Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Tsarfan]

Just prior to Nikolai's abdication on 2 March, 1917 General Alexeyev with General Ruzsky's encouragement, sent a dispatch to all commanders-in-chief  located on all the fronts including commanders of the Baltic and Black fleets.

The communication dealt with the dynastic issue requesting their individual responses as to whether they each agreed to the Emperor's abdication in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail acting as regent to Alexei. The communication stressed urgency and in the interests of a victorious conclusion of the war,  no other alternative was to be entertained . . . .

It was indeed an act of betrayal by the military.

Call it what you will.

The real question -- and you know it -- is why  were Nicholas' generals, almost to a man, driven to this extremity.  And your own post indicates they were being asked to support a transition of rule to Grand Duke Michael as regent for Alexei.  So don't try to say they had been infected by revolutionary fervor or some such nonsense.  They were not revolutionaries conspiring to overthrow the imperial government.  They were intent on saving it and the dynasty.  As you say, "no other alternative was to be entertained."

Why did almost every single one of Nicholas' corps of generals and admirals agree to support the demand for his abdication, Belochka?

Why?

[Belochka]

Just prior to Nikolai's abdication on 2 March, 1917 General Alexeyev with General Ruzsky's encouragement, sent a dispatch to all commanders-in-chief  located on all the fronts including commanders of the Baltic and Black fleets.

The communication dealt with the dynastic issue requesting their individual responses as to whether they each agreed to the Emperor's abdication in favor of Grand Duke Mikhail acting as regent to Alexei. The communication stressed urgency and in the interests of a victorious conclusion of the war,  no other alternative was to be entertained . . . .

It was indeed an act of betrayal by the military.

Call it what you will.

The real question -- and you know it -- is why  were Nicholas' generals, almost to a man, driven to this extremity.  And your own post indicates they were being asked to support a transition of rule to Grand Duke Michael as regent for Alexei.  So don't try to say they had been infected by revolutionary fervor or some such nonsense.  They were not revolutionaries conspiring to overthrow the imperial government.  They were intent on saving it and the dynasty.  As you say, "no other alternative was to be entertained."

Why did almost every single one of Nicholas' corps of generals and admirals agree to support the demand for his abdication, Belochka?

Why?

Since the commanders were not offered any alternatives other than acceptance then their collective reasoning could only have come down to their belief that they at least could prevent anarchy AND still carry on with their military duties.

For them it was a matter of military necessity to achieve their common goal - a victory for Russia.

Margarita

[Tsarfan]

Since the commanders were not offered any alternatives other than acceptance then their collective reasoning could only have come down to their belief that they at least could prevent anarchy AND still carry on with their military duties.

For them it was a matter of military necessity to achieve their common goal - a victory for Russia.

So you think it was worse to "betray" a tsar than to struggle to prevent Russia from falling into anarchy and opening the door to military defeat?  Your posts imply a view that an oath is absolute in its power to bind people morally and spiritually.  So just where to you draw the line -- if at all -- on how far one must go in honoring an oath?  Let's test this line by this scenario: 

A tsar to whom the military has sworn an oath of obedience becomes insane and thinks the government and people of Kiev are conspiring to unseat him.  This tsar orders his army to attack Kiev and annihilate its entire population.  Would it be "betrayal" for the military commanders to renounce their oaths to such a tsar?  (And don't say such a scenario is inconceivable.  Ivan IV and Stalin both had at least temporary descents into depths of paranoia, as have non-Russian kings and dictators from time to time.)

Just how far does the imperative to honor an oath to a tsar reach?

[Louis_Charles]

My maternal grandfather was one of the lucky ones - he survived the battlefields of WWI to fight another world war as an officer under Zhukov's command serving under a very different regime.

Given the importance that you attach to oaths, Margarita, I am curious as to whether you consider your grandfather to have "betrayed" his oath to Nicholas II when he fought for the regime that ordered the ex-Tsar's execution? I don't, of course, but then I tend to agree with Tsarfan's estimation of the oath of loyalty as a means rather than an end.

[AGRBear]

This discussion  is NOT about how "Nicholas II betrayed himself".    This thread is NOT about how Nicholas II failed others it is about "who betrayed Tsar Nicholas II".   There are other threads where you can discuss how you feel that Nicholas II betrayed / failed as Tsar.

Of course,  with each individual or groups of people named as having betrayed Nicholas II,   a poster  can give the reasons why they (the betrayers)  felt   it necessary to "betray"  their Tsar Nicholas II.

