Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Louis_Charles]

Tsarfan,

Is your point that by choosing this direction, the imperial system put itself upon a collision course with revolution? Again, I come back to the nature of autocracy. It is adapatable purely in proportion to the autocrat's ability to conceptualize change. Moreover, the American system of checks and balances prevents any one President from having undue influence. The great presidents --- I would suggest that both Roosevelts and Reagan fit that bill in the 20th century lead as much through moral urging as through precise foundational change to the system. By rigidly refusing to examine the modern world's emerging understanding of labor, civil rights, etc., Nicholas may have made it impossible to do other than remove him.

Simon

[AGRBear]

Reality Check:

It was in the late 1940s,  I think  I had been following a jack rabbit trail which took me into the neighbor's vineyard next to my grandfather's  place....   First,  it was th oder that caused me to stop and take in where I was.  It was a camp of  "wet backs"  [a term  some of the farmers used for Mexicans who had come into the USA illegally and worked for the farmers].     I couldn't believe what I saw.   There was  shacks....   Actually using the term shacks  is being generous.  Sitting quietly were small children [babies being held by toddlers]  who's huge brown eyes were watching me.  I looked for their parents.  There were NO adults.   There was evidence that adults had been there and had just left.  The fires were still smoking but would soon be out.  Next to the fires were empty  unwashed pots ,  tin plates and cups...  The smell of human  feces and urine was so overwhelming that it  turned my stomach [there were no port-a-poties]  and I had to find fresh air....    I backed away....  My spine crawled with  sudden anxiety because  I realized,  this wasn't a place I was suppose to see.

What I had seen was a labor camp which commonly dotted the farming communities  in the USA.

The adults and the children,  who were old enough,  were working the vineyards and fields.

Cesar Chavez  started to have small meetings  in the late 1950s  in our neighbors home.  First there were several cars,  then a few more and then a few more...    The National Farm Workers Ass. wasn't  founded until 1962.

AGRBear

[Bev]

Reagan?  Geezus, Simon...

[Louis_Charles]

Reagan?  Geezus, Simon...

Yep. He was a "great" President in the same sense that FDR was a "Great" President --- both had a profound impact upon their times. Not in the sense that I approved of what he did, but as an appreciation of the fact that his moral rhetoric was persuasive. If FDR is remembered by the aphorism "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" (um, no, Mr. President, there are economic travails, and the Nazis, and the Japanese and . . . well, he wasn't speaking to the particulars, was he?), then Reagan gets to be remembered as great for moments like "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" His avowed goal was to dismantle the legacy of another "great" President, FDR, and his perceived leadership galvanized a conservative revolution that has yet to really run its course. One may not be happy about his administration, but it was a "great" (i.e. historically significant) one.

Simon

Completely off-topic, but it certainly says something about the current American administration that the recent passing of Gerald Ford caused tributes that made it seem as though he had presided over the Age of Pericles. That is not the way I remembered it at the time.

[Tsarfan]

Is your point that by choosing this direction, the imperial system put itself upon a collision course with revolution?

I never really thought about it in this light.  But, yes . . . by actually reversing an earlier policy of liberalization at the same time that the urban workforce was exploding and getting packed more densely into the cities, Nicholas was standing with his can of gas much closer to the fire than government leaders further westward.

As Rob has pointed out, neither the U.S. nor Britain were exactly workers' paradises at the outset of the 20th century.  But, where they were not pushing for more progressive labor policies, they were basically trying to hold the fort on established ground.  Russia was, by contrast, deliberately steering a course backward and trying to make Russia a more attractive harbor for manufacturing capital seeking high returns than western countries, where working conditions were none too great.

I think there was another difference, too.  Elisabeth pointed out earlier in comparing Gapon to Martin Luther King that Gapon was operating without the safety net of a Constitution and its Bill of Rights when he tried to square off with the imperial government.  Aggrieved western workers, while some might have preferred revolultion, at least had the option of political activism aimed at putting different views into high office through the election process.  Russian workers had, as Elisabeth suggested, only the mercy of their tsar upon which to rely.

Again, I come back to the nature of autocracy. It is adapatable purely in proportion to the autocrat's ability to conceptualize change.

Amen.

Peter I, wanting to turn Russia into a maritime power, found himself lacking a navy.  So he donned carpenter's garb, assumed an incognito, moved into a hut in Holland, and learned how to build a ship.  He then went back to Russia, built a Navy, and put Europe on notice that there was a new kid on the block with the reddest wagon of them all.

