Author Topic: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?  (Read 13350 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline blessOTMA

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2527
  • Tell me the truth, monsieur
    • View Profile
    • Stay at Home Artist
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #15 on: April 13, 2013, 11:24:31 PM »
Quote
He just didn't have it in him. Alexandra kept pushing him to be more firm with his ministers and advisers. Her advice might ought to have been followed this time

She kept saying"  be firm! "  But wanted him to be utter putty for her. It doesn't work that way. A weak person is weak all the time. I believe part of the attraction between them was this yin /yang of strenth and weakness . She had it and he didn't .

By this time Alix  and Rasputin were doing the appointing . She systematically removed anyone of ability and replaced them with hopeless incompetents  who got the job simply by appearing to be slavishly deferential  to herself and Rasputin.  That seemed the most important attribute of anyone she appointed ( or rather made Nicholas appoint)

Does being firm suddenly  infuse such material with ability? They were  sycophants who knew  whatever Nicholas said didn't matter half as much as what Alix and "our friend" said and  so naturally spent thier time keeping her happy rather than doing  the actual job they were supposedly appointed to do. Keeping Alix  happy was thier job , if they wish to keep the position that is .

Of course things "went to hell in a hand basket " as the old saying goes . It's amazing how long the regime withstood it. It  shows the Russians  did indeed want to retain a  monarchy, because  they stood by even  that monarchy . It was when the regime ceased to function at all that it fell.

"Give my love to all who remember me."

  Olga Nikolaevna

Offline IvanVII

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2013, 09:09:35 PM »
The best hope for a constitutional monarchy died with Alexander II.

The "Revolution" started with what in essence was a riot. Had sufficient force been brought to bear quickly, it could have been ended. This is the case in all riots and would be riots. Think back to the L.A. Rodney King Riots how long did LAPD abandon Normandie and Florence allowing the whole situation to fester?

The problem in St. Petersburg however was there really were no good troops left to bring the situation under control and no firm leadership to make it happen. If Nicholas II had the fortitude to quash the revolution, he would not have been in that situation in the first place.

Offline edubs31

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2013, 10:59:21 PM »
Ivan, you've summed up my opinion pretty well.

We often look at revolutions through a broad lens. Romanticize them at times, and sometimes that's fine. It's important to understand the roots and the series of events that take place leading up to something. Just as it's important to acknowledge the raw human emotion that's part of it and, in this case, the gradual frustration of the Tsar's subjects over time.

That said the actual event itself that created the explosion could have been avoided. The spark had been lit many many years earlier, but the wick was a long trail of events and could possible have been extinguished at any point (perhaps to be re-lit later). I do not believed Russia could have avoided revolution forever, but in March of 1917 a more forceful Nicholas could probably have put down the riot and rebellion in St. Petersburg...Yet he chose not to.

'Bless OTMA' I loved how you said, "Does being firm suddenly infuse such material with ability". I don't think so in a general sense...but a firm Tsar Nicholas may have actually taken those around him by surprise. If I could have crawled inside of Nicholas's mind for a few days with the intent of stopping the revolution, I would have shocked my subordinates with anger and decisiveness. A good manager or coach can use anger effectively when they pick their spots. Use it too often and you sounds like a raving madman who loses the support of those around you (as in "we can do no right"). Use it too little and they'll walk all over you (as in "we can do no wrong").

Nicholas didn't need to be firm overall. He simply needed to play the role for a few days in March, 1917. What's amazing is how for all the times he essentially betrayed Russia, the war effort, and his dynasty by listening to the advice of his ill-informed and semi-hysterical wife, that one time he should have listen to her was then...and sadly did not. Nicholas needed a volcanic eruption. I think it had less to do with him being incapable of such emotion and more to do with him quitting. As was eluded to earlier, Nicholas has already abdicated in his heart and mind days before putting it down in writing.

Quote
If Nicholas II had the fortitude to quash the revolution, he would not have been in that situation in the first place.

Quite possible. But Alexander II didn't lack fortitude, and was certainly more popular than Nicholas II, and still he could not survive the resentment and hatred from a certain percentage of his subjects. Had Nicholas been decisive for even a day or two he might have swept away the largely disorganized and leaderless revolution...at least temporarily.

I often look at history like the many roads that lead into various parts of a major city. You can travel to New York, for example, by car, train, plane or sea, and there are varying routes, roads, and rails you can take. The climactic events of history also have many different people, events and circumstances that help shape them through the years. You explain the reasons for the Russian Revolution and mention dozens of factors as the cause. Yet at the end of the day there is usually one event, or a small handful of events (just like when you're travelling into the city you are only going to take one form of transportation for that particular journey) that make the difference. Many actions are capable of lighting the spark, but they are generally offset along the way be those counter-forces that douse the spark with water or cut off the wick at various points. The actual explosion is generally the work of one or a small handful of people/events that finally toss the bomb into the fire.