In a book I just brought called SCENANRIOS OF POWER, MYTH AND CEREMONY IN RUSSIAN MONARCHY  by Richard S. Wortman  he states the following on page:

He tells us that Nicholas II: 

>>...felt not disillusioned but betrayed.  "All around there is treason, cowardice, and deceit," he wrote in his diary." 

[Wortman did not give the date this was written.   Does anyone know because I wouldn't want to be in error if this statement was not actually written in Nicholas II's diary.  And, if it was,  I'd like to know where I and others can find it and read the entire entry. Thanks.]

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

In the first place, "Nicholas II" is an acceptable answer to the question posed by the thread, and it was given almost as soon as the thread started. You can disagree with it, but you cannot rule it out at this point. If you disagree with the answer, why not try and explain why?

In the second place, define "betrayal" in such a way that it can be answered within the parameters of your question. Do you mean who broke an oath to the Tsar? It then becomes proper to discuss what is an oath, and how much strain can it be subjected to before it loses potency.

If you wish to say that he was betrayed by everyone who thought he should abdicate, or by everyone who thought he was incompetent, or by . . . . well, I think it is obvious. Start another thread with a more precise understanding of what it is you are trying to determine. You may not arrive in the middle of a discussion and announce that you are making up the rules to suit yourself if they weren't clearly defined at the beginning.

[AGRBear]

My maternal grandfather was one of the lucky ones - he survived the battlefields of WWI to fight another world war as an officer under Zhukov's command serving under a very different regime.

Given the importance that you attach to oaths, Margarita, I am curious as to whether you consider your grandfather to have "betrayed" his oath to Nicholas II when he fought for the regime that ordered the ex-Tsar's execution? I don't, of course, but then I tend to agree with Tsarfan's estimation of the oath of loyalty as a means rather than an end.

 As far as I'm concern, there is NO reason to make this conversation so personal. 

I  believe,    that Margarita's grandfather and every Russian  did what  they  believed was best for their  country. 

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

I have to agree with Simon, as one can not discuss "who" betrayed Nicholas II, without also discussing the REASONS for their "betayal" of him. else, all we would have is a list of names, and no discussion. If that is what you are seeking Bear, then please start a new thread and make that point clear.

FA

[Forum Admin]

My maternal grandfather was one of the lucky ones - he survived the battlefields of WWI to fight another world war as an officer under Zhukov's command serving under a very different regime.

Given the importance that you attach to oaths, Margarita, I am curious as to whether you consider your grandfather to have "betrayed" his oath to Nicholas II when he fought for the regime that ordered the ex-Tsar's execution? I don't, of course, but then I tend to agree with Tsarfan's estimation of the oath of loyalty as a means rather than an end.

 As far as I'm concern, there is NO reason to make this conversation so personal. 

I  believe,    that Margarita's grandfather and every Russian  did what  they  believed was best for their  country. 

AGRBear

Bear, THAT is exactly the crux of this discussion isn't it? Who were the people who believed that betraying Nicholas II WAS best for their country and WHY did they believe that??

[Louis_Charles]

I want to underline that I mean no disrespect to Margarita or her grandfather; I do not think he "betrayed" his country. But she introduced him on the other thread, and it does seem apropos to this discussion to inquire how she regards his military career. Or Zhukov's, for that matter. Is anyone related to Zhukov?

[AGRBear]

In the first place, "Nicholas II" is an acceptable answer to the question posed by the thread, and it was given almost as soon as the thread started. You can disagree with it, but you cannot rule it out at this point. If you disagree with the answer, why not try and explain why?

Okay.  This  point was taken back on page one and is taken, again, over here on this page.

This topic is being discussed over on threads created just for your topic.

Now, ON THIS THREAD,  let's discuss people who betrayed their Tsar Nicholas II.

In the second place, define "betrayal" in such a way that it can be answered within the parameters of your question. Do you mean who broke an oath to the Tsar? It then becomes proper to discuss what is an oath, and how much strain can it be subjected to before it loses potency.

I believe some have discussed the oath to their Tsar.   So,  who gave this oath and broke their oath? 

I gave an example from the Memories of  Count Paul Beckendorff where the troops continued to protect the Tsar and his family even though they were no longer bound to their oath since  their Nicholas II was an ex-Tsar because he  had abdicated so  they had been released.

If you wish to say that he was betrayed by everyone who thought he should abdicate, or by everyone who thought he was incompetent, or by . . . . well, I think it is obvious. Start another thread with a more precise understanding of what it is you are trying to determine. You may not arrive in the middle of a discussion and announce that you are making up the rules to suit yourself if they weren't clearly defined at the beginning.

