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

[JCWilhelm]

Please...With all the people he must have had contact with during all those months...Did no one ever tell him..."Look you'd better get your family and yourself out of the country NOW or you'll all end up as toast"...?  Surely the answer is "yes".  Why wouldn't he have taken such advice? Was he that out of touch with reality?

[Georgiy]

I don't think he really wanted to leave Russia - it would be like running away, being a coward and traitorous. Also he might have thought there would be some kind of trial and possibly thought he would be able to defend his actions.

[Ortino]

There was supposed to be a trial apparently, something obviously that never happened. Newspapers in America ran stories about the "trial"; how Nicholas had been sentenced to death and that the family were all alive.  I'm sure even when they were told they were not going to England Nicholas could not have possibly imagined their murder, especially the children's. I would think that if he thought about the end, he could foresee his own death, not his family's. They also were told days before their murder that they were going to be rescued, something that I'm sure would have given them a renewed sense of hope in their situation.

[Marialana]

I'm not sure why it would've ever occurred to Nicholas that abdication would equal his family's murder. What happened to them was completely outside of his frame of reference. The downward spiral that followed the abdication would've been a shock to anyone who lived their lives in a very safe, civilized cocoon. The thought that his children should pay in blood for his misdeeds was so preposterous and evil, and  so opposite to everything the man had ever known. Even if someone had told him that it could happen, I doubt he really would've believed that such a hideous thing would be allowed to take place in any civilized world. I don' t think he was out of touch with reality,  just out of touch with human brutality, which are two different things. In my opinion, the first one makes him foolish, the latter makes him an exceptional man.

[Tania]

Dear Marialana,

I can't agree with you more. 80 years since the horrid brutal murder of the IF, and still as a reader it is impossible to comprehend the actions of such sheer insanity. It's outside any 'thinking human being's mind'.
They were not speaking, or interacting with civilized human beings. To think and do that with even one human life is oneous. But these thugs continued to do it to millions of lives. When in any society, should children most of all pay for their lives to end in such a horrible way? I don't think any person here on this website, or anywhere in the world would act on such devil oriented plans, except if they were insane.

Nicholas was an exceptional man, as was his wife, and his children, [imho]. As parents and children, they were beyond caring human beings.

As most human beings being held hostage, then and now, most hostages never want to give up hope. For the IF they were not just dealing with insanity, they were dealing with people who wanted revenge, and for others to feel the hopelessness they felt. They were dealing with people who wanted and did erase human life on a mass scale, so they could control, manipulate, and continue to hold people hostage indefinately.

Our family not only escaped from communism, and all it's horrible issues, but many had to live through it. It's one thing to read history, it's another thing to live through it. It's twice as hard to know you live in freedom, while loved ones are going through hell, or were forced to die in hell.

When one write's, especially on this subject matter, it's important to keep 'a human face' on it. These are not just the mechanics of politics, it has affected human lives !

How would each of us fare in and through such circumstances for one day, or for the length of time the IF and others did?

Would any of you on this site, turn in your family, your children, for your feedom, or your life ?

Would they?

Tatiana

"I'm not sure why it would've ever occurred to Nicholas that abdication would equal his family's murder. What happened to them was completely outside of his frame of reference. The downward spiral that followed the abdication would've been a shock to anyone who lived their lives in a very safe, civilized cocoon. The thought that his children should pay in blood for his misdeeds was so preposterous and evil, and  so opposite to everything the man had ever known. Even if someone had told him that it could happen, I doubt he really would've believed that such a hideous thing would be allowed to take place in any civilized world. I don' t think he was out of touch with reality,  just out of touch with human brutality, which are two different things. In my opinion, the first one makes him foolish, the latter makes him an exceptional man."

[sckkr]

One possible reason is that Nicholas by the reading the series of notes signed an officer. The Tsars reaction and response to these letters and also in N diary entries which of course Yurovsky was reading every night. In this sense N played into the hands of his captors. The Ural Soviet had planned this all along. The murder of the imperial was a well planned and rehersed act. In this sense Nicholas unknowningly condemed them all.
Your thoughts
Stu

[Alixz]

"It's a long and winding road that leads to your door"  The Beatles.

I believe there are just too many causes of the murder of the Imperial Family to blame any one in particular.

I have often wondered why Nicky didn't send Alix to a convent, but if Alexie had died with her gone, he would have hated himself forever.

I think the basic premise of the autocracy that Nicky was chosen by and annointed by God is what kept him plugging away.

Many of you make the point that he should have put the welfare of the country above his own and his family's, and perhaps he should have, but he was, after all, a man.  An imperfect human.  

The family kept the seriousness of Alexies illness a secret because they felt that it would undermine the country's confidence in the future of the dynasty.

Perhaps Nicky should have changed the laws of seccession to give the country and his family a greater sence of well being about the future, but he did not have the cooperation of Michael either.  Michael put his own personal satisfactions above his duty by marrying Natalia.

I could go on and on.  As I said "it is a long and winding road" (or as The Beatles said).

