Author Topic: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?  (Read 52370 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #105 on: August 05, 2012, 01:17:01 PM »
We are going round in circles again.

The perceptions surrounding Alexandra and Rasputin may have been mistaken, but they were still bad for the monarchy. That Nicholas and Alexeandra (particularly Alexandra, because Nicholas was mostly at the Stavka) shows a total lack of judgement at best.

Nowadays in Britain we frequently see politicians being removed from governmental posts because of public perceptions. Recent example is the MP who lost his place as a Parliamentary Private Secretary after going to a party where some of the guests were dressed up as Nazis. Maybe Cameron's reaction was a bit extreme (no suggestion that the MP is any sort of Nazi sympathiser, or that he knew what people would be wearing in advance, and he didn't stay very long), but the point is clear.

Sometimes perceptions are more important than the reality. Alexandra needed to send Rasputin back to Siberia, or on a lengthy pilgrimage, and avoid any appearance of meddling in government.

Ann

Rodney_G.

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #106 on: August 05, 2012, 02:56:52 PM »
What seems to be emerging here is a classic case of guilt by association. That is,Alexandra is made to appear guilty for the perceived crimes or misbehavior of Rasputin. And insofar as we're positing a sort of trial here, I would hope  the defense could make the case for acquittal on that ground.    A jury might still convict her (of what exactly?) but then again maybe not . I'd like to think that a jury could not be unanimous f or conviction with this question raised.

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #107 on: August 06, 2012, 03:49:53 AM »
Bear in mind that in most jurisdictions criminal liability is quite narrow.

Nicholas and Alexandra most certainly exercised very poor judgement, but that is not of itself an offence.

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you choose to acquit Alexandra Feodorovna of whatever offence this court is trying her for, she will still depart with a great deal of mud sticking to her.

The prosecution rests.

Ann

Vanya Ivanova

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #108 on: August 06, 2012, 06:54:58 AM »
You are in effect stating that AF is guilty because she was thought guilty and thats enough in 'realpolitik' terms, but to couch political reality and good governance in such Machiavellian terms is an opinion not a fact and cannot be seen as a basis upon which to convict someone.

I started this thread to analyse what AF actually did or did not do. Not to analyse what people think she should have done, thats a valid but nevertheless separate topic/debate.

Your example of Cameron and the British private parliamentary secretary is a perfect demonstration of coercive and amoral judgement being used by a political leader in relation to public opinion, yet you are stating this is exactly what AF should have done with Rasputin in your opinion.

It is precisely because the accusations being made against Rasputin and AF were unfounded that they chose to defend him against what amounted to little more than hysterical bigotry agitated by their known enemies both internal and external. To concede to such demands and from such sections would have set a very dangerous precedent. Bear in mind Rasputin held no official public position, he was merely a personal friend, therefore his relationship with the Imperial couple was not, strictly speaking, a public matter.

People were being deliberately led to believe things such as the Polish Capitulations and millions of troops sent to their deaths unarmed and barefoot was not down to GD Nicholas N's arrogance and ineptitude but because the 'lovers' Rasputin and AF used a secret radio transmitter on the roof of the Alexander Palace to communicate state and military secrets to the Kaiser! I fail to see why you see such perceptions as a basis upon which to advocate that N&A were guilty of poor judgement for not giving this type of accusation credence.

A contemporary example would be advocating Obama denounce his Kenyan Muslim heritage and remove his middle name Hussein, because hysterical and bigoted elements of US society see it as proof that his administration is in league with Al Qaeda.

Rasputin, rather than demonstrating any supernatural prescience, accurately gauged the biggest threat to the Tsar when he predicted that  if he (Rasputin) was murdered by members of Nicholas II's family then they would all be dead in two years; ie he understood (more so it has to be said than the likes of Lenin at this point) just how vulnerable the regime was to attack from within and that Nicholas II's 'achilles heel' was his inability to discipline his own family from agitating against him.

Public opinion of this, after Rasputin's murder, unlike the campaign against AF was based on reality and so did far more harm  than what came before as it showed the regime to be riven by internal conflict that the Tsar was unable to control, and he was therefore defenseless from attack.


Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #109 on: August 06, 2012, 07:38:52 AM »
Quote
Insert Quote
'You are in effect stating that AF is guilty because she was thought guilty and thats enough in 'realpolitik' terms, but to couch political reality and good governance in such Machiavellian terms is an opinion not a fact and cannot be seen as a basis upon which to convict someone.'

No, I've already said (more than once) that it would be difficult to convict Alexandra because of the problem of finding suitable charges. Lack of judgement is not of itself an offence.

