Russian Imperial Library era find

[Louis_Charles]

The entire point of my post was that the Romanov tsars did not have the technological or bureaucratic resources of, say, Nazi Germany, so no, their pogroms could not be at anything like Holocaust levels. But to extrapolate from that a regime that was oppressive but not dangerous to Jews flies in the face of what was happening. Furthermore, in the case of Nicholas II himself, the kind of empathy that would have been needed to sympathize with his subjects --- not only Jews, mind you --- just wasn't part of his character. The Imperial Family lived apart from much contact with the people they ruled (viz. Alexandra's hopelessly romantic vision of how the peasants felt about the Tsar), and never made much of an attempt to get to know them. It started early. The diary entries after Khodynka are pretty arid, and the reaction to the disaster fairly cool --- especially if you compare N&A's to those of the Dowager Empress.

As far as Nicholas is concerned, sorry again. If you in fact believe (as he did) that you occupy your position because God wills it, if you in fact believe (as he did) that all of Russia is your personal possession, if you in fact believe (as he did) that he was entrusted with the care for the souls of his subjects, you are subject to judgment for failing to exercise authority over the elements of your government. Having said that, of course there was no way he could have. But he thought he should have, and there's the rub.

[Louis_Charles]

As far as the Slavic business is concerned, what fascinates me is that it is still a going concern. I will be teaching a course called "Genocide in the 20th Century" this winter at my college, and so I am deep in material about the Serbian events of the 1990s. It is astounding to see the continuity of issues after 70 years of Yugoslavia; once she evaporates, we're pretty much back where we were in 1900, and before.

[Janet Ashton]

It started early. The diary entries after Khodynka are pretty arid, and the reaction to the disaster fairly cool --- especially if you compare N&A's to those of the Dowager Empress.

:-D :-D {cheesy grin}.

[Janet Ashton]

As far as the Slavic business is concerned, what fascinates me is that it is still a going concern. I will be teaching a course called "Genocide in the 20th Century" this winter at my college, and so I am deep in material about the Serbian events of the 1990s. It is astounding to see the continuity of issues after 70 years of Yugoslavia; once she evaporates, we're pretty much back where we were in 1900, and before.

If anything, the intervening period intensified it, partly thanks to the agency of World war two, which allowed Austro-leaning Slavs to side with the Nazis, and partly due to the removal of Austria as a ruler, which focussed animosity inwards on each other. Faced with Austria's - and Hungary's - intransigence, even some of the Catholics were latterly almost FORCED to look to Serbia as a leader - but it didn't take long of them being inside Yugoslavia for the cracks to emerge. Assassinated Alexander - a grim, sad figure who interests me quite a bit - was always described as "the only Yugoslav" in the sense of being the only person in the country who didn't have a narrowly tribal identity.

In 1999, I saw a cartoon in a newspaper which showed two men sitting in a club reading their newspapers with "Tensions in the Balkans" as headlines. One old guy looks at the other: "Might as well end the century as we started it."

[Petr]

Assassinated Alexander - a grim, sad figure who interests me quite a bit - was always described as "the only Yugoslav" in the sense of being the only person in the country who didn't have a narrowly tribal identity.[/quote]

King Alexander, who was schooled at the Russian Imperial Pages Corpus, holds a special place in the hearts of many White Russian émigrés and their descendants because he accepted many of the refugees who fled from the Crimea at the end of the Civil War (including the bulk of my Grandfather's Army after suffering the forced horrrors of Gallipoli and Lemnos) at a time when the rest of Europe (i.e., Britain and France) closed their doors to their former allies. They settled in Sremski Karlovci (8 km from Novi Sad), which also became the first headquarters of Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), where they established churches, schools, sanitoria and managed to create a small piece of what they left behind thereby assisting them to transition into their new lives in the diaspora.  The remnants of the White Army were given work helping build many of the roads in Yugoslavia.           

[Petr]

As far as the Slavic business is concerned, what fascinates me is that it is still a going concern. I will be teaching a course called "Genocide in the 20th Century" this winter at my college, and so I am deep in material about the Serbian events of the 1990s. It is astounding to see the continuity of issues after 70 years of Yugoslavia; once she evaporates, we're pretty much back where we were in 1900, and before.

If anything, the intervening period intensified it, partly thanks to the agency of World war two, which allowed Austro-leaning Slavs to side with the Nazis, and partly due to the removal of Austria as a ruler, which focussed animosity inwards on each other. Faced with Austria's - and Hungary's - intransigence, even some of the Catholics were latterly almost FORCED to look to Serbia as a leader - but it didn't take long of them being inside Yugoslavia for the cracks to emerge. Assassinated Alexander - a grim, sad figure who interests me quite a bit - was always described as "the only Yugoslav" in the sense of being the only person in the country who didn't have a narrowly tribal identity.

In 1999, I saw a cartoon in a newspaper which showed two men sitting in a club reading their newspapers with "Tensions in the Balkans" as headlines. One old guy looks at the other: "Might as well end the century as we started it."

[Alixz]

(continued)
In fact, of course, the Christian Church has struggled throughout its existence with the meaning of Christ's teachings. The inclination is to cherry pick; there is something in the Scriptures to support every position, from infanticide to death sentences for eating a BLT. Nicholas is probably no worse a man than any other, but Tsarfan is right. He was, in his own mind, called by God to the position he held. If that is an important part of your psychology, then it seems to me that you have an obligation for particularly keen discernment of God's will.

Nicholas II did not meet that obligation. He is not exonerated from that by the fact that Lenin and Stalin were moral monsters.

I have been away from this thread for quite a few pages. However, I thought to say that the reason that Nicholas did not see that he needed an obligation for particularly keen discernment of God's will, is that he already was sure he had been chosen by God and therefore God had given him His proxy to make decisions and hand down judgements. He didn't have to ask God for advice, he had already been given the power by God to interpret God's will with out having to "chat" with God about it first.

The mere fact of his birth and then coronation was enough proof for him that what he did was already approved of by God. Why else would he be in the position he was in if he had not already been judged worthy to be God's representative on Earth?

I do not think or say that his exonerates him for the bad decisions that he made in the name of God and the Russian Orthodox Church. As someone who does not truly believe in any God (as there are too many and too many interpretations for most of what is said and printed to be true) I actually find that his use of "God" as an excuse or reason for his decisions to be inexplicable. Just as I find the Kishinev pogrom which took place on a Sunday as the crowds exited church to show that even believers do not have a keen discernment of God's will.