Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Belochka]

... to approach their tsar with a petition to redress their grievances? ....

? Have you managed to read the petition?
Please do so, but from independent point of view:
http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/jan1905.htm

And all made all right because Nicholas "donated" 50,000 rubles to the families of people his soldiers killed or wounded?

50,000 rubles to people who was killed and injured, not even by his order is quite substantial donation - US government gives less to solders widows killed in Iraq and none to people of New Orleans, regardless vast majority of the US paying taxes about 25-35% to feds. 

If you think it was only "commies propaganda" that blackened Nicholas' name after Bloody Sunday, you should read the international press coverage of the event in papers from New York to Berlin at the time.  I have.  The incident created international outrage and had a lot to do with the debate in Britain a dozen years later about whether to offer the family asylum.

I am talking not from Englishman and US citizen’s point of view, who had no idea about Russian life, and I believe have no idea today. But I am talking from Nicholas perspective, remember his grandfather Alexander II, btw who made enormous amount of reforms, was killed by revolutionaries inventing back then - terrorism (yes terrorism was originated in Russia, I hope world happy now days). So, to meet with the crowd January 1905 it was equal death penalty, on one hand, on another hand to let them go to Winter Palace was equal riots next to the Imperial residence (and we know what would happen, if they would made it all the way), Gendarmes, back than, did not had rubber bullets, how you could stop demonstration of 120 000?

some crank shows up on the board whose views are grounded in sheer fabrication. 

crank probably older and wise than you, with some knowledge you would never will be able to acquire because of the narrow vision

1) I appreciate that you are not American, but you know nothing about the payments made to the families of servicemen killed in Iraq or the government monies being expended upon the citizens of Louisiana as the result of Katrina --- which, by the way, was a natural disaster, and not soldiers shooting into women and children. Your statements are patently untrue.

2) Nicholas could have staved off violence by meeting with a delegation from the demonstration. That's Monday-morning quarterbacking in Americanspeak, but it is at least an alternative to shooting unarmed men, women and children.

This is a fascinating topic - but may I suggest that Bloody Sunday and its ramifications be placed onto a new thread?

Thanks in advance,

Margarita 

[Belochka]

Margarita,

Thank you for answering my question about your personal involvement with this matter....I have always been curious as to how the people still loyal to the Tsar felt, and in what manner they would express themselves. I doubt that you are typical, with your exceptional breadth of reading, and the personal ties your family had to the situation, but it has been fascinating to listen to someone who still espouses imperial views and can express them so articulately. I can't say that I think a return to formal Tsarist autocracy would be to Russia's benefit, but surely no one expects that to happen.

Simon

Dear Simon,

Thank you for the generosity of your thoughts. 

To set the record straight, I do not believe that Russia should return to a monarchic form of government. Imperial Russia was Russia's past and she must now confidently create her own future with full agreement from her citizens.

My family was directly aggrieved by Nikolai's decision to abdicate. My paternal grandfather was imprisoned with others whose names may be familiar to many. He appeared before the Kerensky Extraordinary Commission for several arduous sessions. His proven innocence and excellent health failed to liberate him. He remained a prisoner for just over eight years and finally declared stateless unable to have the luxury of fleeing across the border with his wife and my young father. My grandmother was a Smolyanka with her own daily trials facing her loss in status surviving the intervening years in an alien environment. They survived and today it is they, their personal trials and their losses that I am attempting to comprehend - they are my losses as well.

Margarita 

[James1941]

It would appear from reading the circular telegram sent to the commanders that the general did in fact leave little wiggle room. He more or less put the situtation as being critical and that the only way to diffuse it was for the tsar to abdicate (in favor of his son and with Michael as regent). He then pretty makes it plain that the generals must speak with one voice to convince the tsar that he should do this for the good of Russia.
The last paragraph is interesting as it indicates he hopes that by doing this the new government--a regency, with active participation of the Duma--will lead to stability, and thus leave the army to fight the war against Germany without having to get involved in interanl politics.
I always have to try and remember in discussing this issue that those on the scene did not have the advantage we do as we sit and type our response of the the bird's eye view and the gift of hindsight. We can see the big picture, but they were limited. Thus it is hard to make judgements of whether they acted rightly or wrongly when they did act.
However, I still believe that the generals, the tsar, and the leaders of the Duma did act rightly in this case.
The whole tragedy then lies in the fact that those who demanded power from Nicholas and received it were unable to make it work and give Russia a chance for a true participatory government. They seemed to have simply been fated to excange one autocrat for another, both believing they knew what was best for Russia.
I can only hope that history, in this case, does not repeat itself.

