did the children have the right to leave russia after the revolution?

[Alixz]

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

Actually those three were not at all what I was concentrating on.  It was the giving up to a higher power, which they both did.  They both felt that their "god" would take care of them and their family and so no one made any attempt to make plans for the future themselves.

I knew that not every step actually applied, but over all the abdication of personal responsibility and the need to wait to see what "god" has in store for them and then to accept that "high power's"  judgement is right up there on both Nicholas and Alexandra's lists.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him

Those are the two that struck me as most fitting to their way of life and their belief system.

I know that the 12 step program wasn't published until around 1933, but Nicholas could have been a charter member of the club as it leads its members to seek instruction from that "higher power". 

I have often wondered where Atheists go for help with addiction as they could not turn to a "Higher Power" as they don't believe in one.

[Elisabeth]

But Alixz, what precisely were Nicholas and Alexandra "addicted" to? What got them into so much trouble with the best (and worst) Russian minds and political figures of their day?

The principle of autocracy.

In which case they were never cured, were they? They never even learned to manage their "habit."

[Alixz]

I think that the addiction part has made my post unclear.  I never thought they were addicted, although you are right about the autocracy part, I just was thinking about turning one's life over to someone else, whether it is a higher power or a god.

When Nicholas abdicated he turned his life over to his higher power and made no attempt to insure any earthly solutions to the dilemma.  He truly was a fatalist and he truly just left his life and the fates of his family up to his god.

That was the only part of the 12 steps that I saw as pertaining to him.

#1 is to realize that we have no control (over our addiction) but Nicholas acted like he had no control over his own life at that point.  He gave control over to others, but mostly to "God's Will".

But I guess I am not being clear.  I just saw a comparison in some of the steps that Nicholas seemed to take long before the program was even started.

[TimM]

Seems to me that by 1917, Nicky just wanted out.  When he abdicated, you got the impression he was in fact thinking:  "Russia is the Provisional Goverment's problem now, not mine."

[Alixz]

I think that is what I was trying to say, but I wasn't very clear.

It just seems that he also gave the fate of his family to the Provisional Government and to his faith as well as giving up his throne and the autocracy of Russia.

I wonder if he was under the influence of drugs at the time.  Had he began using cocaine and other drugs for more that the common cold?  He seemed to be at a breaking point by the time the abdication was presented to him.

[Elisabeth]

I think that is what I was trying to say, but I wasn't very clear.

It just seems that he also gave the fate of his family to the Provisional Government and to his faith as well as giving up his throne and the autocracy of Russia.

I wonder if he was under the influence of drugs at the time.  Had he began using cocaine and other drugs for more that the common cold?  He seemed to be at a breaking point by the time the abdication was presented to him.

I see what you meant now, Alixz, probably we agree on just about everything in fact... IMHO NII didn't necessarily need to be under the influence of powerful drugs (whether from Badmaev or an ordinary cough preparation -- many common, over-the-counter drugs at this period had codeine or laudanum or other strong sedatives in them) to behave the way he did at Pskov and Mogilev. It's my impression that drugs or not, he was in the grip of a nervous breakdown of some kind, and probably having heart problems as well, unless these were a symptom of panic attacks (also likely).

[Alixz]

Since Nicholas's symptoms vanished after he gave up his authority, I believe that he was suffering from stress and panic in the final days at Stavka.

I know that common over the counter drugs contained strong sedatives, they still did when I was young.  So I wasn't even thinking about Badmaev because Nicholas didn't need a charlatan to get any kind of remedy that he wanted.

Even though (and this is a contradiction) Nicholas believed that everyone who was slightly left of center was an "enemy", after the abdication he put his whole family into the hands of the Provisional Government and his faith in his "god".  He simply made the decision to make no more decisions.  But I believe he expected to be sent to Livadia and that he would just "drop out" of sight.

I think that is why he didn't make any provisions for the safely of himself or his family.  Or perhaps he thought that he deserved whatever came his way even if it was a punishment.

It probably never crossed his mind that his daughters would be in danger.

[Rodney_G.]

