Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[James1941]

Does it really matter if the generals broke their oath. If every general, colonel and major in the Russian army had remained loyal it would have made no difference. The tsar and his monarchy would have been swept aside. The rank and file soldiers would have seen to that, allied to the people who had lost faith in the monarchy. They no longer wanted to fight or die for the tsar. I am willing to bet good money that most of them were patriotic Russians.

In Berlin there is a monument (several) to those officers of the German army (and civilians in the government) who broke their oath to their leader and tried to kill him in 1944 to prevent their country from being destroyed. They are honored as heroes. Yet the Russian generals who did the same in 1914 are being excoriated as traitors and disloyal and cowards.

[AGRBear]

Betray:
1) To give aid or information to an enemy of
2) To deliver into the hands of an enemy in volation of a trust or  alligiance
3) To divulge in a breach of confidence
4) To make known unintentionally
5) To reval against one's desire or will
6) To lead astray, deceive

Enemy:
1) One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes another; a foe
2a) A hostile power or force, such as a nation
2b) A member or unit of such a force
3) A group of foes or hostil forces
4)  Something destructive or injurious in its effect

I believe a conspirator falls under an enemy:

Conspirtator:
1) One that engages in a conspiracy

Conspiracy:
1) An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act
2) A group of conspirators
3) Law.  An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal actions
4) A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design....

Strictly speaking: If a General of the Tsar's Army breaks his oath to his Tsar,  who has not abdicated which released the Geneal  from their oath, and conspires to have the Tsar  removed and replaced by another,  I believe the conspirator has  "betrayed" his Tsar,  even if the conspirator had legitmate reasons which would have been for the betterment of Russia.

Have I explained my point of view?

Do you agree or disagree?

AGRBear

 

[AGRBear]

Does it really matter if the generals broke their oath. If every general, colonel and major in the Russian army had remained loyal it would have made no difference. The tsar and his monarchy would have been swept aside. The rank and file soldiers would have seen to that, allied to the people who had lost faith in the monarchy. They no longer wanted to fight or die for the tsar. I am willing to bet good money that most of them were patriotic Russians.

In Berlin there is a monument (several) to those officers of the German army (and civilians in the government) who broke their oath to their leader and tried to kill him in 1944 to prevent their country from being destroyed. They are honored as heroes. Yet the Russian generals who did the same in 1914 are being excoriated as traitors and disloyal and cowards.

It is not my intention to destroy the honor of those who conspired against Nicholas II.  I am not in favor of monarchy.   My intention is to discover who these men were and understand why they went against their Tsar when they did.


AGRBear

[AGRBear]

The notion that the top echelons of the imperial military suddenly abandoned their tsar out of some kind of collective moral perversion instead of in desperation at an incompetent government stirkes me as utter nonsense.

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.

The responses in the main were in favor of immediate abdication. From memory I believe only one commander dissented and shot himself in the head.

General Ruzsky then confered with the Duma representatives Shulgin and Guchkov before they were permitted to have an audience with the Emperor.

The Pskov "factor" was very real and the actions of the Generals and Admirals was in contravention of their oath of allegience to their Emperor. It was indeed an act of betrayal by the military.

Margarita

Who were these commanders-in-chief?  And,  what do we know about them?  Did they leave any documents which explained their actions?

AGRBear

[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 do 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?

I think we still need an answer to this question, since violating the oath to follow Nicholas has been cited several times on this thread as an example of the betrayal of Nicholas.  And you, Bear, did not  challenge those examples as being off topic when they were given.  Likewise, you cannot now challenge the attempt to understand the reach of such an oath as off topic . . . much as it might make you squirm.

[AGRBear]

<<just how far does the imperative to honor an oath to a tsar reach?>>

An excellent question which should spur a new thread.  Please do.

On this thread, I would appreciate, after giving the name of a person you think betrayed his Tsar,  please, do give the  reason why you think he/she  betrayed Nicholas II.  The reasons may or may not  touch  the area that the betrayer felt his/ her  actions were justified.  If a betrayer is identified as a military leader, then, of course,  you or anyone else can bring up the fact that he had given an oath to his Tsar. And,  added to this you can explained why he felt breaking his oath was justified.  This is entirely up to the posters.


AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

I suggest you ignore this, Tsarfan. At this point it is willful disregard for the thread.

You intend to pursue your interests, Bear, and the rest of us will pursue ours. Okay?

[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 do 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?

