Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Robert_Hall]

Ann, I thought as much. Not sure how I feel about the revisionism of history though.  Some of those executions were unjust and I think the families deserve redress. However, that was so long ago, what difference does it make now ?
 I have always respected men and women in uniform, whether or not I agree with the cause. It is difficult to judge by today's standards.  We now  have an understanding of "conscience objector", for instance. That was not very well understood back then. And who can define cowardice in an individual?  Some, as I understand, were severely shell shocked. Others, especially the Russians, were starving and  being told to obey insane , useless orders, same on the Western Front I suppose, when generals got fat and sent more into the meat grinder. Where does "honour" come into this ?

[Alixz]

History is being revised everyday as different groups make their dissatisfaction known.

A friend of mine and I were just discussing this today when it comes to various "politically sensitive" phrases or siguls. (I do mean siguls not signals) such as the swastika.

Even in computers, cords which were once called master and slave cords are now called ribbon cords with no clarification of where the cord serves the computer or how it does. I wonder when "mother and daughter" boards will have their names changed?

But the revision of history when it comes to battles is quite common. That is what Oscar Wilde was talking about when he said,

"To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of any man of parts and culture."- Oscar Wilde

[Robert_Hall]

Great quote, Alixz, I have always admired Wilde and his wisdom.  Fey as it may have seemed at times. I vist his monument in London everytime I am am there.

[Alixz]

In all of books on quotes that I have read and no matter how inspired other writers were, Wilde always tops them, in my opinion.

I love this one:

“Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."

And then:

"Always forgive your enemies - nothing annoys them so much."

I think that Nicholas II did just that.

[Petr]

Yeah, the Russian military betrayed the man they had sworn an oath to be loyal to, and then they helped deliver the country into Lenin's waiting arms  

Tim, I'm not sure that such a sweeping statement is completely accurate. That army morale was suffering by February 1917 and that there was a collapse in discipline in the rear areas (particularly in Petrograd) is undeniable, largely among conscripts. However, until the Bolshevik/Leftist propaganda totally subverted frontline troops, a measure of discipline was still being maintained at the front. For the most part the officer corps were still true to their oaths (although there were some commanders and General Staff members who began to side with the oppositionists as time went on). By the time of the installation of the Provisional Government, however, discipline collapsed with the decree of the government establishing "Soldier and Sailor Soviets" which totally undermined and destroyed the chain of command. It was at this point that one can truly say that the army "delivered the country into Lenin's waiting arms."

Petr       

[Alixz]

Allowing the men to vote on what they wanted to do and to execute their officers if they didn't like the commands given was a genius call on the part of those who instituted it.  The army was so demoralized at that point that the decree insured that nothing would ever get done.

[Robert_Hall]

There were obvious reasons why the military was demoralised. It had happened before  in the navy. Russia was not alone in this, BTW.

[TimM]

Tim, I'm not sure that such a sweeping statement is completely accurate. That army morale was suffering by February 1917 and that there was a collapse in discipline in the rear areas (particularly in Petrograd) is undeniable, largely among conscripts. However, until the Bolshevik/Leftist propaganda totally subverted frontline troops, a measure of discipline was still being maintained at the front. For the most part the officer corps were still true to their oaths (although there were some commanders and General Staff members who began to side with the oppositionists as time went on). By the time of the installation of the Provisional Government, however, discipline collapsed with the decree of the government establishing "Soldier and Sailor Soviets" which totally undermined and destroyed the chain of command. It was at this point that one can truly say that the army "delivered the country into Lenin's waiting arms."

Yeah, maybe my statement was too sweeping.  However, Lenin could not have taken, or kept, power without military support.  So the Russian military is partially to blame for the horror story of the 20th Century, the Soviet Union.

[IvanVII]

Remember however that the army in 1917 was not the same army from 1914. The professional army that was had been for the most part wiped out and what was left was mostly poorly trained conscripts.

[Kurt Steiner]

About the "mutinious" Imperial Russian Army. The mutinies of 1917 weren't limited to Russia. The French and the Italian armies suffered from large-scale mutinies in 1917. More than fifty French divisions on the Western front took part in unathorised demonstrations of varing intensity after the failed Nivelle Offensive. Most of them simply refused to return go back to the frontline; part of the Second Italian Army surrendered without a fight at Caporetto later that year.

In both cases Allied authorities blamed pacifist and Bolshevik propaganda for promoting rebellion, but, in fact, the mutinieers were more concerned with personal safety and comfort. The soldiers weren't too keen to attack when victory seemed impossible and slaughter was more than possible. Even the British had their own mutiny at Etaples in September 1917! Of course, the circumstances were quite different to the Russian ones. Or not? The British muttiniers complained about the poor conditions at a local camp.

The disintegration of the Russian army, in some sense, reminds me of the fate of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces. In both cases, but specially in the Imperial Russian army, it was fuelled by terrible physical conditions, militar failure and a chronic shortage of supplies (specially acute in the Russian case, to which I would had a shortage of good NCOs and officers). The only difference, the one which mattered in the end for both Empires -at least for a while- is that while Vienna had an Ally to back up (well, or to dictate her what to do) her -Germany-, Russia was isolated from her allies, which could not help her in the right way.

The Imperial Army betraying the Tzar? The soldiers were tired of war and of being wasted. The officers hardly could keep their units under control -or t hey simply couldn't and got shot. If the Army rejected the Tzar it was due to the fact that they had lost their faith in Nicholas II.

An interesting reading about this is John Erickson's book The Soviet High Command 1918-1941. It gives a good picture of how remnants of the Imperial army became part of the Red Army.

[AGRBear]

Bear is delighted that this thread still sparks interest.

:>)

[Alixz]

Bear - We are delighted that you are sill posting!

[AGRBear]

Thank you Alixz.

Hopefully, I can pop back into the forum from time to time. 

AGRBear

[jish55]

Honestly, it was a mix.... He wasn't a great ruler, I mean he made poor choices that weren't needed, but I think it's based more on the whole aspect that He didn't really want to be a ruler. I mean if we look at how he was with his family, he seemed to be more of a family man then a ruler. Even his wife didn't like being a Duchas. Now onto the question at hand, once the revolution started, a lot of people betrayed him, even those who had been loyal to the royal's turned on him in the end. The soldiers guarding him and his family killed him for crying out loud.