"Sam ikh privel v podval..." "he led them to the basement himself"

[Tsarfan]

Imagine if Peter the Great or Catherine the Great had decided they could change nothing in the situations they inherited.

Nicholas' own father, to whose memory he supposedly felt so duty bound, was quick to throw out his own father's liberalization policies and to change Russia's course.  Why did Nicholas reject that part of his father's legacy but act as if the rest of it was inviolable?

The job of monarchs is to confront change and deal with it.  Nicholas, in deciding that he had no right to change anything, trod the path of all losers throughout history -- to their own doom.  This "sacred oath" thing was just an excuse to do nothing about the changes lapping on autocracy's shores.

[Donielle]

I agree with Tsarfan and others,that indeed tides could have been turned if only The Tsar had not been so obstinate ,due to being ill-advised by a variety of people he relied on.It will always behoove me as to why he did not leave the country with his family.He must have sensed the danger.-D

[JCWilhelm]

All:

Devil's advocate again here.  What if N2 had decided to stay in St. Pete and make sweeping changes to the government, grant more power to the Duma, redistribute the wealth...he would have been assassinated, wouldn't he?  I think so.

Jim Wilhelm
Albuquerque, NM USA

[Tsarfan]

Maybe.  His grandfather was, and attempts were made on his father's life.

The dilemma the Romanovs created for themselves was that, by allowing no political participation, elements of the educated classes began to radicalize at least by the early 19th century.  By the time Alexander II began to court liberalization, the left had already concluded that tsarism had to go no matter what, and they feared the possibility that Alexander would give the monarchy an extended lease on life by granting moderate reforms.

If Nicholas was choosing his policy direction in an attempt to avoid assassination, he had evidence before him that neither liberalism nor reaction would serve the purpose.

I can hardly see how risking revolution -- which Nicholas must certainly have known was a real possibility after 1904 -- looked like a safer path.  And, of course, the actual outcome was not only his own death, but that of his family.

A lot of people on this board think WWI made the Russian revolution inevitable.  I don't agree, but the reasons behind my views are no more compelling than theirs.

What I do know is that when WWI toppled the Hohenzollerns and the Hapsburgs, their landings were considerably less violent -- and monarchical sentiment remained a signficant political force in Germany and Austria long after the fall of their eagles.  There was a viciousness to the Russian's handling of Nicholas and his family -- and a widespread consensus for sweeping away all remnants of tsarist institutions -- that derived its energy from sources far deeper than WWI.  (I know many will point out that it was the Bolsheviks that killed the Romanovs.  But one must remember that while the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinburg delayed the murders for reasons that are still not entirely clear, they had to manage crowds that periodically assembled in the square before the Ipatiev house to demand Nicholas' destruction.)

[RichC]

All:

Devil's advocate again here.  What if N2 had decided to stay in St. Pete and make sweeping changes to the government, grant more power to the Duma, redistribute the wealth...he would have been assassinated, wouldn't he?  I think so.

Jim Wilhelm
Albuquerque, NM USA

Hi Jim.  I don't think there was any more chance of Nicholas being assassinated after embarking on a policy of liberalization than sticking to a reactionary policy.  If he had allowed more, gradual,  liberalization, after the establishment of the Duma -- I believe there would have been less chance of assassination (or the cataclysm that followed).  Just my opinion.

There was a viciousness to the Russian's handling of Nicholas and his family -- and a widespread consensus for sweeping away all remnants of tsarist institutions -- that derived its energy from sources far deeper than WWI.

But this strain of viciousness is evident throughout Russia's entire history -- to this day.  Is it not?  

Perhaps the same viciousness which led to Nicholas' death also led to Katyn, the Purges, the Gulag, the Pogroms, Bloody Sunday, the Oprichnina, Khodynka Meadow (over 1000 dead, I know it was an accident, but my God, they went dancing that night -- can you imagine if something like this had happened at Edward VII's coronation? -- *everything* would have been immediately cancelled, all the foreign visitors sent home, and the entire nation would have gone into mourning).

[Tsarfan]

But this strain of viciousness is evident throughout Russia's entire history -- to this day.  Is it not?

