Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Silja]

I think AIII and his reign need a fresh look. Its easy to criticize hm for his failure to prepare Nicholas to be Tsar but then again he didn't know he would die so young.

But this is no excuse. At the time Alexander III died his son was 26. When would Alexander have started preparing him? You have to start preparing your heir when he's a child.

[Constantinople]

Well it is easier to become his PR agent than it is to criticise him.

[Elisabeth]

I think AIII and his reign need a fresh look. Its easy to criticize hm for his failure to prepare Nicholas to be Tsar but then again he didn't know he would die so young. FDR never prepared Harry to be President even though we were at war and FDR was in much worse physical health than AIII and could have seen his impending mortality.  Much of the criticism of his reign has I believe been filtered through western academic lenses with all the leftist prejudices they have entailed and which I continue to rail against. For example, until Massie wrote his book no one ever took into account the effect of Alexei's hemophilia on the Tsarina's regard for Rasputin. A perfectly natural motherly and human instinct for which she never gets credit. All these men and women were human. Perhaps all this illustrates is that to be a good leader you must be dysfunctional as a human being.

I actually agree with most of what you say. On the other hand, during the French Revolution Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette had to cope with the very lingering and painful death of their eldest son, the first dauphin (he died of tuberculosis of the spine precisely during the most major political crisis of Louis XVI's reign). I think in general historians aspire to be objective, even "scientific," and so they do not always include the human element in their recounting of important historic events. I agree there's probably some left-wing bias, too, but I think it is less prevalent and less influential than you do. But what can I say? I'm pretty liberal myself.

Let me tell you a family anecdote. My Great Aunt Sophie and her husband Boris Trepoff were great friends with Dr. Botkin, as you the know the family physician. They both confirmed that Botkin confirmed to them the famous episode in Yalta described in Massie's book when Rasputin's telegram seemed to stop Alexei's bleeding that was killing him. Botkin couldn't explain it and neither could the assembled western experts.  Uncle Bob (that was his nickname and never lived a more gentlemanly soul) told me the following story. He was once present when Rasputin was invited to an apartment of a society woman who was holding an afternoon soiree. Uncle Bob, when told Rasputin was coming excused himself and went into another room and was playing solitaire.  Rasputin entered the apartment and stood at the door of the room and loudly announced that he understood that there was someone there who didn't want to meet him. Uncle Bob had his back to him, said nothing and kept playing cards but didn't turn around. He told me that frankly he was afraid to, that he felt as if some sort of force had entered the room. He fought in the artillery in the Civil War and certainly was no coward. Apocryphal?  Who knows but until you walk in someone's shoes you have to be careful how you criticize them.

This is a wonderful anecdote. I think it conveys a sense of the power of the truly charismatic personality. I am convinced that personality plays a much bigger role in history than most contemporary historians are willing to admit. If we could just study in tandem the masses and the individuals who stood out from the crowd -- for a reason! -- then I think the analysis and teaching of history would only benefit.

[Elisabeth]

Again you have to put things in context. A long view would agree that any restrictions on university attendance is not helpful and probably detrimental to development (both political and economic), but, then again in the last twenty years of the 19th century the universities were hotbeds of revolutionary activity. Whatever restrictions there were did not necessarily stop young revolutionaries from attending universities (viz., Lenin himself). Putting restrictions on university attendance because of revolutionary activities was not solely the province of AIII's government and in fact has been employed in modern countries in modern times (viz, France's reaction to the student riots of 1968 -- remember Danny the Red?).   I personally  lived through the Columbia riots of '68 which shut down the University so I'm intimately familiar with what AIII was facing (without necessarily the same level of violence thankfully, but then again there was the Weather  Underground which blew up a townhouse in Greenwich Village) and he was doing it with a 19th century mindset which is different from the one we have today (there was no such thing as being "politically correct"). The fact is he and his government were trying to keep the lid on the tea kettle which is hard when its at full boil,  even in modern times. As was pointed out by Sergei,  AIII was not an intellectual and I probably agree that he looked on the intelligensia with suspicion and distrust but then again that would be understandable given their dislike of the regime and, in fact, the activities of certain members in direct and sometimes violent opposition to it (they murdered his father after all).  I'm beginning to sound like an apologist for the old regime which is not my intent, its merely to remind folks that when looking at past history and the personalities who inhabited I think it it is important to try and place them in context and not judge them necessarily with 21st century standards, although criticism is fair game.  As they say hindsight is always 20/20.

