister but often ministers came and went while the departments they were ostensibly in charge of continued to grind away in the same manner they acted for the preceding 50 years. The paper work was fierce (I've seen examples) with a level of formality that was mind numbing.

Dear Sergei: Bear had quoted from my Uncle's book about the state of the Army on the eve of WWI and it was clear that as a peacetime army it was unprepared for war (and by the way this was realized and there were reforms under way). Yes all governments had contingency plans but since Bismarck the German government (really the Prussian State which was driving the bus) was much better prepared because the Army held such great sway within the Government. After all it was in their genes since Frederick the Great and it wasn't just the Kaiser.  The Junkers were basically military men.  As I posted earlier there is evidence (cf. Tuchman's Guns of August) that the Kaiser tried to put the brakes on but I think when push came to shove the General Staff probably had the final persuasive voice over the civilians in the Government.  I've read snippets of the German plans for mobilization. In many ways its a masterpiece because of the logistical efficiencies particularly in the use of the railroads.  Look at how fast Hindenburg and Ludendorff were able to move their troops to the Western Front after Brest-Litovsk. As you pointed out, Russia did not have anywhere near the same level of internal transportation infrastructure that Germany did (by the way this was a deliberate defensive strategy going back a long time and, for example, is the reason why Russia uses a different track gauge than the rest of Europe but that strategy comes at a price).   

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

Unlike Harry Truman, Tsar Nicholas was an autocrat, which means he had complete control of all aspects of government.

I'm not sure you are correct. Perhaps in theory he had "complete control of all aspects of government" but in practice he had to deal with a large and unwieldy 19th century bureaucracy.

I am intrigued that this is the first time I've seen this question, which French and Danish-Norwegian historians have been debating for ages, pop up: How absolute does an absolute ruler rule? How autocratic is an autocrat really?

[Constantinople]

How they rule varies.  The real question is about power and autocrats have unlimited power, which means they have the power to do what they want to do.  In Nicholas' case the question of protocol keeps emerging but he ultimately had the power to change those protocols.  Ultimately there was noone to counter his decisions so if the consequences were bad, he was responsible and if he should have made other decisions, then he had the power to do that, it was his option not to.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

The real question is about power and autocrats have unlimited power

The less often the autocratic power is exercized, the less practically possible will it be to exercize it. In the end it will be regarded as a coup d'etat. (Like Gustaf III of Sweden's.)

Come to think of it, perhaps there is a distinction between "absolute monarchies" like Louis XIV and the Danish and Prussian kings who nevertheless acted pretty constitutionally because they more reigned than ruled, delegating their absolute power - and autocrats, who rule themselves? For English-speakers it might not be that obvious, but for Russians (and Scandinavians) it's obvious that the Emperor was cамодержец (selvhersker): self-ruler, i.e. he himself ruled.

[Sergei Witte]

And why weren't the soldiers equipped? because of the fallout of Bloody Sunday and a number of pogroms, the Jewish lobbies and mass media had a field day with Nicholas

Constantinople, what do you mean with this? I don't understand what you are saying.

You also said the Duma was refusing credit for the army? Where did you read this?
I never heard the Duma had the power to do that.

Constantinople, I repeat my question for you:

What do you mean by this sentence?

[Constantinople]

What I was saying is that the consequences of Imperial Russian events like the pogroms, Blooody Sunday, the attempt to suppress the Duma meant that the media in democratic countries like the US and Britain painted the Russian Tsarist regime in an extremely negative light and this had an effect on the governments of the day.  For example, the Brritish Japanese alliance that led to Britain supporting Japan in the Russo Japanese war and both America and Britain not extending credit for arms to Russia during World War 1.  This in turn led to Russia having a massive army that was not equipped properly.  If the Russians had been sold more arms on credit and had ample equipment like mortars and machineguns, the Germans would have been less successful and probably their allies, Austro Hungary would have been evicerated by the Russians.  Instead, when weapons broke down, there often was no replacement, when regiments ran out of ammunition, they often had to do things like bayonet charges against machine gun nests.  As well this also affected aspects of training where the Russians did not have access to American or British training for their soldiers.

[Sergei Witte]

What I was saying is that the consequences of Imperial Russian events like the pogroms, Blooody Sunday, the attempt to suppress the Duma meant that the media in democratic countries like the US and Britain painted the Russian Tsarist regime in an extremely negative light and this had an effect on the governments of the day.  For example, the Brritish Japanese alliance that led to Britain supporting Japan in the Russo Japanese war and both America and Britain not extending credit for arms to Russia during World War 1.  This in turn led to Russia having a massive army that was not equipped properly.  If the Russians had been sold more arms on credit and had ample equipment like mortars and machineguns, the Germans would have been less successful and probably their allies, Austro Hungary would have been evicerated by the Russians.  Instead, when weapons broke down, there often was no replacement, when regiments ran out of ammunition, they often had to do things like bayonet charges against machine gun nests.  As well this also affected aspects of training where the Russians did not have access to American or British training for their soldiers.

I totally agree with you.

But, there is more: One more reason for the British to give a negative portrayal of the Russian Empire was that they were opponents on world power. They were both big imperialistic countries who had an interest in portraying the other one in a negative way to ignite public indignation. Some time ago I read here on the forum that the British press wrote negatively about the Romanovs after the revolution (more specifically on Marie Feodorovna as the mother of Nicholas). Then I remembered the words of Reagan when he called the Soviet Union "The Evil Empire". What I am trying to say is that countries, especially Imperialistic countries have an interest in propaganda in which they give a negative picture of their opponent. When there is a difference in government type, this also helps to arouse the public opinion, because that is what it is all about.

