Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[AGRBear]

Bear,

While you were channeling Nicholas, did he happen to mention the color of the wallpaper in the room or what he had for lunch that day?

At dinner tonight I was discussing the number of posters who seem personally invested in Nicholas and his family to the point that they lose the dividing line between themselves and these historical figures -- figures who would not have given any of these posters the time of day had they lived in their world.

One of the diners was a psychologist who, after listening to the discussion, piped up with two words:  "merger fantasy".  Look it up, Bear.

Thanks for the good morning laugh, Tsarfan.   

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

These are NOT my words:

>>All around there is treason, cowardice and deceit,"  Nicholas II wrote in his diary.

Nicholas II's words.  Not Bears.

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

It's not all that funny, Bear. Your posts recently have been replete with statements about what Nicholas was feeling, and they seem to emanate from what you would feel in the same circumstances. As a technique for historical research/discussion, identification with one's subject is not usually the best way to approach him/her. I don't mind the kids over on the Havin Fun threads speculating about which one of them Alexei would have taken to the sock-hop, but it's a little icky here at the adult table.

And while we're on that subject, the Fomin information is presented to demonstrate how Nicholas viewed himself? If one accepts this argument, it seems to me that the Tsar is judged as irrational at best, insane at worst, and manifestly unable to continue in his duties as ruler. So no one "betrayed" him, did they? They merely acted to preserve the monarchical principle in a time of crisis.

I wasn't questioning the provenance of the words, Bear, just your dead certainty that you know what the Tsar was thinking when he spoke to Buchanan. To say nothing of the theatrical presentation you employed in describing the scene. Professionally, I appreciated it. As a theatre person. As an historian? Not so much.

Simon

[AGRBear]

AGRBear:>>
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.<<

If Buchanan can interrupt the scene,  why can't I  guess since I have the 20/20 hindsight including Nicholas II's dairies, letters, etc. etc.?

Do you think differently?  If so,  I believe you are free to post your opinions.

>>These are NOT my words:

"All around there is treason, cowardice and deceit,"  Nicholas II wrote in his diary.

Nicholas II's words.  Not Bears.<<

What words did you not understand of Nicholas II"s: 

"treason"

"cowardice"

or

"deceit"




AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

I understand Nicholas II. I do not understand you. It's not the same thing, a fact that I keep having to point out.

[AGRBear]

Okay.

So,  let's get back to the topic,  Nicholas II.

I find the entry in of King Gerog V's diary on 28 Feb - Buckingham Palace interesting:

>>Bad news from Russia, practically a revolution has broken out in Petrograd and some of the Guard regiments have mutinied and killed their Officers.  This rising is against the Govt., not against the war.  Nicky as at Headquarters.

The King's main concern was not about Nicky but about the war against Germany.

It appears that the King was thinking as a King and not as a cousin.

This only helps to prove my point.  These men were raised to rule their countries from the time they were born.   They did not have the prviledge of thinking like most of the posters,  who are private citizens  and who have [understandingly]  a difficult time understanding this King and Emperor kind of mind set.

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

How fortunate that we have you to explain how the imperial mindset works. Has George V taken to dropping by your mental landscape as well?

I am astounded that you could deduce that the King's main concern was about the war, and not about his cousin, from the matter-of-fact sentence that you quote. What was George wearing when he told you this? Which part of the sentence is inaccurate or biased? Weren't there demonstrations? Wasn't Nicholas at Stavka when it happened?

Does it occur to you that the diary of a king is by its nature intended to be read by other people (offical biographers, historians, archivists, etc.) and therefore, also by its nature, self-censored?

"This only helps to prove my point"?  Exactly what point is that? It seems to be that you are allowed to interpret history without any reference to actual historical facts save ones that you twist to suit your purpose.

Simon

[Forum Admin]

ummm, I read "Nicky (w)as at headquarters" totally opposite to Bear.  It looks to me as if George was making the distinction that "Nicky" was not in Petrograd where bad things were happening and so was safe...sounds to me as if he was concerned for "Nicky's" safety, in my reading, a far more family oriented thought than a military leader.

just my 2 kopecks.

[Tsarfan]

This only helps to prove my point.  These men were raised to rule their countries from the time they were born.   They did not have the prviledge of thinking like most of the posters,  who are private citizens  and who have [understandingly] a difficult time understanding this King and Emperor kind of mind set.

What utter nonsense.  There must be a short circuit in your channeling device.