That might sound like oversimplification to some, but I find it more likely than many of the complex reasons given by the experts who make their living off of explaining the routes and causes of things.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2013, 12:07:27 PM »
Nicholas was screwed either way.  If he had managed to put down the revolution by force, it would just be forced underground.  Ten or twenty years down the line, he, or whomever succeeded him, would have found themselves in the same situation.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline IvanVII

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2013, 03:15:54 AM »
Nicholas was screwed either way.  If he had managed to put down the revolution by force, it would just be forced underground.  Ten or twenty years down the line, he, or whomever succeeded him, would have found themselves in the same situation.

Yes and no. The revolutionary spirit would not go away until it was abated in some fashion. Not by force, but by resolution. You can supress it by force for only so long. You can only run around putting out the little fires for so long, if you don't get to the bottom of why the fires are starting you're going to wind up sitting in one heck of a confligration. NII felt he was unable to change to much as it would violate his solemn word given at his coronation. Without that willingness to change and give up his personal power he could not stop the fuel for the fires. The shame is I think had his grand father lived long enough to change to a constitutional monarchy, NII would have done fairly well.

Offline Michael HR

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 645
  • Imperial Corps Des Pages
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2013, 06:20:28 AM »
His last great mistake
Remembering the Imperial Corps Des Pages - The Spirit of Imperial Russia


Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2013, 10:12:14 AM »
His father drummed it into his head that autocracy was the only way.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2013, 02:37:52 PM »
Another scenario that might have happened had Nicholas tried to keep the throne by force is that he might have ended up dying sooner.  Look what happened to Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu in December of  1989.

They ran Romania between them, gave important government positions to family and friends, and their three children acted like spoiled Princes and a Princess (they had one daughter, two sons).  Furthermore, when Nicolae died, his oldest son, Nico, was to take over (much like Kim Jong Il took over from his old man, Kim Il Sung in North Korea).  This was not a Communist leader, this was a despotic king and his queen, an autocrat who put the tsars to shame.  

Unfortunately, the Ceausescu's showed the WORST of Royalty the way they ran the country.  It was "Love us, or die."  Ceausescu called himself fancy names like "Genius Of The Carpathians" while Elena presented herself as a brilliant scientist (despite the fact that she flunked out of high school).  Of course, when you're co-ruler of a country, you can have as many doctorates as you want, because of ghost written papers.   She had utter contempt for the Romanian people, even once referring to them as "worms".

They lived in fancy houses, droves fancy cars, and wanted for nothing.  All this while their people starved.  They were building this big super palace in Bucharest when the Revolution of 1989 came.   When Gorbachev said that Russia would no longer interfere in Eastern Europe, most of the Communist leaders knew it was over.  Some, like East Germany's Erich Honecker, were forced out after massive demonstrations, but they all went without major bloodshed.

Sadly, that would not be the case with Romania.  Giving up power would mean Nicolae and Elena would have to give up their privileges.  Not happening.  So when the uprisings against Communism reached Romania, Ceausescu ordered his troops to fire on the crowds.  That was the straw that broke the camels back.  Romania erupted into all out revolution.  When the military switched sides, Nicholae and Elena tried to flee, but were captured.  On Christmas Day, 1989, both were executed by firing squad.

I feel that if Nicholas II had tried to use force in 1917, the same might have happened to him and Alexandra (of course, it eventually did, but he had no way of knowing that).   Nicholas stepped down when he knew there was no other solution.

Strange how they are parallels between the Russian and Romanian Revolutions (I remember watching events in Romania as they unfolded).  However, there was one difference.  While Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were executed, their three children and the rest of the family was spared (unlike Russia, where the Bolsheviks murdered any Romanov they could get their hands on).  Nicolae and Elena got a trial (even though the verdict was  pretty much decided anyway, and many later said they should have gotten a fair trial, but there just wasn't time, the country was in total chaos).  For N&A, there was no trial, not even a kangaroo one.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline edubs31

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2013, 03:23:24 PM »
Fine points Tim, and I'm curious about the following...

Do we think Nicholas failed to launch an attack to retake his fallen city of St. Petersburg because his spirit was broken and because, as you say, "he knew there was no other solution"? Or how much of his reluctance had to do with the fact that he separated from his family, and that they were surrounded by rebels?

Yes the Duma claimed to have some semblance of control over the situation, but Nicholas probably believed their control to be tenuous at best. Is it reasonable to believe that the soon to ex-Tsar was a great deal worried that any sort of counter attack aimed at putting down the revolution would also provoke a storming of the palace and the holding of his family as political prisoners (or worse)?


Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right...