[Constantinople]

The problem with that approach is that it also weakens potential allies. If Russia had enterred into the Russo Japanese war, it would have been a much stronger country with its navy and reputation intact and without a revolution to fuel the potential for the overthrow of the government.

[mcdnab]

I think that the personal relationships between Marie Feodorovna and her sister Queen Alexandra has often clouded the real politik of British Russian relations. Russia and Britain were strong imperial rivals particularly in the Middle-East and had been for much of the 19th century - Britain's continuing support for Turkey was a particular issue because propping Turkey up had an impact on the emerging Balkan states which tied in strongly with the emerging pan-slavism and pan-orthodox movement. Nicholas, despite his affection for Uncle Bertie, celebrated British defeats during the Boer War for example.
It was ironic that in society there was a spurt of anglophilia in Russia during the last decades of the Tsarist regime.

The growing left wing political movements in Britain had a particular loathing for Russia as one of the last bastions of absolutism, many Russian revolutionaries and jewish emigrees fleeing persecution had ended up in Britain. It was one of the reasons why Nicholas II visited Queen Victoria at Balmoral and made no official visit to London because of fears over his security.

There was a strong anti-german view that grew in the Russian and British courts both Marie and Alexandra never forgave the Danish Prussian war and the humiliation it had heaped on their father that fed into the existing views of Alexander III, Nicholas II and Edward VII and the families almost universal dislike of the Kaiser. The Kaiser of course believed he had an excellent relationship with Nicholas and allowed treaties to fall in the 1890s the effectively forced Nicholas into the treaty with France. It was of course ironic that his pro-french uncle Edward VII was equally pushing his government into a treaty with France, that would result in the most unlikely of allies.

Britain could and probably should have kept out of the war in August 1914 and may well have done so if Germany hadn't invaded Belgium.

[Sergei Witte]

Dear Sergei: Bear had quoted from my Uncle's book about the state of the Army on the eve of WWI and it was clear that as a peacetime army it was unprepared for war (and by the way this was realized and there were reforms under way). Yes all governments had contingency plans but since Bismarck the German government (really the Prussian State which was driving the bus) was much better prepared because the Army held such great sway within the Government. After all it was in their genes since Frederick the Great and it wasn't just the Kaiser.  The Junkers were basically military men.  As I posted earlier there is evidence (cf. Tuchman's Guns of August) that the Kaiser tried to put the brakes on but I think when push came to shove the General Staff probably had the final persuasive voice over the civilians in the Government.  I've read snippets of the German plans for mobilization. In many ways its a masterpiece because of the logistical efficiencies particularly in the use of the railroads.  Look at how fast Hindenburg and Ludendorff were able to move their troops to the Western Front after Brest-Litovsk. As you pointed out, Russia did not have anywhere near the same level of internal transportation infrastructure that Germany did (by the way this was a deliberate defensive strategy going back a long time and, for example, is the reason why Russia uses a different track gauge than the rest of Europe but that strategy comes at a price).   

Dear Petr

First of all, I agree with you on the things you mention here.

But I think there is more to say about the origins of WWI. Lately I have been reading about the ABC Memorandum of 1901. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Genesis_of_the_%22A.B.C.%22_Memorandum_of_1901

It explains that the Germans were not the sole cause of WWI. British foreign politics underwent a change after 1901. It became more anti-German and more pro-Russia.
This sounds fine, but the result was that the tensions between the alliances were increasing. So I have objections to the image that WWI was inevitable because Germany was steering directly into war. There were more players to the game. The Germans may have been a militaristic people (what you said stemming from Frederick the Great) but this didn't immediately lead to war. They just wanted to become a co-player in the land grabbing game of the other powers.

So maybe in july 1914 a train was set in motion that could not be stopped anymore, but the origins come from much earlier and all the countries - at least the countries with imperialistic goals - were to blame for this. It is an old opinion (imo it is a myth) that Germany was the sole country to blame for WWI. Therefore the conditions of the Versailles Treaty were so unjust to Germany. And this was soil for Nazism to grap the power.

[Petr]

Dear Sergei--

Your post was very interesting and highlights why the study of history is so fascinating. You are completely correct in that there were many fathers who sired that horrible bad seed that turned out to be WWI. But I believe the complexity of the situation makes it difficult to point to one single cause. Undoubtedly Germany's imperialistic tendencies created difficulty (viz., the Morocco Affair and don't forget the "Berlin to Baghdad Railroad" with its designs on the Balkans (which displeased the Russians) and the way Britain perceived it as a threat to its interests in the Middle East). The Germans were also rubbing up against the British in East Africa and in China. To point out the ambiguities your comment about Britain's overtures to Russia commencing in 1901 should be contrasted with its actions in supporting Japan and refusing coaling and passage through the Suez Canal to the Russian Fleet forcing it to wend its way around the world to meet its tragic fate in the straits of Tsushima. Undoubtedly there was anglophilia in the Russian Upper Classes (there was a great demand for English nannies and both my mother and my grandmother had them which proved fortuitous in exile since it made their English language skills very good) but Britain was very adept at serving its interests first and formost which could and did lead to duplicitous action on occasion (viz., Ambassador Buchanan and the Rasputin Plot and Lloyd George's sell out of my Grandfather at the behest of the unions -- but as a consolation prize they made him a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George--typical). Britain perfected Realpolitik and managed to play hardball under a veneer of civility (some might call it hypocrisy). Then again it was protecting its interests which was, after all, its obligation. There is another point to bear in mind.  We live in the 21st Century under the threat of nuclear annihilation if, God forbid, a conflagration of the size and magnitude of WWI broke out. The Governments of that time had no such restraining influences and significant portions of their populations were still under the romantic influence of "La Gloire", i.e., the nobility and heroism of war.  WWI was such a departure from what came before that I don't believe anyone realized what a disastrous tragedy it would become.

REgards,
Petr