I think we still need an answer to this question, since violating the oath to follow Nicholas has been cited several times on this thread as an example of the betrayal of Nicholas.  And you, Bear, did not  challenge those examples as being off topic when they were given.  Likewise, you cannot now challenge the attempt to understand the reach of such an oath as off topic . . . much as it might make you squirm.

[Belochka]

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.

My grandfather was not given the freedom of choice to whom he pledged his loyalty. In his case he was a monarchist and silently maintained that position all his life.  In so doing, in his heart and soul he never betrayed his imperial oath. Under a new regime, on a different battlefield one does not abandon one's integrity as an officer nor personal beliefs. That was the analogy I was attempting to paint. The high command did have a narrow choice to make. They could have ignored General Alexeyev's communication and sort a direct response from Nikolai II as their Commander-in-Chief. The military betrayal that Alexeyev and Ruzsky cunningly engineered would have failed and the tragedy of the impending abdication may have been averted.   

Margarita

[James1941]

Nicholas was at Stavka where his communications with his capital depended mainly on the telegraph. He was sent reports from his ministers, his wife, his military commander in Petrograd about the (disturbances, riots, strikes, "hooligans", you chose). Thus he had information, but unfortunately like all bureaucrats they dreaded telling the autocrat bad news so the seriousness of these disturbances was downplayed. His ministers reported that the police and the army were having no difficulty in maintaining control.
On 25 Feb, at 9:00 pm, Nicholas sent his order to General Khabalov that would set in motion the train of events that led to his "betrayal." I command you tomorrow to stop the disorders in the capital which are unacceptable in the difficult time of war with Germany and Austria." It gave no guidance as to what steps he would authorize or how he wanted the general to proceed. Next day Khabalov gave the order to his troop commanders that all necessary force was to be used to disperse the crowds, including firing into them. He issued a general proclamation that banned all demonstrations and warned the order would be enforced with arms. Strikers would be conscripted and sent to the front if they did not return to work by the 28 Feb.
If you then follow a daily timeline of events from that moment on you see that there were any number of points along the way in which Nicholas could have made a difference. On the 26th the strikes and demonstrations still continued in spite of the ban. The troops went out and obeyed their orders to shoot at the demonstrators to disperse them. They returned to their barracks and discussed what they had done.
On the morning of the 27th regiment after regiment mutined and joined the demonstrators. This began the disintegration of military authority, and with it civil authority. The revolution had begun.
Khabalov appealed to Nicholas for reliable military units from the front. Nicholas decided to return to Petrograd and sent an order to General Ivanov to transfer reliable troops to the city and to restore order.
For the next five days he was bombarded with any number of proposals that might have difussed the situation and led to different outcome. Nicholas rejected all of them, intent on reaching the capital and having Ivanov put down the troubles with force of arms. Who knows what might of happened if he had made it, probably a bloody confrontation with a dubious outcome. Would the "reliable troops" have remained reliable. We will never know. His train was diverted and he ended up in Pskov at the headquarters of General Russky. There he would abdicate on March 2.
In reading all the proposals and recommendations that were proposed to Nicholas I can only see a desperate desire to maintain the imperial system and at the same time deal with the spreading mutinies and revolts. Each time Nicholas rejected them outright, or when he did bend to accept, it was too late because the proposal was outdated and events had moved on. It is agonizing to see the many times he could have made a decision that would meant a difference. Even at the last, the abdication was an attempt to save the monarchy which even that Nicholas botched.
It this be 'betrayal' then so be, let it be betrayal.

[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.

My grandfather was not given the freedom of choice to whom he pledged his loyalty. In his case he was a monarchist and silently maintained that position all his life.  In so doing, in his heart and soul he never betrayed his imperial oath. Under a new regime, on a different battlefield one does not abandon one's integrity as an officer nor personal beliefs. That was the analogy I was attempting to paint. The high command did have a narrow choice to make. They could have ignored General Alexeyev's communication and sort a direct response from Nikolai II as their Commander-in-Chief. The military betrayal that Alexeyev and Ruzsky cunningly engineered would have failed and the tragedy of the impending abdication may have been averted.   