Boiling it all down to the basic problem, what was Alexander III, for that matter his son Nicholas II, supposed to do with this new class of intellectual revolutionaries? (Please note, however, that radicals are almost always, always, always, the minority of students in any university in the modern world. Most kids are just there to get their degree and get out, you know? They're not interested in becoming Bolsheviks or Weathermen or SLA or whatever -- frankly what they're most interested in is getting a good job! And rightly so.)

When you have a significant percentage of the body politic which is radicalized and looking for revolution, not reform, then obviously you either have to speed up reforms or else clamp down and repress all political opposition, by force if necessary -- the latter route was followed by both AIII and NII. Everybody always complains that NII wasn't tough enough but he certainly supported the implementation of "Stolypin's neckties" -- the hangman's noose for anyone even vaguely suspected of revolutionary or seditious activities during the Revolution of 1905-1906 (this was "legal" murder on many levels, since these poor people, mainly peasants, were sentenced by military tribunals to immediate death and oh, did I forget to mention, they were not provided with defense lawyers). The idea that Nicholas II was "weak" when it came to revolutionaries is not borne out by the evidence. He earned the name "Nicholas the Bloody" for a reason.

[Petr]

Well it is a good example of how Alexander lll put his position and wealth ahead of the future prosperity of Russia and how he helped to set up Russia for communism by suffocating the development of political thinkers and showing that political variegation was not acceptable.  sometimes when you put a lid on a kettle and the pressure builds up enough, the kettle explodes.

Well it is easier to become his PR agent than it is to criticise him.

Well this is exactly an example of what I have been talking about. If you look at my post I certainly wasn't trying to be a "PR agent".  I believe, however, that both AIII and NII were acting out of the belief that their actions were for the good of "their" country. Remember they both believed that they were annointed by God to preserve and protect their people (as did most if not all the crowned heads of Europe), that they had a responsibility to do so. They both believed in honor, duty and noblesse oblige (concepts that apparently are foreign these days).  That perhaps is one of the achilles heels of all autocracies because whatever the autocrat's actions he always has the psychological  fall back that it was "Gott mit uns" but the flip side is that there is nowhere to hide and ultimately the autocrat then has to answer to God for his actions (and both men were religious). That's one of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy, you can always  blame parliament.  I don't believe that their actions were based on venal motives nor were they based solely on the desire to maintain power (and "Stolypin's neckties" pale in comparison and numbers to the bullets in the back of the many heads in the cellars of the Lyubianka)  although obviously their actions were meant to maintain the State. Its easy to criticize someone who is standing in a burning house trying to put out the fire and perhaps is using a 6" fire hose when a 2" hose would do.

Elizabeth you raise an interesting point regardinng executions post-1905 and the use of military commissions. I agree that this was unfortunate and were I to have been minister of justice at that time I probably would have insisted on due process (interestingly as I believe was given to the murderers of  AII--- if I'm not mistaken one of the conspirators was set free) but then I am an attorney. Likewise, I don't believe that the US Government's policy with respect to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners is correct either but it  illustrates the point that when any State feels itself mortally threatened it will tend to react harshly (and we are not anywhere near threatened to the same extent now that Russia was then).  Lincoln suspended Habeous Corpus and prosecuted  and hanged POWS based on summary trials by military commissions so again things must be put in context.  Not so easy.   I would, however, like to see the statistics on executions in the 1905-1914 time period for "political" offenses if anyone has them.  I don't believe, for example,  any of the leaders of the Bolsheviks (as opposed to the bomb throwers and murderers) where hanged they were exiled including Stalin, Lenin, Trotsky, etc. and perhaps mores the pity. The death penalty has had an interesting history in Russia and for a long period it was outlawed (if memory serves I believe that NI re-introduced it to deal with certain of the Decembrists).

[Constantinople]

How can you claim to revise history and give it a rosy glow and not consider yourself a PR agent?  I think a balanced approach is the best. That doesnt mean  you can't have a bias but to look at the good side only of an autocrat and say you have a balanced and unbiased perspective is incredulaous.  As for the views of Alexandra being a good mother, it did not outweigh her responsibilities to the Russian state and her desire to cling to autocracy and the damage it did to Russia in terms of evolving politically far outweigh her personal qualities.