A poster earlier said that there was an "administrative procedure" in place for filing petitions with the tsar.  So Nicholas, when presented with the prospect of tens of thousands of his subjects seeking to present him with a petition to address their grievances as a class, would have nothing to do with them.  They apparently had filled out the wrong form.

That's not being a tsar.  That's being a bureaucrat.  Peter might have mowed the whole lot of them to the ground.  But he would  have been there and been calling the shots . . . so to speak.

[Louis_Charles]

I think there was another difference, too.  Elisabeth pointed out earlier in comparing Gapon to Martin Luther King that Gapon was operating without the safety net of a Constitution and its Bill of Rights when he tried to square off with the imperial government.  Aggrieved western workers, while some might have preferred revolultion, at least had the option of political activism aimed at putting different views into high office through the election process.  Russian workers had, as Elisabeth suggested, only the mercy of their tsar upon which to rely.

I was struck by her point as well. At one point, King and his followers were surrounded in a church by an angry Southern mob, and Bobby Kennedy as Attorney General had to commit himself to using federal troops to protect them if the governor of the state was unable to do it with the hometown cops. King was also able to use the media pressure that television brought to bear on the anti-civil rights folks. Nothing did more consistent damage to their cause than the broadcast images of firehoses, billy clubs and dogs being set upon peaceful protestors.

Gapon had none of these alternatives. I am ploughing through the Kenworthy article with great interest.

[Bev]

You know, the social gospel movement was part and parcel of reform in the U.S.  I don't know this for a fact, but wasn't that movement started in the U.S. in the 1880s? 

[Tsarfan]

It was, but it spread quickly eastward into Europe and, as the Kenworthy article demonstrates, even into Russia.  This is another of the indicators that there was much more discussion of and hunger for reform in that period than we today hear about through history studies that focus more on political history than social history.

I think part of the problem is that the monumental political cataclysms and collapses of old dynasties unleashed by World War I cause us all to focus much more on the history of diplomacy and dynastic politics in the 70-year run up to World War I than on the social issues of that period.  And the problem is compounded in Russia, where the underlying data -- for reasons relating to language, spotty records, censorship, and soviet-era dogma -- has been more difficult for historians to access.

If one looks at the study of French history, for instance, one finds proportionately far more scholarship focused on the social and economic issues of the late ancien regime  than one does of the late imperial period in Russia.  On the other hand, even though the foreign entangelments of French royal governments, especially under Louis XIV, were very complex, how many of us have read much French diplomatic history compared to Russian diplomatic history?

[James1941]

All this finger pointing and saying that well it was like that in every country remind me of a teenager who answers his parents' question on why he was drinking at the party with: "Well, everyone else was doing it."
Only three monarchies collapsed after World War I--the Romanov, the Hohenzollern and the Hapsburg. In Serbia, Romania, even Bulgaria, Belgium, the UK, Italy, and Turkey (until 1922) the monarchies survived. In Germany and Austria the reason the monarchy fell is because the Allies were making loud noises about not negoiating with the 'war criminal' who had started the war. Only in Russia was there a revolution by the people to sweep away their monarchy because it failed them.
In France, in 1917, there was a similiar siituation. There was war weariness, labor unrest, food shortages, the war was going badly, and the soldiers were deserting. Then, the army muntined. Did the government fall? No, only the ministry. There was no revolution, no anarchy, no Commune. The ministry fell and was replaced by another headed by a popular leader who promised to make war. Reforms were insituted and the commander of the army was replaced by a general respected by the soldiers. He looked at what was the cause of the mutiny and made changes. The ringleaders were arrested and after lenient courts martial a small few where executed. The soldiers remained loyal.
If Nicholas II had had the sense God gave a goose, he would have insulated himself behind layers of responsible governments. It would have been the ministers who would have been blamed, new ministers would have been appointed and another change in command of the army, and Nicholas would have escaped with his throne. Instead, by insisting that all the threads of both the government and the army lead directly into his hands he made himself the target. If he was responsible for the mess then he must be removed.

[Tsarfan]

All this finger pointing and saying that well it was like that in every country remind me of a teenager who answers his parents' question on why he was drinking at the party with: "Well, everyone else was doing it."