There is not just one person to look to for blame.

[Belochka]

Thus, Radzinsky puts the 'blame' for the Romanovs' awful end on Nicholas' shoulders.

Erichek

Radzinsky's interpretation of events appears to follow the much earlier writing of A. F. Kerensky, in his brief work, translated from the French,  Tragediya Dinastii Romanovih (The Tragedy of the Romanov Dynasty) Moscow, 2005, p 25 where he asserts:

..." from their own Imperial Palace apartments, the Tsar made the first step towards his own death."

[my translation]

[Belochka]

I would like to add that IMHO, in retrospect, it is so easy for both Kerensky and Radzinsky to make such statements.

However what both their statements tend to ignore is that Nikolai had NO control where he was to be lead ...  

[RussMan]

 There is an enormous wealth of info here.

I think Nick was forced to abdicate, but he was not expected to abdicate for his entire family. The Duma expected him to abdicate for himself only, and let Alexei rule in his place, likely so that the Duma could control him.

[Konstantine]

I agree with RussMan. The idea of a forced abdication might seem like a crazy conspiracy theory to anyone who has never considered it, but there is actually a great deal of evidence to support this.
1. Tzar Nicholas's last journal entry on the day of supposed abdication talked about being surrounded by untrustworthy people. Wouldnt ANYONE making such an important decision have at the very least mentioned the decision?
2. The next day the Tzar was reported as being in a carefree and almost  youthful mood. Even if the abdication was voluntary, the mood almost certainly would have been more somber and reflective. While its been said often that Nicholas never wanted the throne, there is no evidance to back this claim, other than opinions expressed by people other than Nicholas.
3. Its not a matter of opinion to say that Nicholas consulted Alexandra in the majority of his decisions. One can make the case that due to pressure being placed on him, he didnt have time, however why wouldnt he have sent a telegram to his wife the next day then? Instead he Supposedly sent not just one but 2 telegrams to his brother saying basicly "good luck".
He had know contact with Alexandra until he arrived back at the palace ONE MONTH LATER.

Theres alot of other odd things about this such as, the reason we are told he didnt contact Alexandra during this time was due to being so close to German front and communications lines were down. How did he manage to contact his brother than?

[Konstantine]

I KNOW this has been brought up in other threads, but since this is the first thread questioning his abdication as a MAIN topic, it should be kept going for anyone interested.  This subject WAS dealt with in passing on other boards, but its should be looked into more.
Im not trying make anyone angry by keeping this going, so I guess my my advice to those who are tired of the subject is to just ignore this thread.

[JCWilhelm]

I actually agree with Radzinsky in the sense that Nicholas' actions lead him and his family to that end. Had he been able to rule efficiently and effectively, there would have been no need for a revolution or a reason for such radical sentiment. Nicholas' inability to do so did lead them to the grave.

See? This is a simple but profound statement. Revolution was not inevitable. If N2 had not allowed his neurotic wife to isolate him in a cocoon out at Tsarskoe Selo, if he had not surrounded himself with idiotic advisors, if he had listened to reason and avoided war with Japan, if he had been there to address the crowds on Bloody Sunday, there might not have been a revolution. Other discussion threads beg the question..."Foolish Nicholas"? "Was Nicholas at Fault"? The answer is "yes" on both counts.

Jim Wilhelm
Albuquerque, NM USA

[rskkiya]

See? This is a simple but profound statement. Revolution was not inevitable. If N2 had not allowed his neurotic wife to isolate him in a cocoon out at Tsarskoe Selo, if he had not surrounded himself with idiotic advisors, if he had listened to reason and avoided war with Japan, if he had been there to address the crowds on Bloody Sunday, there might not have been a revolution. Other discussion threads beg the question..."Foolish Nicholas"? "Was Nicholas at Fault"? The answer is "yes" on both counts.

Jim Wilhelm
Albuquerque, NM USA

I agree.
Nicholas was AT NO POINT DOOMED...
  However by his own inaction/poor judgement/or lack of critical analysis, he trod the sad path that led to his families eventual execution. [I will argue that this was not an act of murder but of execution - but that's an altogether different topic..]

  I do not believe in fate and although he (NII) may well have considered that everything in his reign was 'G-D's will' - at some point indeed - at almost any point- he could have acted in some manner to change, abate or lessen the difficult situation that he and Russia faced.
Many people at numerous opportunities asked him - again and again- to reconsider his actions.
He did not.

rskkiya

[Belochka]

I do not believe in fate and although he (NII) may well have considered that everything in his reign was 'G-D's will' - at some point indeed - at almost any point- he could have acted in some manner to change, abate or lessen the difficult situation that he and Russia were facing.
Many people at numerous opportunities asked him - again and again- to reconsider his actions.
He did not.

rskkiya

Nikolai could not change because of the Oath he pronounced. He believed he must remain faithful to that ancient autocratic concept which he inherited as did his father before him.

He was unable to modify that spiritual bond to accord with the rapidly changing democratic world except by giving away his own power in totality.