[Petr]

Well of course I'm not looking at solely the rosy side and I'm not claiming to revise history. History proves that they did a bad job with many mistakes which had those decisions not been made things might have turned out differently. Some results may have been accidents of history (would Bloody Sunday have turned out differently if NII had been in the Winter Palace instead of being bundled out because the fear for his safety as a result of the prior attempt on his life). Review my posts and you will see that there has been no attempt to whitewash NII, for example. He was weak and indecisive and perhaps overly under the influence of his wife.  But if you remember this thread started  out with the question could history have been different and if so what would it have taken. My original thesis was that basically Russia needed time which was denied her by WWI (principally).  That events and historical currents were present that could have transitioned Russia into a constitutional monarchy, for example. My only point was that it is easy to judge people in retrospect but for that judgment to be fair one must place those individuals and the times in context.  You cannot judge 19th century people with 21st century values unless you allow for their values to be taken into account as well. Does that mean you excuse evil, of course not, and I don't happen to believe in situational ethics either. But I fear that there has been a tendency in the west to equate the Tsar (whatever Tsar) and Russia under the old regime with sweeping, negative judgmental pronouncements (much of them swallowed hook, line and sinker based on Communist propaganda). Were there faults and injustice, suffering even, of course. Was there suffering and injustice in the US and England during the 19th century, of course (read Dickens and look at the photographs of the lower east side of NYC taken by Reis at the turn of the century). Was there no hope of constructive change without the bloody revolution, I don't believe so. And what has prompted my disagreement with your basic viewpoint is your apparent belief that absent Communism no such change could have occurred.   

I would again suggest your reading the description of NII in Churchill's World Crises for perhaps what I would call a more balanced view.  Someone, I forget who, excerpted the relevant passage from the book in this Forum.   By the way, personally I don't necessarily consider absolute monarchy the best form of government because I do believe in checks and balances since I fundamentally distrust the power of the state (does that make me a tea party follower, a Jeffersonian or a Jacksonian?). That said, however, I also believe that for some countries a monarchy is almost a cultural imperative (England?), some countries would not exist without a monarchy (Belgium for one) and given its history and culture Russia may just be a country that needs some form of authoritarian government much as it pains me to say so at least until the masses become accustomed to something different.

[AGRBear]

Just a gentle reminder:

...[in part]...]But if you remember this thread started  out with the question could history have been different and if so what would it have taken.

...

It often happens when we're bouncing from one thread to another and off subject that we forget under what thread we're posting.  If we ever get back on subject,  this one is about  >>Who Betrayed Nicholas II<<

Since I've lived in the US all my life,  it would be difficult for me to give PR to monarchs and dictators.  

This  does bother me:  When the Soviet Union was under communism that their rewrites of Russian history attempted to "black wash"  Nicholas II and painted themselves, in this case,  perfect "RED".  This didn't surprise me.  It's not unusual for the victor to make itself better than the enemy.  But,  in this day and age,  isn't it about time we sorted through history to find more the truth of what really happened.

I remember when I was reading about  Nicholas II's mother's, biography  LITTLE MOTHERS OF RUSSIA  by Coryne Hall and discovered his mother actually plotted against Nicholas II and Alexandra with hopes to remove Alexandra  as far away from the capital as she and her fellow conspirators could.  So,  I thought this would be an interesting subject.  It has drawn a lot of viewers, so,  it has proven to be not just interesting but controversial.

AGRBear

[Elisabeth]

Dear Petr, I think you'd be very interested in this review of the book Distorted Mirrors: Americans and Their Relations with Russia and China in the Twentieth Century by Donald E. Davis and Eugene P. Trani (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009). Here the reviewer Gordon H. Chang writes, "Davis and Trani focus on a select group of [American] writers, commentators, and officials to uncover what they believe has been a pattern of generally negative feelings toward Russia as opposed to generally positive sentiments toward China. These have been so persistent that the authors characterize them as prejudices, akin to those expressed about race or gender in other circumstances" (781). Interesting, no?

[Constantinople]

I think that Russia suffered from two great misfortunes.  One was the invasion of the Mongols, which retarded the country's development by about 300 years.  The second was the clinging to absolute power by the last two Romanoff Tsars.  Alexander ll gave Russians a taste of liberation but this was rescinded and when Russia was weakened in 1905 and between 1914 and 1917, the hunger for regime change became too much.
    I have no problem with constiutional monarchies or even absolute mopnarchies that improve the lot of their peoples but to stop normal political revolution because you want to retain absolute power at the cost of tne majority of the subjects forces extreme reaction.  I am no fan of communism because I am from a background thazt doesnt benefit from it but there are some people who do.  That was my point.