[Belochka]

Hi James,

I read your posting with immense interest. With time on my side I need to digest what you have stated.

Meanwhile, to complete the picture I will translate the Commanders replies and post them here when they are ready.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Margarita  

[Tsarfan]

Have you managed to read the petition?
Please do so, but from independent point of view:
http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/jan1905.htm

Hmmm . . . is this "independent point of view" one requires in order to buy your nonsense similar to the "open mind" LordTranwell asked of us when he set about explaining that the revolution was brought about by an international Zionist conspiracy?

As Belochka suggested, the discussion you're trying to begin doesn't belong on this thread.

I would go further and add that it doesn't belong on a website that attempts to understand history instead of distort it.  I'm sure you can find a website where people will be willing to engage your views.  The web is full of them.

[Tsarfan]

It is imperative to save the army in the field from disintegration; continue the battle to the end with the external enemy; save Russia’s independence and the fate of the dynasty.  This must be placed on highest priority, even at the cost of considerable concessions.

Thanks for the translation, Margarita.  Could you clarify something, though, from the Russian?  When Alexyeev wrote, "this must be placed on the highest priority," was he referring to the last clause of the preceding sentence (the fate of the dynasty) or to the entire preceeding sentence?

In either case, however, I find this passage interesting, as it adds another layer to the debate about betrayal.  If someone abrogates an oath to the tsar but does so in an attempt to save the dynasty, does that cast the question of betrayal in a different light?  Perhaps this rests on the wording of the oath itself.  Does it include a commitment to support the dynasty as well as the tsar?  (I have searched but cannot find the text of the actual oath.)

I wonder whether the other Romanovs -- many of whom were themselves despairing of Nicholas' rule -- would have viewed abandoning the tsar to save the dynasty as a "betrayal"?

[Belochka]

I guess I'm suggesting that perhaps Sergei Fomin is not a historian first and foremost, and that furthermore he might have his own religious and monarchist biases (just as other historians might have anti-monarchist biases)? But of course if you are writing about a different Sergei Fomin then all this is by the by

Elizabeth,

One of my European contacts has assured me that Sergei Vladimirovich Fomin is not a man of the cloth.

According to the Institute of Russian Civilization this Sergei Fomin was born in November, 1951. He acts as an Orthodox publicist. His writings are extensive and his 25 year old professional portfolio include numerous books, almanacs, co-authorships of books and journal articles. From the early 1990's he was at liberty to pursue his career writing about various historic themes emphasizing the church. Later his interests progressed towards Imperial Russia, specializing in Rasputin and Nikolai II. He has acted as editor to a number of Russian journals including "Russkii Vestnik".

Fomin is considered to be one of Russia's most authoritative contemporary historians specializing in Russian history, the history of the R. O. church and the monarchy. You are right about one thing, this Fomin is biased towards the monarchy.
 
Clearly this Sergei Fomin is not the controversial Metropolitan whom you managed to find on an English language search engine.

In 2005 he was involved in the publication of an excellent book titled: "Emperor Nikolai II and the Revolution" and has just published in 2006: "On the Emperor's Watch."

I trust that this information satifies you.

Margarita

[helenazar]

To be fair, yes that is what they believed. But, for one family to treat a whole nation of nearly 200 milliion as if it were an entailed piece of property they could dispose of as inheritance any way they liked and whose resources they could spend as they pleased is more than a sense of fairness can tolerate. Someone on this forum said the Romanovs treated Russia like it was their private plantation. I think that is fairly astute.

Hey, I didn't say I agreed with this, I was just trying to explain their justification behind it... But yes, this is exactly how it was seen by them, just as the plantation owners saw it as their right, but on a larger scale. When a census was taken in Russia, Nicholas signed the occupation field  as "Hozya'in Zemli Russkoi" - The Owner of the Russian Land. Need I say more? 