So true.  The brutality that Russia once had in common with other societies never evolved out of Russian affairs to the extent it did further west.  Even as late at the 19th century, a tsar was willing to accept a horrendous accident and death rate among workers in order to get the Winter Palace repaired over a single winter after the 1837 fire -- despite having numerous other palaces at his disposal.  Life just seemed to remain cheaper in Russia.

[RichC]

So true.  The brutality that Russia once had in common with other societies never evolved out of Russian affairs to the extent it did further west.  Even as late at the 19th century, a tsar was willing to accept a horrendous accident and death rate among workers in order to get the Winter Palace repaired over a single winter after the 1837 fire -- despite having numerous other palaces at his disposal.  Life just seemed to remain cheaper in Russia.

I wonder how much this attitude (that a life is cheaper in Russia) had to do with the development of the idea of sub'da, which Belochka mentioned on the other thread (the "is Nicholas to blame" thread).  Does anyone care to comment?

[Caleb]

Well I do think that Nicholas in a way was somewhat responisble. But I don't think that Nicholas was entirely responisble for the murders. I think he could have a better ruler, but his conservative attitudes, I think he picked up from his father & Alexandra. I do, in a way place the blame on King George V, in that he refused to take the Romanovs in, in a way, forfeiting family for popularity. Now I'm not trying to beat George V's image into the ground ( I might have been tempted to do the same thing, that he did), but I think George could maybe have sent them to Australia, perhaps, until the war was over. I'm also not sure if this was possible, but George could have seen if a neutral country would have taken the Romanovs at least until the war was over. This is just my opinion though.

[Romanov_fan]

Yes, he was forced, by circumstances. However, I would not argue this is a forced abication. Many people, and rulers in history were forced by circumstances. Of course, it is one form of force. I think the only thing he could do was to abdicate, he did not have much more to offer his country as Tsar. Someone else needed to come in, whether it was a Romanov or not. The Romanov dynasty could have saved themselves even at this point, had there been a Romanov who was up to the task, and had strong leadership. I don't the Romanov dynasty was over. Nicholas undoubtedly made the best decision by abdicating at that point in time. He thought of others, not of himself.

[Alixz]

Kerensky was speaking in grandios statements that he knew the world would read.

How easy it must have been for him sitting then so safely away from the turmoil both in time and distance to make his pronouncement that "Nicholas trod..."

What literary garbage!  Kerensky ran like a rabbit when the Bolsheviks showed up.  He was even weaker than Nicholas.

[Caleb]

All:

Devil's advocate again here.  What if N2 had decided to stay in St. Pete and make sweeping changes to the government, grant more power to the Duma, redistribute the wealth...he would have been assassinated, wouldn't he?  I think so.

Jim Wilhelm
Albuquerque, NM USA

You brought up an interesting point that maybe Nicholas felt stuck in between a rock & a hard place, in that he could face the similar fate of his grandfather, but on the other hand he could be so hated that he could have been assasinated for doing nothing.

[Elisabeth]

I wonder how much this attitude (that a life is cheaper in Russia) had to do with the development of the idea of sub'da, which Belochka mentioned on the other thread (the "is Nicholas to blame" thread).  Does anyone care to comment?

Interesting question. I think both attitudes (that life is cheap, and that man is helpless against fate) stemmed from the institution of serfdom more than anything else. The vast, overwhelming majority of the population was virtually enslaved and mired in poverty and illiteracy for hundreds of years. The civic virtues familiar to us in the West could hardly have taken root, much less flourished, in such unpromising soil. Nor could any sense that one had control over one's destiny... As for the elite, the Russian nobility's inherently callous, brutalizing attitude toward "their" peasantry was very slow to change -  it wasn't until the 1790s that the idea that serfs were human beings just like themselves finally began to take hold (with the publication of Radishchev's famous Journey from Petersburg to Moscow and Karamzin's sentimental tale about a serf girl seduced and jilted by a nobleman, "Poor Liza"). The abolition of serfdom had to wait until 1861, and even afterwards, the peasantry still made up over 80 percent of the total population, and most of them remained illiterate.