[Petr]

Dear Petr, I think you'd be very interested in this review of the book Distorted Mirrors: Americans and Their Relations with Russia and China in the Twentieth Century by Donald E. Davis and Eugene P. Trani (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2009). Here the reviewer Gordon H. Chang writes, "Davis and Trani focus on a select group of [American] writers, commentators, and officials to uncover what they believe has been a pattern of generally negative feelings toward Russia as opposed to generally positive sentiments toward China. These have been so persistent that the authors characterize them as prejudices, akin to those expressed about race or gender in other circumstances" (781). Interesting, no?

Thanks. Will one click on Amazon. I think part of the negative feelings towards Russia, apart from the general US antipathy to monarchical nondemocratic regimes, were influenced by Britain which, of course, had its own ax to grind fearing that Russia would threaten its hold on India (the "Great Game"). Look what Britain did to the Russian Great White Fleet on its round the world voyage to fight the Japanese.   Of course US views of China is a fascinating topic, particularly the effect of US missionaries in China (I dated the granddaughter of one of them who's mission was in Harbin).  Chiang Kai Shek's father in law Charlie Soong was educated by Methodist missionaries (and his children were all US educated) and Henry Luce was very influenced by this as well. [Chiang's grandson worked at my firm and we represented H.H. Kung's Estate after his death (Chiang's brother in law).]  Of course there was a huge White Russian colony in China mostly in Shanghai, Harbin and Tsiensin. A historical tidbit. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt who was head of the Navy during the Vietnam war was married to a White Russian who he met when he was an Ensign on a US gunboat in China.  Remember the movie "The Sand Pebbles" with Steve McQueen?

Since we are recommending books you should read "An Imperial Voyage" which discusses Alice Roosevelt's and William Howard Taft's voyage to Japan and the far East in 1905 I believe. It has very critical things to say about TR (one of my heroes) and highlights his dislike of Imperial Russia (and his tilt towards Japan).  Also blames him for the war in the Pacific because he encouraged Japan in its imperial ambitions. By the way Walter Duranty, the Times correspondent in Russia was proved to have been on the NKVD payroll forcing the Times to apologize a few years ago when the KGB archives were opened. He wrote glowing reports on Russia in the thirties and denied that there was any famine in the Ukraine.  So from John Reed to Angela Davis  there has always been a slanted view of the old regime and favorable reportage on the glories of Communism but there I go again being a "PR agent".

Actually Constantinople I agree with you although "clinging to power" might be a bit harsh but there we disagree as I tried to point out in my prior post.

AGBR: as I posted earlier my Grandmother was a lady in waiting to the Dowager Empress.  The stories of the intrigues that raged within the Imperial Family were certainly true but there again care must be taken as to how far one goes. Some of of the GDs did not cover themselves with glory reminiscent of Phillipe L'Egalite during the French Revolution.   My own Grandmother's view of the Empress was colored by her belief that as a convert to Orthodoxy she felt she had to out Russian the Russians.  This led her to have this mystical belief in Nicholas as the "Little Father" and that the ordinary people had this love for the Tsar. She was painfully shy and felt an enormous burden to produce an heir and then when she did he was cursed with Victoria's gift to the crowned heads of Europe. I have great sympathy for her but as Constantinople puts it she had greater responsibilities than being just a mother.  What a terrible tragic predicament.

[Sergei Witte]

I think that Russia suffered from two great misfortunes.  One was the invasion of the Mongols, which retarded the country's development by about 300 years.  The second was the clinging to absolute power by the last two Romanoff Tsars.  Alexander ll gave Russians a taste of liberation but this was rescinded and when Russia was weakened in 1905 and between 1914 and 1917, the hunger for regime change became too much.
   

I agree with you that the Mongols were a disaster for Russia (and for all of Europe). But you can't compare the weight of this disaster with the conservative politics of the last two tsars. Tsars had always been conservative, some with a slight touch of liberalism at least in their language. But always clinging on to autocracy, even Alexander II. And I believe they had a reason to cling on to autocracy. As you say: when the state was weakened the hunger for regime change became too much. This is exactly where they were afraid of. Furthermore most political advisors to the Tsars were also opposed to change. Because in their eyes, liberating rules meant weakening their power. At least this is what they thought. And I can't blame them for this. Only with hindsight we can say that they were wrong and even this is not undisputed.