[Forum Admin]

2) Nicholas could have staved off violence by meeting with a delegation from the demonstration. That's Monday-morning quarterbacking in Americanspeak, but it is at least an alternative to shooting unarmed men, women and children.

Simon,

Having spent my time as the Judge in the "Nicholas" mock trial, and reviewing the historical evidence presented by both sides, to be fair, Nicholas had NO IDEA at all about the demonstration until after the unfortunate fact.  So the statement that "Nicholas could have staved off violence by meeting with a delegation" is theoretically true, but nobody ASKED to meet him. They just showed up in Petersburg, while Nicholas was in TS and wholly unaware of the crowd even being there. We can't blame Nicholas on this one. 

[Louis_Charles]

Dear Rob,

I agree about his direct blame, of course. That's why I called it Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I think the original question was "What COULD he have done?" And I think a Russian Tsar with firmer control upon his regime and how that regime expressed itself would have known about the demonstration. That wasn't Nicholas, but ----

I spent about two hours yesterday with the chair of my college's philosophy department discussing the nature of the imperial oath. His father was a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and he himself escaped with the rest of his family as Tito took over what became territories in Yugoslavia after World War II. He has a doctorate in philosophy, of course, but also additional degrees in theology. The gist of the discussion:

There are two uses of the word "betray" in play on this thread:

(1) anyone whom Nicholas "felt" had "betrayed" him, using the definition of "betrayal" as not fulfilling his imperial will. This is useful for a discussion of his own emotional state, but not much else. If this was the goal of the thread, it would have made more sense to call it "Who did Nicholas II feel had betrayed him?" The title of the thread as is calls for a more objective attempt to answer the question, so this use of "betrayal" is of questionable value. After all, if a man is paranoid, then he feels that everyone has betrayed him. It is suggestive that the translation of his statement is "All around me are cowardice, treachery and deceit." Not to belabor the point, but in Hitler's last days, he regarded the German people as a whole to have "betrayed" him, and was perfectly content to see them destroyed, since they had proved unworthy. Nicholas was no Hitler, of course, but if you accept his world view as realistic, the only conceivable answer to the question "Who Betrayed Nicholas II?" is everyone who failed to fight to the death for him. This is why the question is usually not answered from the point of view of the one who feels "betrayed".

(2) I am going to disregard the bulk of the Russian population in 1917, and focus upon the military people involved in the abdication, who had sworn a formal oath of loyalty using explicitly religious language --- but the following argument does work with the rest of the people as well. One swears a binding oath to God (again, Hitler's military people swore an oath to Hitler, which automatically makes it invalid as an oath in a theological sense --- i.e. binding in the sense that it trumped any other considerations. If God is not in the oath, then there are no higher moral considerations, and they become expedient tools. This is what allowed Stauffenberg and the 1944 conspirators to try and remove Hitler --- even to kill him --- without moral culpability).

God is the highest Good by definition. In other words, the Tsar is a lesser Good than God --- something with which Nicholas would have agreed --- and is the instrument of His will. If it is determined that as an instrument of His will, the Tsar is not fulfilling his vocation, then those bound to God by oath are fulfilling their oaths by removing him. One follows the highest good in determining what has compulsive force.

Now, I recognize that this opens up the usual can of worms, i.e. how does one determine the highest Good (wherein lies the compulsive Will of God)? That's not my point. My point is that there can be a higher good which demands that one seem to break an oath in order fulfill its meaning.

Thanks, Thomas Aquinas!

Simon

[Elisabeth]

I guess I'm suggesting that perhaps Sergei Fomin is not a historian first and foremost, and that furthermore he might have his own religious and monarchist biases (just as other historians might have anti-monarchist biases)? But of course if you are writing about a different Sergei Fomin then all this is by the by

Elizabeth,

One of my European contacts has assured me that Sergei Vladimirovich Fomin is not a man of the cloth.