George V was a successful monarch in part because he was prepared to make concessions to public opinion in time of war. There was hysteria in Britain about the royal family's German connections. Greatly against his own personal views, the king therefore adopted the quintessentially English surname of Windsor for himself and his descendants, dropped the use of German titles and deprived his German relations with British titles of those titles. There was no reason to believe that Louis of Battenberg (to take one example) was a German spy, but nevertheless he resigned as First Sea Lord because he recognised that his position had become untenable, and relinquished his German title for the same reason.

That was the political reality of the time. Equally, if you read 'The Kaiser I Knew', by the Kaiser's American dentist, Arthur N. Davis, you will read that the Kaiser (not exactly known for sound judgement) prohibited his son-in-law the Duke of Brunswick from being seen in Berlin after angry Brunswickers surrounded the ducal palace demanding that he spend more time at the Front!

We may call the anti-Alexandra and anti-Rasputin tide of public opinion mistaken, or even hysterical, but it did exist, and Nicholas and Alexandra needed to take steps to defuse it.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 04:25:45 PM by Alixz »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #110 on: August 06, 2012, 04:31:48 PM »
I have to insert here that the letter attributed to Rasputin - "If your relatives," etc... - has been shown to be a fake or non existent.

Also, I need to point out that "all of the Tsar's relatives" were not dead within two years. Only the immediate members of Nicholas II's family and Grand Duke Michael and the grand dukes who were imprisoned in the Fortress.  Also, of course, Ella, and those who died with her in Alapaevsk.

But a good number went to the Crimea and then escaped with the Dowager on the Marlborough. So even if the letter was not a fake or non existent (which FA has repeatedly says it is) then Rasputin was wrong. Because "all of the Tsar's relatives" were not dead within two years and some of them lived to a ripe old age and into the 1960s 1970s and 1980s. Their descendants still live today.

So much for the prophecy of the the Siberian Peasant.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 04:38:23 PM by Alixz »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #111 on: August 06, 2012, 04:46:05 PM »
Ann - It is odd that you say that "lack of judgment" in itself is not an offence, but here in the USA ignorance is not a viable excuse.

Even if what the accused is expected to know is way off the beaten track, "ignorance" is no excuse.  You can tell the court forever that you didn't know it was wrong or that you weren't told it was wrong or you had no idea, but it doesn't matter.

So here in the US, Alexandra could be convicted of messing with the government and a "lack of judgement" defence would not work. She would be expected to know, as empress or as a common citizen, the rules she should have followed and "ignorance" of these rules which caused the "lack of judgement" would be no excuse.

The means never justify the ends and the ends never justify the means.  We even take our sitting presidents to "court" in impeachment proceedings and trials. Some, like Clinton were never charged with a crime and taken into a different kind of court, but an impeachment hearing can find that the source is not " un-impeachable" as Clinton wasn't and so we can put public and legal sanctions on his actions.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2012, 04:48:27 PM by Alixz »

Offline Kalafrana

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2912
    • View Profile
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #112 on: August 07, 2012, 12:47:11 AM »
Here too, ignorance of the criminal law is no excuse. I once found myself paying a fixed penalty ticket for parking my car facing in the wrong direction, an offence I had certainly never heard of!

If Alexandra were on trial for a definite offence (we still haven't decided which one!) then ignorance of the precise nature of the offence would be no excuse. But lack of judgement is not of itself an offence.

If that letter of Rasputin's is genuine, then I certainly don't take it as something based on an accurate summarising of reality, but as a bit of prophesying which happened to come right, more or less.

And now, I am going to be away from the computer and therefore the Forum for most of the next fortnight.

Ann

Vanya Ivanova

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #113 on: August 07, 2012, 04:31:44 AM »
Imperial Russia as we all know was an autocracy, and so AF could only have contravened the laws of that state by becoming involved in politics against the Tsar's will. Her involvment was at Nicholas II's request and so she did not do anything 'illegal'.

Therefore that has not been what I have set out to analyse. The purpose of starting this thread was to see if what IMO are the main accusations made against of her having influenced political events to a negative effect; ie that she in effect 'ruled' whilst the Tsar was away at the front, can actually be validated. For me the principle 'transgressions' levied at Alexandra Feodorovna are that she was responsible for influencing her husband to remove GD Nicholas Nikolaevich as commander in chief of the army and assume command himself, and that the 'ministerial merry go round' of the WWI years was also entirely at her instigation.