Elisabeth going back to your response to my last post. I referred to Nicholas' "trusted generals." They WERE trusted generals, i.e., ones he, Nicholas, trusted. The generals were not trustWORTHY , but they were trusted by Nicholas. Although Nicholas was distrustful of his critics, he was simultaneously, as you yourself later noted in your post, a naif at least politically and I would say personally overall as well.(guess  from whom his children got their innocent, preternaturally trusting nature and naivete ?) His trust was just  misplaced, consistent with his often  poor character assessment of others, including both friends and opponents. I don't know that Nicholas had any reason to distrust Alexeiev, Ruzsky, et al.  prior to that last session with them at Pskov. In terms of their military advice and pursuit of the war and Russia's interest they had shown no treason, cowardice or deceit. In the end though , they were disloyal to him, and their pressuring him to abdicate hardly showed great courage.

As for what Nicholas knew or should have known about the physical threat to his and his family's safety from the political opposition, I don't think we're that much in disagreement. Obviously the example of Alexander II, his father , his uncle Serge, his own murdered ministers, was not lost on him. For significant periods his own personal movement was  greatly circumscribed by terrorist threat.
And yet it's not psychologically unusual or maladaptive in terms of everyday functioning to "tune out" the danger. Otherwise one would be virtually paralysed Life goes on amidst the most extreme violence and danger even in wartime. London  during the Blitz, in Berlin and other German cities during massive routine Allied bombing raids,  in Sarajevo during the  period of Bosnian Serb attacks,  in American workplaces after noon on 9/11. The danger Nicholas faced from the extreme political left was, for him,  out of sight and in some abstract future.
I'm just suggesting that Nicholas had  at some level mentally incorporated or already factored in the latent threat from  extremist political opposition. He had survived one war, a revolution, extended periods of labor violence, untold strikes, two and a half years of a second war..Experience had taught him that he should continue to survive. I guess he drew the wrong lessons.

I still maintain that even with better judgment and a stronger character , after his abdication Nicholas was in no position to extract any real guarantee of future safety. Even then he and his family might have survived if the asylum arrangement with Great Britain hadn't fallen apart.

[Elisabeth]

Elisabeth going back to your response to my last post. I referred to Nicholas' "trusted generals." They WERE trusted generals, i.e., ones he, Nicholas, trusted. The generals were not trustWORTHY , but they were trusted by Nicholas. Although Nicholas was distrustful of his critics, he was simultaneously, as you yourself later noted in your post, a naif at least politically and I would say personally overall as well.(guess  from whom his children got their innocent, preternaturally trusting nature and naivete ?) His trust was just  misplaced, consistent with his often  poor character assessment of others, including both friends and opponents. I don't know that Nicholas had any reason to distrust Alexeiev, Ruzsky, et al.  prior to that last session with them at Pskov. In terms of their military advice and pursuit of the war and Russia's interest they had shown no treason, cowardice or deceit. In the end though , they were disloyal to him, and their pressuring him to abdicate hardly showed great courage.

As for what Nicholas knew or should have known about the physical threat to his and his family's safety from the political opposition, I don't think we're that much in disagreement. Obviously the example of Alexander II, his father , his uncle Serge, his own murdered ministers, was not lost on him. For significant periods his own personal movement was  greatly circumscribed by terrorist threat.
And yet it's not psychologically unusual or maladaptive in terms of everyday functioning to "tune out" the danger. Otherwise one would be virtually paralysed Life goes on amidst the most extreme violence and danger even in wartime. London  during the Blitz, in Berlin and other German cities during massive routine Allied bombing raids,  in Sarajevo during the  period of Bosnian Serb attacks,  in American workplaces after noon on 9/11. The danger Nicholas faced from the extreme political left was, for him,  out of sight and in some abstract future.
I'm just suggesting that Nicholas had  at some level mentally incorporated or already factored in the latent threat from  extremist political opposition. He had survived one war, a revolution, extended periods of labor violence, untold strikes, two and a half years of a second war..Experience had taught him that he should continue to survive. I guess he drew the wrong lessons.

I still maintain that even with better judgment and a stronger character , after his abdication Nicholas was in no position to extract any real guarantee of future safety. Even then he and his family might have survived if the asylum arrangement with Great Britain hadn't fallen apart.

In fact I don't much disagree with you, Rodney, because you're right, you've made an excellent point: people who are in danger over a long period of time psychologically adapt to that danger and often come to discount it. As we know from 20th-century history, human beings eventually adapt to the most terrible conditions -- it's in our makeup. We rationalize, we start to ignore, in the worst cases we become depressed and apathetic. My personal opinion is that when Nicholas abdicated he was depressed and apathetic.