One of Nicholas' great failings is that he did not put the demands of being a ruler ahead of his personal life.  That's why he could not bring himself to keep Rasputin away from St. Petersburg, despite the pleas of Stolypin and others that it was critically damaging the monarchy.  That's why he could not clearly see that pursuing a dynastic policy bent on delivering the throne to Alexei, his hemophiliac son, was a stillborn strategy.  That's why he could not resist Alexandra's importunities that he take over the military command and leave her in St. Petersburg to receive his ministers' reports.  That's why ignored all counsel not to appoint Protopov and others of Rasputin's coterie.  If Nicholas had spent half the mental energy in keeping Russia on an even political keel that he spent in keeping Alexandra on an even emotional keel, Russian history might have been somewhat different in the 20th century.

Except perhaps for Peter III, I cannot think of a post-petrine tsar who so utterly ignored sound counsel and adjured sound policy for the purpose of pursuing his personal objectives.

I think some of the posters on this board have a much better grasp of what is required of a successful monarch than Nicholas ever did.

You really ought to take stock of known events, Bear, and spend few minutes thinking before coming up with psychological interpretations of Nicholas' mindset that are demonstrably at odds with those events.

[Louis_Charles]

One of Nicholas' great failings is that he did not put the demands of being a ruler ahead of his personal life.  That's why he could not bring himself to keep Rasputin away from St. Petersburg, despite the pleas of Stolypin and others that it was critically damaging the monarchy.  That's why he could not clearly see that pursuing a dynastic policy bent on delivering the throne to Alexei, his hemophiliac son, was a stillborn strategy.  That's why he could not resist Alexandra's importunities that he take over the military command and leave her in St. Petersburg to receive his ministers' reports.  That's why ignored all counsel not to appoint Protopov and others of Rasputin's coterie.  If Nicholas had spent half the mental energy in keeping Russia on an even political keel that he spent in keeping Alexandra on an even emotional keel, Russian history might have been somewhat different in the 20th century.

Exactly so, and indeed went to some lengths to promote his personal life as the way in which he wished to be viewed. There is a reason that so many pictures of the children exist to be photoshopped over on the "Having Fun" threads.

[lexi4]

Okay.

So,  let's get back to the topic,  Nicholas II.

I find the entry in of King Gerog V's diary on 28 Feb - Buckingham Palace interesting:

>>Bad news from Russia, practically a revolution has broken out in Petrograd and some of the Guard regiments have mutinied and killed their Officers.  This rising is against the Govt., not against the war.  Nicky as at Headquarters.

The King's main concern was not about Nicky but about the war against Germany.

It appears that the King was thinking as a King and not as a cousin.

This only helps to prove my point.  These men were raised to rule their countries from the time they were born.   They did not have the prviledge of thinking like most of the posters,  who are private citizens  and who have [understandingly]  a difficult time understanding this King and Emperor kind of mind set.

AGRBear

Bear, Am I missing something here?
From this entry: Bad news from Russia, practically a revolution has broken out in Petrograd and some of the Guard regiments have mutinied and killed their Officers.  This rising is against the Govt., not against the war.  Nicky as at Headquarters.
How do you get that the King's many concern was about the war and not about his cousin? I agree with the FA on this, I think it does show that George was concerned about his cousin.

[AGRBear]

Should read:

>>NIcky is at headquarters<<

GeorgeV's concern seem to be about the war and that those revolting were not talking about ending the war, and, not about Nicky, his cousin,  although,  he does mention that Nicky was at his headquarters.  However, this was not followed by  he hoped his cousin was safe or  thoughts about helping him in his time of need...

Did George V's concern for Nicky show up in some later entry in his diary?   

What I was trying to point out,  the King's first  concern was about how a revolt in Russia would affect England.

Sorry.   I failed to channel my thoughts to everyone.      And,  I  obviously didn't  communicate  it in my post.

If I've failed, again,  on another point,  it'll have to wait until tomorrow to respond.  I have a party to prepare.

Da Da Dat's All Folks  [for today. ]

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

Perhaps the next time you speak with George V you can tell him how disappointed you were by his failure to formally express his concern for Nicky.

Hope the party is fun! 

[lexi4]

Geez Bear,
It is one brief diary entry and I find it difficult to determine from the one brief entry what the King was thinking or feeling at all.

[AGRBear]

..[in part]
What utter nonsense.  There must be a short circuit in your channeling device.

One of Nicholas' great failings is that he did not put the demands of being a ruler ahead of his personal life.

Did Nicholas II actually write somewhere that he placed his personal life before his duty as Tsar?

--
As for George V,  despite what most historians believe,  I think he made  secret efforts to arrange various plots to rescue Nicholas II and his family.

I agree,  it is true,  one or two  lines in a diary of a King or Emp. does NOT tell the whole story.

AGRBear