Not quite sure to whose posts this was directed, but I think most of us have been arguing that the situation in Russia was  different:

Russia was, by contrast, deliberately steering a course backward and trying to make Russia a more attractive harbor for manufacturing capital seeking high returns than western countries, where working conditions were none too great.

I think there was another difference, too.  Elisabeth pointed out earlier in comparing Gapon to Martin Luther King that Gapon was operating without the safety net of a Constitution and its Bill of Rights when he tried to square off with the imperial government.  Aggrieved western workers, while some might have preferred revolultion, at least had the option of political activism aimed at putting different views into high office through the election process.  Russian workers had, as Elisabeth suggested, only the mercy of their tsar upon which to rely.the shots . . . so to speak.

If Nicholas II had had the sense God gave a goose, he would have insulated himself behind layers of responsible governments. It would have been the ministers who would have been blamed, new ministers would have been appointed and another change in command of the army, and Nicholas would have escaped with his throne. Instead, by insisting that all the threads of both the government and the army lead directly into his hands he made himself the target. If he was responsible for the mess then he must be removed.

Ja, wohl.  The notion shared by Nicholas and Alexandra that they were both more competent -- she at civil administration and he at military command -- than any of the array of talent the nation had to offer is one of the most extraordinary things about their manifold delusions.  Only the truly dull are usually so convinced of their own infallibility.  But, then, I guess the conviction that God speaks through you (and your special Friend) is a pretty bracing confidence-builder.

[James1941]

Wasn't finger pointing. Just making a reference to some posts on this thread and on the Bloody Sunday thread that point out that there was labor unrest and use of force against strikers in other countries, such as the U.S. to seemingly say that Russia was not a special case. I meant to imply that just because this country or that country did this or that doesn't make ishooting down unarmed, peaceful sujects right or politically astute, even if the government had posted an order that the march was illegal.

[Kurt Steiner]

Kurt,

As the creator of the thread,  I asked everyone to discuss  not how they felt but  how Nicholas II felt.  In his diary he wrote he felt  he had been betrayed.

So, the  topic on this thread  is:  Who do you think betrayed Nicholas II?

Hi Bear,

A Short Answer: all of them -the people, the army, the nobility, the imperial family.

A longer one: If we are considering who betrayed the Tsar and thus who are to blame for his fall from power (Am I right on this point?), I think that, as Rob as pointed out, it was a complex situation.

Indeed, Guhkov seemed to make a plan of his own as, it has been said, “to forestall the social revolution by apppointing a new government of confidence." Indeed, too, Lvov and Alexeev, along with other several liberal politicians and generals, planned to compel Nicholas to hand over the authority to the Grand Duke Nikolai.  But the Grand Duke Nikolai didn’t want to become involved.

If you ask me, this looks as an attempt to save the ship when it is already sinking. The disaster was coming, even if they had not acted.

It has been also said that the Grand Dukes could have bought time to establish a Constitutional monarchy. They didn’t so they betrayed also the Tsar. I only see a way to do that, that is, the Constituional monarchy, and it is by removing Nicholas (and by addition Alexandra) from power, as they don’t were quite willing to admit this kind of changes. So, if the GDs wanted to establish such a model, they would had had, in the end, to get rid of the Tsar, too, IMHO.

And this takes us to the beginning. Which is the reason that makes Guhkov, Lvov and Aleexev to take such a bold step? I would say that the strikes, in the beginning of February, from workers in Petrograd helped by the soldiers who deserted their officers and joined the revolt instead, permitting it to become more conventionally armed. The wheel was already in motion, and Lvo and the rest only reacted to the situation. They saw that the system was beginning to crack, and tried to save the situation by the only way the thought it could work: getting rid of Nicholas.

Indeed, this solution can be considered as a plain and full betrayal but you are only a traitor when you are defeated. If not, you’re a patriot –see 1776-. So, I guess that the question for us to ask is: “who allowed this situation to get to this point?” But I suspect that this has been asked on another thread.

Nicholas wasn’t the man to sabe the Czarist Russia, but he tried, according to what he had learnt. I don’t think he betrayed himself, in the direct sense, as he did what he thought it was the good thing to do. He was wrong, but that doesn’t make him a traitor, but a human being. And we all make mistakes.

So, which is my point? First I don't think it was a betrayal -in the sense I understand it, but several groups of people trying to save the situation as they thought. In the end, it is a betrayal -I'm being paradoxically contradictory here, I know- because an oath of allegiance is an oath because you can break it. However, what do we do with an oath that doesn't help to save the situation but only makes everything worse? Then we break it and we become traitors -the workers, Lvov an the rest.