Margarita

I don't understand the "not given the freedom of choice to whom he pledged his loyalty", still less the Jesuitical "in his heart and soul he never betrayed his imperial oath". This is not to say that I think he did, but if you allow for him to maintain his interior reservations in regard to his miitary oath of loyalty, why are the same reservations not permitted to the Russian General Staff? I am sure none of them was pleased to see the death knell of a system that they had matured under, but you don't seem to allow for the fact that Nicholas himself released them from obligation by his act of abdication --- and as I have pointed out several times, this act was freely undertaken. Louis XVI and Charles I each refused to abdicate, and by implication (and in one case explicitly) rejected the authority of those that tried them. Nicholas might have done this as well. There aren't that many examples he could have considered when faced with the possibility of abdication, but we know from his reading list that he was familiar with those two monarchs.

[Tsarfan]

My grandfather was not given the freedom of choice to whom he pledged his loyalty.

I do not understand this remark.  Everyone has the freedom to choose whether or not to pledge an oath.  The consequences of refusal might be dire (just ask Thomas More), but the choice remains.  If your grandfather had no choice but to pledge fealty to the soviet government without suffering ill consequences, what choice did people have in tsarist times?  Why is a different standard applied to your grandfather than to them?

Also, I would still like an answer to my earlier question using the Kiev scenario.  Would an oath given to a tsar who later became insane and issued cruel, irrational orders still be binding?  If not, what are your criteria for drawing the line beyond which one is absolved of the obligation?

I would also ask whether you instead view an oath as absolute.  But since you have already suggested your grandfather was absolved of responsibility for his oath because his coerced utterance did not match his true belief, I will take your answer as a "no".

(As with Simon, I am not censuring your grandfather.  I would have done the same.  But then, I do not believe that oaths imposed on people under the duress of an autocratic system create unconditional moral or spiritual obligations.)

[Belochka]

I would also ask whether you instead view an oath as absolute.  But since you have already suggested your grandfather was absolved of responsibility for his oath because his coerced utterance did not match his true belief, I will take your answer as a "no".

(As with Simon, I am not censuring your grandfather.  I would have done the same.  But then, I do not believe that oaths imposed on people under the duress of an autocratic system create unconditional moral or spiritual obligations.)

Firstly, you are offering a judgemental remark by stating that an autocratic system carries with it the notion of oppression ("duress") and then you proceed to ask the question whether an Oath is unconditional under the parameters you have deemed to be valid.

Secondly, reading carefully the words you have used - you are presuming as a modern observer that those who gave the Oath of Allegience may have believed that they were oppressed by the autocratic nature of their government. Similarily by your presumption any utterance must therefore be mitigated because of the nature of that form of governance.

With respect you fail to appreciate that those who gave their Oath BELIEVED in the meaning of those words and believed in the notion of autocracy. The Oath of allegience was a principle that was uttered freely before god and was accepted by the consistency of the words avowed by that individual. It therefore become binding and demanded loyalty to the Emperor, to Russia and the church and to finally to oneself.

To answer your query: I believe that the Oath was enduring for the life of the Emperor to whom one served. It was an unconditional declaration and was viewed as sacred and powerful rite.

Margarita



   

[Belochka]

I am sure none of them was pleased to see the death knell of a system that they had matured under, but you don't seem to allow for the fact that Nicholas himself released them from obligation by his act of abdication ---

Nikolai did not release the Commanders from their obligation. He was still Emperor when they received their communications from General Alexeyev.  It was a proposal demanding consensus. The majority of Commanders released themselves from their binding obligation to the Emperor without question. Consequent to that collective act, Nikolai rightly believed that he was betrayed and only then did he consider his "position" under duress.

Margarita

[Belochka]

My grandfather was not given the freedom of choice to whom he pledged his loyalty.

I do not understand this remark.  Everyone has the freedom to choose whether or not to pledge an oath.  The consequences of refusal might be dire (just ask Thomas More), but the choice remains.  If your grandfather had no choice but to pledge fealty to the soviet government without suffering ill consequences, what choice did people have in tsarist times?  Why is a different standard applied to your grandfather than to them?

An Oath of Allegience (Citizenship) in democratic countries when it is given by migrants is a voluntary act in order to affirm one's citizenship in their new country. There is no compulsion by the government on the resident to undergo such a process. 

By contrast declarations or oaths given by an individual who was called up to serve the nation in time of war are not of the same class. In the case I gave it was the red army that demanded compliance to a socialist state governed by a ruthless dictator: stalin.

The difference for him was that he held the Emperor in high esteem and believed in the dignity of the Imperial State but the same could not be assumed about the communist regime he was subjected to live under against his will. 

Margarita