This is why I think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect that even a tsar of the calibre of Peter the Great, in Nicholas II's shoes, could have replaced the old autocratic system with strong democratic institutions, a large middle class and a healthy civil society within the short space of time remaining until the revolution of 1917. I have trouble "blaming" Nicholas entirely for the revolution because unlike Tsarfan I see it as all but inevitable in a country with such endemic social and administrative problems as early twentieth-century imperial Russia. (Perhaps, perhaps, if reforms had proceeded apace from 1861, with no interruptions, and there had been two successive tsars of the calibre of Peter, instead of Alexander III and Nicholas II - then Russia might have stood a chance. I honestly don't know.)

But surely no one can seriously blame Nicholas for the manner of his death and that of his family! Maybe Radzinsky was merely employing a poetic turn of speech for the sake of dramatic effect when he seemed to do so. I think he's a Romantic writer very prone to this type of melodramatic exaggeration.       

[Alixz]

Just what gave Peter such "caliber"?  He was simply ruthless and gave no quarter to anyone who opposed him including his son!

I have said many times in other threads that Peter was not "Great" he was ruthless.  Catherine was not "Great" she participated in her husband's murder and had endless affairs to keep herself in power and have power over others.

Peter fought wars to enlarge Russia.  Nicholas tried that.  Catherine fought wars to enlarge Russia.  Just because they won, they were great!  Were they better advised or just plain lucky!  Didn't it take 30 some odd years for Potemkin to get the Crimea for Catherine?  How long would she have let it go on?  "Life certainly was cheaper."

And Peter and Catherine brought "enlightenment" to Russia, but a what cost?  The numerous lives lost in building St. Petersburg and the numerous lives lost in all the wars.

If Nicholas were ruthless, (he has been accused of being just that) or helpless (he has been accused of being that, too) or just plain stupid ( again...) would we of the 20th - 21st centuries have changed our opinions of him?

Nicholas was just the sum of all he knew and did not know.  The same as all of us.

[Elisabeth]

Alixz, comparing Nicholas II to Peter the Great is like comparing Louis XVI to Charlemagne. With all due respect, you need to develop some historical perspective on what makes rulers "great" and what doesn't. There are actual achievements involved in the attribution of "greatness" to any ruler. For example, whether or not you approve of Peter's methods - and nowhere did I say I approved of them! - they were nevertheless highly effective. Russia became a European power under his watch and the elite and army became if not thoroughly modernized, then roughly speaking so. Peter was a dynamic, innovative and very intelligent ruler, open to change. (Again, I am not saying I personally like Peter, or approve of his treatment of the Russian people, I am simply stating facts!) Nicholas, whatever you say about him, was none of these things and his accomplishments were negligible compared to Peter's. Not only that, but what he did accomplish (e.g. the October Manifesto) was usually under the duress of his ministers and he was not above trying to reverse such reforms later. I feel sorry for Nicholas as an individual trapped in a role that was not of his making, but as a tsar he was a disaster.

[Alixz]

I question Peter's methods of bringing "enlightenment" to his country.

Do the ends jusity the means?  Do "great" rulers have to be ruthless? Do we forgive Peter for having his son tortured to death? Do we forgive Catherine for helping to plot the murder of her husband?

Were the average people of Russia truly better off because Peter got Sweden or Catherine got Yalta?  Most likely not.  Most likely the average person cared less about "westernization" and "expansion".  Did either of them free the serfs?  Did either of them end hunger and drunkeness?

I know that Nicholas was weak and he did neither of these things either.

But I am off topic.  The subject is was Nicholas solely responsible for his fate and the fate of his family and autocracy.

I will always say no to that.  Not out of romanticism, but out of my belief that we are all the sum of parts that make up the whole and many parts were needed to send Nicholas to his fate.

I don't believe that he could have prevented it by himself either.  He needed help(not help he would have asked for, I'm sure) to get to Ekaterinberg and he would have needed even more help(help he rejected) to never get there.

I hope that you understand my posting.  IMHO none of us gets anywhere alone in this life and everything we do and every interaction with another is just one more piece of a whole puzzle that is our destiny.