So we agree that NII was in a terrible emotional state when he abdicated. No doubt for that very reason he couldn't negotiate with these "treasonous" and "treacherous" generals for his family's safe passage out of Russia. I think in fact it cost him his last reserves of strength to demand that his son Aleksei be left out of the succession. He was probably to some degree afraid that the generals would not accept this condition (and indeed at least one general later expressed regret about it, since he thought, perhaps not completely unrealistically, that an invalid child, a boy tsar, with a rather charismatic presence, might have served as a rallying point for constitutional monarchists in the country -- not to mention the Russian people, who even at the time were known for their sentimental attitude toward children in general). But if Nicholas hadn't been so psychologically vulnerable, and so basically silly politically, --  if there had been a Peter the Great in his place, for example, or a Catherine -- then they would have wrested good terms for their loved ones no matter how dire the situation. But then of course Peter and Catherine probably wouldn't have found themselves in such a situation to begin with.

[Petr]

In fact I don't much disagree with you, Rodney, because you're right, you've made an excellent point: people who are in danger over a long period of time psychologically adapt to that danger and often come to discount it. As we know from 20th-century history, human beings eventually adapt to the most terrible conditions -- it's in our makeup. We rationalize, we start to ignore, in the worst cases we become depressed and apathetic. My personal opinion is that when Nicholas abdicated he was depressed and apathetic.

So we agree that NII was in a terrible emotional state when he abdicated. No doubt for that very reason he couldn't negotiate with these "treasonous" and "treacherous" generals for his family's safe passage out of Russia. I think in fact it cost him his last reserves of strength to demand that his son Aleksei be left out of the succession. He was probably to some degree afraid that the generals would not accept this condition (and indeed at least one general later expressed regret about it, since he thought, perhaps not completely unrealistically, that an invalid child, a boy tsar, with a rather charismatic presence, might have served as a rallying point for constitutional monarchists in the country -- not to mention the Russian people, who even at the time were known for their sentimental attitude toward children in general). But if Nicholas hadn't been so psychologically vulnerable, and so basically silly politically, --  if there had been a Peter the Great in his place, for example, or a Catherine -- then they would have wrested good terms for their loved ones no matter how dire the situation. But then of course Peter and Catherine probably wouldn't have found themselves in such a situation to begin with.

Again I maintain that it was the position of the Army which was the tipping point. I think had the General Staff supported NII he would have sent the Duma representatives packing. The problem was that they had lost faith in him (they never liked the fact that GD NN was canned) and his moving to Stavka meant that they were in daily contact with him, a bad idea. Had he stayed in Petrograd (or better yet moved to Moscow away from all that leftist internationalist agitation and arguably among those with nativist patriotic sentiments whose loyalty ot the Crown might have been more easily preserved -- not for nothing did Lenin move the capital) he would have had to rule at a remote distance through his deputies who could be blamed (viz., Protopopov, Sukhomlinov, etc.) for all the problems and dismissed when necessary (a la Ollie North in Iran Contra and Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib). This would have been the smart political thing to do on one level, but probably from his 19th Century perspective a dishonorable thing to do.  I think he thought it was his personal duty to lead the Army at its time of crisis. Unfortunately,  once there as CinC (apart from whatever inadequacies he made have had to act in such capacity) the Monarchy lost its "magic and mystery" (cf., The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot).  By the way, Gen. Alexeiev subsequently distinguished himself with the White Army before his death.

Petr       

[TimM]

I get the feeling that poor Nicky wished he could do what his ancestor, Alexander I, supposedly did.  Just disappear from the scene (of course, Nicky would take his family with him)/

[Elisabeth]

Again I maintain that it was the position of the Army which was the tipping point. I think had the General Staff supported NII he would have sent the Duma representatives packing. The problem was that they had lost faith in him (they never liked the fact that GD NN was canned) and his moving to Stavka meant that they were in daily contact with him, a bad idea. Had he stayed in Petrograd (or better yet moved to Moscow away from all that leftist internationalist agitation and arguably among those with nativist patriotic sentiments whose loyalty ot the Crown might have been more easily preserved -- not for nothing did Lenin move the capital) he would have had to rule at a remote distance through his deputies who could be blamed (viz., Protopopov, Sukhomlinov, etc.) for all the problems and dismissed when necessary (a la Ollie North in Iran Contra and Rumsfeld for Abu Ghraib). This would have been the smart political thing to do on one level, but probably from his 19th Century perspective a dishonorable thing to do.  I think he thought it was his personal duty to lead the Army at its time of crisis. Unfortunately,  once there as CinC (apart from whatever inadequacies he made have had to act in such capacity) the Monarchy lost its "magic and mystery" (cf., The English Constitution, Walter Bagehot).  By the way, Gen. Alexeiev subsequently distinguished himself with the White Army before his death.