But, still, I don't think they were traitors. They were just desperate people. And, alàs, the Tsar found himself alone in the worst moment, when they need them -all of them- most.

My two cents.

[AGRBear]

Kurt,

Yes,  they were desperate people who felt it necessary to betray Nicholas II.

Thank you for naming :

1) Kurt: >>Guhkov seemed to make a plan of his own as, it has been said, “to forestall the social revolution by apppointing a new government of confidence." Indeed, too, Lvov and Alexeev, along with other several liberal politicians and generals, planned to compel Nicholas to hand over the authority to the Grand Duke Nikolai.  But the Grand Duke Nikolai didn’t want to become involved.<<

2) Kurt: >> Grand Dukes could have bought time to establish a Constitutional monarchy. They didn’t so they betrayed also the Tsar. I only see a way to do that, that is, the Constituional monarchy, and it is by removing Nicholas (and by addition Alexandra) from power, as they don’t were quite willing to admit this kind of changes. So, if the GDs wanted to establish such a model, they would had had, in the end, to get rid of the Tsar, too, IMHO.<<

AGRBear:

Which grand dukes can be named as having conspired against Nicholas II?

Many of the Romanovs and Generals paid visits to GD Nikolai,  whom many hoped to take the reins.  Does anyone have any quotes from GD Nikolai why he didn't take up the position of leader of the conspiracy?

As I've said many times,  I'm looking for the people whom Nicholas II believed betrayed Nicholas II,  the Tsar.  And,  I'd like to discover what the  reasons each of these  people,  whom Nicholas II believed had betrayed their Tsar, were.  Why?  Because history doesn't usually give individual stories and because there are so many posters who have so much knowledge of the Romanovs,  I'd like to know these stories and where we can find these stories.   Many of theses stories we,  who are of the English speaking world,  haven't read because we don't read Russian or don't have access to this kind of literature.  A great deal of these stories are in books no longer in circulation, unpublished manuscripts,  diaries and letters.

Some posters would like to make a joke out of my inquiry  but I really don't find this part of Russian history a joke.   A lot of good decisions were made.  This took them to the Prov. Govt.  stage.....  And,  a lot of bad,  which resulted in the Counter-Revolution,  the sucess of the Bolsheviks....  Lenin.... Stalin.... etc. etc. etc.

Thanks for your contribution Kurt.

AGRBear

[Kurt Steiner]

Glad to help!

I forgot to add GD Kyril Vladimirovich who, during the February Revolution, upon the abdication of the tsar,  didn't hesitate to join with his regiment of the Marine of the Guard, the most loyal and elite troops of the Alexander Palace, IIRC, to swear allegiance to the provisional government, wearing a red revolutionary band on his uniform. Perhaps it could be argued that, by then, Nicholas has already abdicated, so Kyril was not betraying him directly, but... It is also true that his regiment was pested with many desertions, so it was a question of choosing sides as fast as possible, methinks. Again teh same problem for me. Is this a betrayal or just a way to try to survive?

[AGRBear]

Is their any information which tells us that GD Kyril  and been part of the conspiracy before Nicholas II signed his abdication?

Here is Count Paul Beckendorff's  view of what GD Kyril did:

>> The battalion of the Guard left Tsarskoe, according to an order from St. Petersburg (given it was said by the Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich, first cousin of the Emperor), leaving at Tsarskoe its colours and all its officers. The latter remained faithful to their duty up to the Emperor's abdication. The moral of the troops was lowering noticeably. At the end of March the commanding officers arranged a kind of armistice with the garrison of Tsarskoe. It was arranged on both sides that troops wearing a white armlet should not act one against the other, that the Alexander Palace should not be attacked, and that the garrison of the Palace should take no part in the events which were happening in the town.<<

Book:  THE LAST DAYS AT TSARSKOE SELO  found here on this forum: http://www.alexanderpalace.org/2006lastdays/
Part One

>>The latter remained faithful to their duty up to the Emperor's abdication. <<

 Does this mean that GD Kyril [Cyril] did not wait until Nicholas II's abdication,  but,  his officers did?

I went back and reread Beckendorff's and it appears he may be talking about the early morning hours of  2 March.....  Am I reading this right?



AGRBear