I have shown that in these two key respects AF was not 'guilty' as charged and that on the few occasions she was involved with ministerial appointments the result was positive and showed a great deal of common sense and sensitivity, which casts some doubt on the other accepted image of her as being an unbalanced hysteric due to her son's health.

In respect to what she 'should' have done and what is good governance 'per se' ( ie how AF showed poor judgement) these are valid but completely separate topics. What constitutes good governance is not a fixed point, it is inherently subjective, therefore this is a matter of opinion only and should be debated as such.

In respect to public opinion at that time I have also shown, that the negative press surrounding AF was deliberately agitated by the regime's enemies and that AF was not the only victim at that time and place of unfounded, xenophobic hysteria. Nicholas II and his Prime Ministers were responsible for dealing this, not the Empress but again that is essentially an argument of what is good governance as it is in the realms of what people with hindsight think they 'should' have done.

Alixz, I got the Rasputin letter quote from Greg King's ' The Fall of the Romanovs' which is relatively recent, so if you have a moment I would really appreciate the details or directions to the source of it being a fake as that's really interesting.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2012, 04:38:04 AM by Vanya Ivanova »

Offline IvanVII

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #114 on: August 07, 2012, 04:36:20 AM »
Yes ignorance is no defense. The problem here though is not ignorance of a law but what actual law has been broken. Without a chargable crime we have nothing to hold against her criminallly. Was she guilty of poor judgement, perhaps. Malfesance in office would be a "Specific Intent" crime, you would have to prove that she acted in bad faith on purpose. To do so would mean we would have to believe that she acted against Russia's best interest on purpose (ie, taking the side of her German relatives in WWI, which during war would be treason). Remember too that she was an "Empress Consort" and you would have to weigh that in on the deliberations.

And how much of the "evidence" against her is credible and how much is rumor, misguided, or spiteful. Remember, "History is written by the conqueror", how much of that has been distorted by the bolsheviks who ultimatley "won".

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #115 on: August 07, 2012, 07:27:42 AM »
Vanya:

I was as surprised as you when I first heard that the letter of Rasputin was considered a fake.

Actually it is the FA, who has sources in Russian, who originally posted that the letter was either a fake or did not exist at all. But if it did exist, Rasputin was not literate enough to have written that kind of letter.

I never questioned FA as to his source, and so do not have the information you ask for.

I am not sure what thread it would be under as that letter is touted in every book and history ever written about both Alexandra and Rasputin.

I, too, have Greg King's book and I know that it is in there along with Massie's original N&A.

Since you have Greg's book at hand, would you look for the source he used?  I am beginning to sound like some other posters who have been here over the years and I have to say that my books are packed away and only a few are handy. (It is a matter of space and I had to give up some of my book shelves so the books ended up packed away and under a bed,)

Massie says that it was Simanovich, Rasputin's secretary and confidant who claimed that during the last weeks of December 1916 that Rasputin produced the letter. There is no other information and nothing in the source notes as to where Massie got the information. There is no mention of where the letter is now or if it even exists. Just Simanovich's claim that Rasputin produced it.

Simanovich was Rasputin's creature and I wouldn't give his information much credence as Simanovich was another Rasputin supporter as was Vyrubova. Even eye witnesses are often proved to be unreliable in court after a crime has been committed and these people didn't see a crime, they saw a "Man of Goad, and so, IMHO, I believe they glorified him more than he deserved.

Vanya Ivanova

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #116 on: August 07, 2012, 08:11:49 AM »
Thanks Alixz, Greg King lists the source as Sir Bernard Pares's 'Rasputin and the Empress' - 'Foreign Affairs, 6, no, 1 (oct 1927) so quite an early book/article!

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #117 on: August 07, 2012, 10:09:56 AM »
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=1359.0

Here is the link to the thread where this letter is discussed.  In it many people including both the FA and the owner of this site state that they feel that the letter was a fake created by Simanovich after the death of Rasputin.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #118 on: August 07, 2012, 10:31:52 AM »
It all traces back to Simanovich's original, and largely fictional, book.  That is the common source, which has now been shown to be totally made up. Rasputin never wrote any such letter or made any such "prediction".  Greg has long ago conceded that he never should have included that citation and quote, as has Bob Massie.

THERE IS NO DOUBT ANY LONGER. RASPUTIN NEVER EVER MADE THAT ALLEGED PREDICTION, and, quite correctly , he was barely literate enough to write it.


Vanya Ivanova

  • Guest
Re: Alexandra Feodorovna on Trial- What were her crimes as Empress of Russia?
« Reply #119 on: August 07, 2012, 11:47:14 AM »
Thanks for that, its fascinating, and I would never have known otherwise!