If you wish to go to the extreme of using the telephone book and naming everyone who betrayed Nicholas II,  that is your choice.  However, for the sake of this thread,  I would prefer that we remain within the boundaries of those people who were important in the Tsar's  life and it was their choices which made a huge and very serious impact upon the Nicholas II's future as Tsar.

As for making up the rules,  you can start your own thread about how this wooly headed bear can climb a ladder......  to fetch honey     or better, yet,  create the topic on  "How Did Nicholas II Betrayed Himself?"

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

My maternal grandfather was one of the lucky ones - he survived the battlefields of WWI to fight another world war as an officer under Zhukov's command serving under a very different regime.

Given the importance that you attach to oaths, Margarita, I am curious as to whether you consider your grandfather to have "betrayed" his oath to Nicholas II when he fought for the regime that ordered the ex-Tsar's execution? I don't, of course, but then I tend to agree with Tsarfan's estimation of the oath of loyalty as a means rather than an end.

AGRBear






 As far as I'm concern, there is NO reason to make this conversation so personal. 

I  believe,    that Margarita's grandfather and every Russian  did what  they  believed was best for their  country. 

AGRBear

Bear, THAT is exactly the crux of this discussion isn't it? Who were the people who believed that betraying Nicholas II WAS best for their country and WHY did they believe that??

My error,  I didn't see that Margarita had posted about her grandfather.

FA is, of course,  correct.

I want to underline that I mean no disrespect to Margarita or her grandfather; I do not think he "betrayed" his country. But she introduced him on the other thread, and it does seem apropos to this discussion to inquire how she regards his military career. Or Zhukov's, for that matter. Is anyone related to Zhukov?

And, of course,  Simon is correct.  I apologize.

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

HOW people betrayed their Tsar Nicholas II?

Tovarich Plum in the conservatory with the candlestick. Kerensky in the Ballroom with the Duma.

If you want to take the position that the breaking of an oath constitutes betrayal . . .okay. But could you at least provide a definition of the word "betrayal" that works in other cases? Did a worker, unbound by military oath, who shouted "Horsefeathers on the Tsar" commit "betrayal"?

And apology accepted, of course. Careful on that ladder, though. Don't drop the honey.

[AGRBear]

Nicholas II and his church:

If you look closely at the tremendous influence the teachings of Konstantin Pobedonostsev had on Nicholas' thinking you might say it was a kind of "brainwashing." Certainly Nicholas did not get a balanced view of Orthodoxy and the tsar's place in it. Pobedonostsev's view were quite one-sided and to the far right of the spectrum. And since Pobedonostsev was highly regarded by both Nicholas' father and mother his view had more impact than an ordinary teacher would have had.

THE RELIGION OF LOVE  by Alexander Grand Duke of Russia writes on page 132: 
>>The clergy are greatly to blame... having conceived false ideas through incomprehension of the Scriptures."

The topic was "love of religion",  however, I think that GD Alexander believed the clergy were to be blamed for many of what he thought were  "false ideas"  which they taught him....

I remember reading Paul Grabbe's book, THE WINDOWS ON THE RIVER NEVA in which he talked about his youth and his prayers....  Let me see if I can find it.   Here it is on p. 61:

>>I was made to understand when I was still quite small that every night before going to sleep I had to recite my prayers--the Lor'd Prayer and special prayer for the Virgin May-- or else GOd would surely strike me down with thunder and lightning.  Intimindated by this prospect,  I said my prayers duitfully every night.<<

I assume as a child Nicholas II was, also, intimindated by a similar kind of prospect as Grabbe was about his [Nicolas's] own prayers.

I think this is an interesting question:  Did   Pobedonostsev and other clergy in Nicholas II's life  betrayed Nicholas II because their beliefs  lead Nicholas II into believing  the Tsar's will was God's will.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

If you look closely at the tremendous influence the teachings of Konstantin Pobedonostsev had on Nicholas' thinking you might say it was a kind of "brainwashing." Certainly Nicholas did not get a balanced view of Orthodoxy and the tsar's place in it. Pobedonostsev's view were quite one-sided and to the far right of the spectrum. And since Pobedonostsev was highly regarded by both Nicholas' father and mother his view had more impact than an ordinary teacher would have had.

Why not see it as not so much as a far rightist view but just the "right view"? Why not consider that the teachings Nikolai received from Pobedonostsev under AIII's guidance and encouragement from Nikolai's position and ignore your personal assessment as to which side of the fence that instruction came from.

N. B. I do agree that Pobedonostsev was extremely conformist in many of the issues he espoused, and I wish to stress that my personal view is irrelevant.

Margarita 

I think Margarita views are closer to how Nicholas II felt about his religious teachings than I can express.

And, yes,  my personal assessment is exactly that,  my personal assessment.

AGRBear