According to the Institute of Russian Civilization this Sergei Fomin was born in November, 1951. He acts as an Orthodox publicist. His writings are extensive and his 25 year old professional portfolio include numerous books, almanacs, co-authorships of books and journal articles. From the early 1990's he was at liberty to pursue his career writing about various historic themes emphasizing the church. Later his interests progressed towards Imperial Russia, specializing in Rasputin and Nikolai II. He has acted as editor to a number of Russian journals including "Russkii Vestnik".

Fomin is considered to be one of Russia's most authoritative contemporary historians specializing in Russian history, the history of the R. O. church and the monarchy. You are right about one thing, this Fomin is biased towards the monarchy.
 
Clearly this Sergei Fomin is not the controversial Metropolitan whom you managed to find on an English language search engine.

In 2005 he was involved in the publication of an excellent book titled: "Emperor Nikolai II and the Revolution" and has just published in 2006: "On the Emperor's Watch."

I trust that this information satifies you.

Margarita

Hi, Margarita. My only concern is to establish whether or not this Sergei Fomin is a reputable historian by universal academic standards. And having done an extensive Russian Google search on him, I can guarantee that he is not. He is a crank, a kook, and an amateur. Which label is more damning?

It's true,  I don't know if Fomin the pseudo-historian is the same person as the controversial Metropolitan Sergius Fomin of the Russian Orthodox Church I cited earlier - I grant you, it might be unlikely, but it's no longer an important point, in light of the discoveries I've made on Russian Google. 

You say the historian Sergei Fomin publishes regularly in "Russkii vestnik" (The Russian Herald), so I'll just quote a few choice statements he's made in that journal, not long ago but in fact this very same week, in the February 5, 2007 issue (readily available on the Russian internet).

In this article Sergei Fomin pronounces the Russian people a "deicidal [i.e., God-killing] people," who in 1917 had "given themselves up for adoption to Satan, the brew of global cataclysms, as well as his eternal helpers - the Masons, usorious bankers, free thinkers, godless atheists, liberals, communists, and socialists of every kind." Moreover, Fomin argues that Nicholas II was betrayed by everyone - "the nobility, peasants, army, the Guard, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of its hierarchs, priests and parishioners." But I believe this is the very same article as the one you referred to earlier?

I can't find even a semblance of historical objectivity in these statements; indeed, I can honestly say that this man sounds like an outright kook to me.

[AGRBear]

So the entire structure of imperial Russia -- nobility, peasants, military, church -- betrayed their tsar?  It's a shame Nicholas was not acquainted with the solution suggested by Bertolt Brecht a generation later when the East German government was confronted with a rebellion:

The Solution
    
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

It seems Russia did not need a better government.  Nicholas needed better subjects. 

This reminds me of the passage in Robert K. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra which recounts the English ambassador, George Buchanan's, last visit to Nicholas II in January 1917, when he warned the tsar of the impending revolution. Perhaps someone else has quoted this already, but it seems very à propos nonetheless and in any event deserves to be repeated:

Buchanan came straight to the point, telling the Tsar that Russia needed a government in which the nation could have confidence. "Your Majesty, if I might be permitted to say so, has but one safe course open to you - namely, to break down the barrier that separates you from your people and to regain their confidence."

Drawing himself up and giving Buchanan a hard look, Nicholas asked, "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?"

(Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra, p. 373.)

To me this exchange says it all.

I am not sure what this image means to you.  That is the problem with discussing topics when all of us do not know each other and we cannot see each other's faces so we can see your expressions  (glint in the eye or a  frown or a "ah ha"....)

What I see in these words are different than perhaps you and even Buchanan.  I see a man who believes he is the "Little Father" of Russia,  the autocrat.

Actually this quote tells me much more. The impudence of a foreign diplomat interferring with Russian internal politics come to mind.

How can you be so confident in believing that the texture of Nikolai's utterance had not implied something entirely different? 

Margarita

Nicholas  had heard that a march, which had been done without proper authority [in fact flyers had been posted stating that the march should not take place on that day].  These marchers  had taken it upon themselves to march anyway, even  though they knew it was not acceptable for that day. And, yes,  it had all the ear marks of being a peacefully demonstration,  however, Nicholas II   had reports from the police who  had proof that this march had been encourages by  revolutionaries who had hoped to make a bloody event for their movement against the Tsar and to use in their propoganda later.