[Elisabeth]

I think that Russia suffered from two great misfortunes.  One was the invasion of the Mongols, which retarded the country's development by about 300 years.  The second was the clinging to absolute power by the last two Romanoff Tsars.  Alexander ll gave Russians a taste of liberation but this was rescinded and when Russia was weakened in 1905 and between 1914 and 1917, the hunger for regime change became too much.
    I have no problem with constiutional monarchies or even absolute mopnarchies that improve the lot of their peoples but to stop normal political revolution because you want to retain absolute power at the cost of tne majority of the subjects forces extreme reaction.  I am no fan of communism because I am from a background thazt doesnt benefit from it but there are some people who do.  That was my point.

I was taught this in college and grad school as well, that the Mongol invasion did tremendous damage to Russian development. But recently I have read works which contest this notion. Most recently, John Kelly's very informative book about the Black Death, which swept across Russia, China, India, and Europe in the 14th century, in large part, he argues (supported by a great deal of scholarship), because the new Mongol empire had opened up the overland Eurasian trade route which hitherto had been closed -- far from being cut off from trade, in this scenario, Russia was actually part of a growing Eurasian trade network which made not only goods but also diseases that much easier to import and export.

Since I've started all of us off on recommending books, this one is so interesting, it's called The Great Mortality: An Intimate History of the Black Death, the Most Devastating Plague of All Time . It's illuminating not only on the impact of disease on civilizations but also on the impact of climate change -- did you know, for example, that Europe circa 800 A.D. entered upon the Little Optimum, which saw temperatures rise by an entire degree Celsius per year, and that this continued up until circa 1300, even later, according to some historians? Agriculture flourished (they began experimenting with growing wine grapes in places like Poland and Greenland!) and populations surged in numbers, finally recovering from the Dark Ages. Around 1300 though, the climate began to change again, this time for the worse, there were endless rains, followed by crop failures and resulting famines and outbreaks of epidemics. All of which made Europe and Eurasia ripe for the onset of the "Great Mortality," the worst pandemic in history, in the 1340s.

But sorry, I digress... As usual.

[Elisabeth]

I would again suggest your reading the description of NII in Churchill's World Crises for perhaps what I would call a more balanced view.  Someone, I forget who, excerpted the relevant passage from the book in this Forum.   By the way, personally I don't necessarily consider absolute monarchy the best form of government because I do believe in checks and balances since I fundamentally distrust the power of the state (does that make me a tea party follower, a Jeffersonian or a Jacksonian?). That said, however, I also believe that for some countries a monarchy is almost a cultural imperative (England?), some countries would not exist without a monarchy (Belgium for one) and given its history and culture Russia may just be a country that needs some form of authoritarian government much as it pains me to say so at least until the masses become accustomed to something different.

I don't get the impression that you're some kind of PR agent for monarchy, Petr. If it's any comfort, I also believe Russia "needs some form of authoritarian government" -- partly because I've listened to so many Russians themselves say the same thing, starting back in the early 1990s. I just wish, as many of them do, that the current form of authoritarianism would be more sensitive to the value of individual human life, also, that the Russian government would stop their war with Chechnia, even if it meant (as it probably would) granting that former Soviet republic sovereignty.

I do think that Russia might be best served to follow the path of France -- if only Russia had a de Gaulle! (Granted, that's a big if only.) But de Gaulle as everyone here knows designed the French government to satisfy both the republican and the royalist urges in the French populace. So there is a very strong executive power but there is also a parliament. It seems to work, as much as any form of government can work in France, where everybody's continually going on strike.

[Constantinople]

The point that I was making about the two incidents (the Mongols and the last Tsars) was that they were similar in terms of the effects that they had on Russia.
     And Yes I am aware of both the climatic anormality and the positive effects of the Mongols in redeveloping trade routes like the Silk Road. Theonly problem was that they imposed autocratic political regimes in their colonies which hampered the development of strong, autonomic political systems in those countries. It was one of the reasons why Russia was still using a feudal agricultural system involving serfs in the 19th century when western countries had already been involved in the industrial revolution for 100 years.