Petr 

Of course it was the loss of the army's support that cost Nicholas his throne. That's always the case in modern (and probably even premodern) revolutions. Once your own army wants to depose you, your goose is cooked. You're done, plain and simple, because the army is the real source of power and social control. Without an army, you can't accomplish anything.

Probably we're just circling back to Robert K. Massie's argument that NII had the personality for a constitutional monarch, but not for an autocratic one, no matter how hard he tried to be the latter. If he'd been more intellectually inclined and prescient, he probably would have reached a compromise with Russian society, he would have agreed to limit his own powers in exchange for staying on the throne. If he'd been both more intellectually gifted and forceful a personality, which he clearly wasn't, he would have preserved the autocracy as he wished to preserve it. What's so tragic about Nicholas (well, it would be tragic if his many mistakes hadn't cost so many lives) is that he was utterly determined to live up to standards as a ruler and autocrat that as himself, the individual human being Nikolai Aleksandrovich, he couldn't possibly meet. His sense of honor was actually too strong, he was a 19th-century, old-fashioned gentleman, never intended to be a ruler, who when confronted with the brand new face of the 20th century, completely lost his nerve.

[TimM]

It seems the 19th Century was Russia, and Europe's, century.  For the most part, there was peace and stability (the Crimean and Franco-Prussian wars notwithstanding).   However, nothing lasts forever and the 20th Century had to rear its ugly head.

[Petr]

His sense of honor was actually too strong, he was a 19th-century, old-fashioned gentleman, never intended to be a ruler, who when confronted with the brand new face of the 20th century, completely lost his nerve.[/quote]

Agreed, although I'm not sure "losing one's nerve" accurately reflects his mental state unless the contrary is to ruthlessly suppress the revolutionaries. Frankly, by 1917 given what had transpired I'm not sure that a ruthless suppression of the left would have worked (it will be interesting to see what happens in Syria). The fundamental problem is that times had changed and the 19th Century world of aristocratic societies headed by monarchs was being eclipsed by mass societies with greater social fluidity. People were better informed starting with nascent middle classes and intellectuals which was making it much more difficult to convince people to be satisfied with their lot (unlike under the communists Tsarist Russia had a relatively free press with a very inefficient censorship system). Sadly, the ability to change and adapt did not characterize late 19th Century Russia and there were too many lost opportunities. There was too much prior history weighing down society making the acceptance of change very difficult.  I've always viewed the advent of the Revolution as a shifting of tectonic plates, slow but irresistable. I suppose as the US continues to mature as a society we too will face the same problem. 

Petr           

[Rodney_G.]

quote from Elisabeth, on November 12,2011

"His sense of honor was actually too strong, he was a 19th century, old-fashioned gentleman, never intended to be a ruler, who when confronted with the brand new face of the 20th century, completely lost his nerve."

Generally true, but another way to think of it is that he was playing by the rules , unrealistic and idealised ones at that,   while his enemies, his opposition weren't. He seems to have incorporated a lot of the 19th century English public school fair play, good sport, ethic of its cricket and rugby fields, Mr Chips and all that , while the left political opposition was playing hardball and playing it dirty, to continue the sports metaphor. What could he say ,for example, to counter the incredibly vicious press and pornographic caricatures  spread by his enemies against himself, his wife, even his daughters, for godssake? That '" that's not true, we're not like that?" That would have been pathetic. He more or less had to take it or try to impose even greater censorship which would have been decried by even the moderate Left and  wouldn't have worked in any case.

And in a further, related sports metaphor, he was employing a "prevent defense", that is, not actively trying to advance his cause (score more points), but rather seeking to blunt or minimize his opponents' attacks, and thus to survive at the end of the fray as the winner. Simply to remain standing ( survive as emperor, however bloodied) when time runs out. But in sports, as in  real life, the prevent defense almost never works. It shows  weakness and a lack of confidence in one's own strength,  disheartens one's defenders,  and emboldens one's enemies. It is in short and unfortunately, the strategy most appealing to one of Nicholas'  docile character and temperament. He thought it was enough to point out that he was in the right and was  well intentioned while in the hardball arena of revolutionary ruthlesssness, his enemies were prepared to just run right over him. Might doesn't make right but it defeats its unmighty, more ethical , more fastidious opponent every time.