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2013, 03:36:23 PM »
Quote
Do we think Nicholas failed to launch an attack to retake his fallen city of St. Petersburg because his spirit was broken and because, as you say, "he knew there was no other solution"? Or how much of his reluctance had to do with the fact that he separated from his family, and that they were surrounded by rebels?


It was probably a bit of both.  He was tired of the whole thing, it seemed, he just wanted out.  Had he and his family been sent into exile somewhere, he would have been perfectly happy.  He just wanted to go home.

Another big difference here in that Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu tried to save their own sorry butts, leaving their family behind.  When the mobs stormed the palace, they found Elena's 90+ year old mother, who was confined to a bed.  They took her to a hospital, where she died some months later.
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline JamesAPrattIII

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 858
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #25 on: April 23, 2013, 06:34:34 PM »
Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate when he did. If he didn't General Ruzki, the northern Front commander was going to oust him in a miltary coup. There were also people out there who would have killed him. Some people noticed that Nicholas seemed almost relieved when he abdicated. For good reason there were a number of coup plots against him where he, Alexandra and even Alexei might have been murdered. This is part of the reason why Nicholas looked in such poor shape in the early 1917 period and why the atmosphere at the Alexander Palace in this same time period resembled a house in morning according to to one witness. Another aide later wrote that OTMA just after Rasputins funeral looked like they thought something bad was going to happen to them and their parents.
 The generals had been convinced by the Duma politicians that getting rid of Nicholas and replacing him with "responsible goverment" would help lead Russia to victory. instead the country disintagrated into total chaos starting with order number 1. How much influence Alexandra and Rasputin really had during the 1915-1916 period is debatable if you read the Nelpa and Moe books on Rasputin less than was previously thought. This subject needs more research. Finally Nicholas and Alexandra were really flawed people but they were not the monsters the Ceausescus were.

Offline TimM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #26 on: April 23, 2013, 08:25:37 PM »
Quote
Finally Nicholas and Alexandra were really flawed people but they were not the monsters the Ceausescus were.

I'm not saying they were, I was just saying what could have happened had Nicholas tried to use force to crush the revolution.  Ceausescu attempted to do that, and he (and his wife) paid the ultimate price for that folly.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2013, 08:27:14 PM by TimM »
Cats: You just gotta love them!

Offline edubs31

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
    • View Profile
Re: Should Nicholas have refused to abdicate?
« Reply #27 on: April 23, 2013, 10:21:03 PM »
Quote
Nicholas had no choice but to abdicate when he did. If he didn't General Ruzki, the northern Front commander was going to oust him in a miltary coup. There were also people out there who would have killed him. Some people noticed that Nicholas seemed almost relieved when he abdicated. For good reason there were a number of coup plots against him where he, Alexandra and even Alexei might have been murdered.

There was still plenty of loyalty to Nicholas from those at the front. The problem of course was they were all at the front and not dispersed among the St. Petersburg and general population where they could have been more useful to him. Also, yes there were certainly plots of violence and intrigue against him but other Tsar's retained their throne through similar threats, no? Alexander II was ultimately killed by the very radicals he sought to placate, but while the man himself perished, the role of Tsar was not diminished. Nicholas was always paranoid about assassination attempts...in 1897 and 1907 as much as 1917. Since many of those previously loyal to Nicholas joined the revolution these threats seemed less like an internal coup and more like a radical overthrow.

And had General Ruzki been successful the entire revolutionary movement could have backfired. That Nicholas removed himself peacefully and under his own accord is what allowed for the transition of power to the provisional government in the first place...which of course was quickly tested and ultimately crumbled. James, refresh my memory, but was it Ruzki who offered to fly a plane into the imperial train on a suicide mission to kill the Tsar and others? This sounds roughly the equivalent to an American football team devising a game plan strategy where they'll require a last second sixty-yard touchdown pass in order to win a game. In other words...how likely were these threats to succeed and how much support did they actually have?

Quote
The generals had been convinced by the Duma politicians that getting rid of Nicholas and replacing him with "responsible goverment" would help lead Russia to victory.

Probably so. But I remain curious in a "what if" kind of sense as to whether more of them would have responded positively to Nicholas had he only, this one time, shown some legitimate anger and resolve. The feckless Duma's support may have been a mile wide by march, 1917, but it was an inch deep...proven by the subsequent events of the revolution and the toppling of the provisional government. A resolute and tough talking Nicholas pulling loyal officers/troops from the front to save his crumbling empire probably would have resonated much more strongly than anything the Duma could have preached about "responsible government".

I guess my broader point is that I think we get too caught up in the old 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' concept of historical events. Nicholas was this, this, and that, and the revolution was this, this and that, therefore this happened. I'm always skeptical of these logical fallacies. Clearly Nicholas was, at best, a mediocre Tsar but the events that led to the downfall of his empire, for however many there might have been, are to me less important than the specific actions and utter dumb luck of a few key individuals during those few weeks between February and March of 1917.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right...