Let me make an example of something that might occur today.  I think it  would be similar to a report today that Bush might recieve while sitting in the White House in Washington DC.  after an unlawful  demonstration, while he was on his ranch, which had been  directed at the White House and had become a terrible scene of death.   Only the revolutionaries in this scenario had been  terroists.  And among the  peaceful demonstrators had been a 100 terrorists with backpacks filled with plastic explosives.

So,  there Nicholas II was.   He was aware of the injured and dead.   He felt the blow of this event which was not just directed at him personally but at the Romanov  autocracy.

And,  here was a man,  Buchanan,  and Englishman, asking him:  ""Your Majesty, if I might be permitted to say so, has but one safe course open to you - namely, to break down the barrier that separates you from your people and to regain their confidence."

Like most of us,  we don't alway hear all the words being said,  however,  I'm sure he heard the parts  "people"  and  "regain their confidence".

What do you think he may have thought?  I don't know.  My guess is that  Nicholas II  probably thought:  Why in the world would he,  Nicholas II, the Tsar,  be the one needing the people to regain confidence of him, the Tsar?  He had not been the one who had been marching  who had caused the bloody event.

So,  Nicholas II, the autocrat and "Little Father" of his disobedient children,  sat up straight and gave this Englishman, who had just challenged his authority,  a hard look before responding,  " "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?"

His responce is exactly what was expected  from an autocrat who was Tsar and Emperor,  the "Little Father"  who viewed his people as his "children".


AGRBear

[Tsarfan]

Actually this quote [from British Ambassador Buchanan] tells me much more. The impudence of a foreign diplomat interferring with Russian internal politics come to mind.

Buchanan was not just a diplomatic hack in some provincial consulate.  He was the personal envoy to Nicholas of King George and, as such, the representative of one of Russia's chief allies in a major war.  He had every right to address Nicholas on questions relating to the continuing viability of the Russian government and its ability to prosecute the war.  That was his job, and Nicholas would have expected his own ambassador in London to do the same if he had reason to think the British government was on the verge of imploding and leaving her ally stranded.

Surely Nicholas would have been aware that one of Russia's greatest monarchs, Catherine II, was given welcome counsel and assistance at various points in her journey toward the throne by another meddling "foreign" ambassador of Great Britain, Sir Charles Hanbury-Williams.  Catherine seems not to have viewed it as impudence.

If Nicholas viewed it as impudence, that is just one more indicator of Nicholas' arrogant refusal to confront any reality or viewpoint that he found inconvenient.

But more to the point, Nicholas did not tell Buchanan his remark was out of place.  He instead addressed the merits of the remark, expressing the opinion that it was the people who were failing their tsar, not the other way around.

[RichC]

In this article Sergei Fomin pronounces the Russian people a "deicidal [i.e., God-killing] people," who in 1917 had "given themselves up for adoption to Satan, the brew of global cataclysms, as well as his eternal helpers - the Masons, usorious bankers, free thinkers, godless atheists, liberals, communists, and socialists of every kind." Moreover, Fomin argues that Nicholas II was betrayed by everyone - "the nobility, peasants, army, the Guard, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of its hierarchs, priests and parishioners." But I believe this is the very same article as the one you referred to earlier?

Well, if this is a sample of what's coming out of the mouth of "one of Russia's most authoritative contemporary historians", there is really very little hope for this poor country.  This whole thread is really beginning to make me angry because nothing ever seems to change or get any better in Russia.  It's always more of the same crap.  These same quotes could have been written by Alexandra to Anna Vyrubova almost 100 years ago. 

[Tsarfan]

His responce is exactly what was expected  from an autocrat who was Tsar and Emperor,  the "Little Father"  who viewed his people as his "children".

This viewpoint -- that all responsibility flows from the people to their government and none from the government to the people -- is a complete perversion of the theory of government, even in monarchical systems.

Of course, what else would I expect?  The only possible way to justify Nicholas' performance at the critical junctions of his reign, such as in 1905/06 and 1916/17, is to embrace such perversion of purpose.

This is also why you cannot comprehend the concept of betrayal except in terms of others abandoning their duty to Nicholas -- never in terms of Nicholas abandoning his duty to them  to provide effective leadership.