Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Tsarfan]

Post 1905, he established State Duma, eventually he allowed to join Duma, folks with antimonarchy point of view (honestly he should send them to Siberia, like his father and grandfather did).

With all due respect, Vladm, this is a highly doctored version of what happened.  There was nothing voluntary in Nicholas' granting a State Duma.  He did it under pressure of a revolution spreading across the cities and the countryside of Russia.  And, as soon as order was restored, Nicholas set about to diminish as many of the new freedoms as he could, including creating an upper house to counteract the establishment of the Duma and twice rewriting the election laws to limit the voting franchise.  In fact, Sergius Witte, one of the ablest chief ministers in Russian history, eventually lost his position through constant wrangling with Nicholas to abide by the spirit of the reforms.

I think the fact that you feel that anyone who wanted to broaden representative government should have been sent to Siberia rather clearly indicates why you would have an agenda so grossly to recast the actual events of Nicholas' reign.

[lexi4]

Wow! Talk about revisionist history!
Despite signing the Manifesto in 1905, which created the first elected Duma, Nicholas refused to accept the change to a constitutional government. He believed he was appointed by God to rule Russia and so he remained an autocrat, responsible to no one except God. He suspended the Duma, not once but twice. In 1907, because he feared yet another Duma, Nicholas illegally changed the voting laws to keep those whom he feared, out of power.
Neither Nicholas or Alexandra supported the Duma. They were autocrats.

[helenazar]

So, to the list of warnings given by Court Minister Mossolov, GD Sandro, the Novgorod Nobility, GD Ella, and GD Dmitry, we can add Buchanan's.  Other than Protopov (an Interior Minister the rest of the cabinet regarded as a quack) and Alexandra (who was devouring the forged telegrams Protopov was sending her from adoring peasants), was anyone telling Nicholas that things were playing out nicely?

Nicholas seemed to have a sort of a "revelation" on the day he signed his abdication act. This was when Shulgin (?) came in with the abdication papers, they had a short conversation about the events, and N asked him something like "do you mean that I may have been following the wrong course all along?". I don't remember the exact words, but it was something like that. This was according to Shulgin's account in a Russian language documentary I once watched.

[helenazar]

Neither Nicholas or Alexandra supported the Duma. They were autocrats.

To be fair, they felt this way because they felt they had an obligation to pass the monarchy intact to their son - just as N's father passed it on to him, and his father to him- this was their perspective.

[James1941]

To be fair, yes that is what they believed. But, for one family to treat a whole nation of nearly 200 milliion as if it were an entailed piece of property they could dispose of as inheritance any way they liked and whose resources they could spend as they pleased is more than a sense of fairness can tolerate. Someone on this forum said the Romanovs treated Russia like it was their private plantation. I think that is fairly astute.

[vladm]

Actually lets review "Bloody Sunday" events, Nicholas new about movement leading by Gopon only day before the events, and he new Gopon was socialist lead by revolutionists. He (N) was not in St. Petersburg but at Tsarskoye Selo (as you all know it was his residence). But despite commies propaganda about ignorance of the Nicholas, during post events he donates 50,000 rubles (quite significant amount of money, average monthly salary was about 10-15 rubles to factory workers injured and families of killed) considering it was killed 120 and wounded only 300 people.
Take a look in some research from this page /in Russian/:
http://www.russdom.ru/2005/200501i/200501012.html
Also, please take a look in to his diaries from January 8th, 9th
January 19th he meets with factory representatives from St. Petersburg (what an Authocrat!), /in Russian/
http://www.rus-sky.org/history/library/diaris/1894.htm
please pay no attention to comments and remarks, because it was done by editors.

But surprise-surprise, Duma project was started far before the events of 1905, actually first record about new institution dated 1903.
In his diaries he casually writes about announce 1905 August 6th – Duma 1st edition, and we could see complete change of his style during October events from October 12 to 17th, when he had to release manifest with correction of Duma law as you referring to, it was basically forced on him, and here I would completely agree, but he did not create any mass repressions, (if he would do something like that, we would know, because soviet propaganda would use it against him during USSR time).

[Tsarfan]

"Commies propaganda"?  "Only" 120 people killed and 300 wounded for daring to approach their tsar with a petition to redress their grievances?  And all made all right because Nicholas "donated" 50,000 rubles to the families of people his soldiers killed or wounded?

If you think it was only "commies propaganda" that blackened Nicholas' name after Bloody Sunday, you should read the international press coverage of the event in papers from New York to Berlin at the time.  I have.  The incident created international outrage and had a lot to do with the debate in Britain a dozen years later about whether to offer the family asylum.

It seems an inevitability on this forum that, sooner or later, after a certain amount of discussion by serious students of history -- who often bring different facts to bear or who interpret the same facts very differently -- some crank shows up on the board whose views are grounded in sheer fabrication.  And it always seem to involve some anti-semite and/or ultra-monarchist.  Curious, huh?

No wonder the soviets had such an easy time imposing a regime of untruths on the Russian people.  They seem to have a peculiar taste for it.

It doesn't matter when the "Duma project" started.  Nicholas remained adamantly opposed to representative government in virtually any form right up until the day he abdicated and referred to the concept of Michael's securing a popular mandate as "filth".

[Belochka]

Alexeyev's communication to the Field Commanders in full translated by Margarita Nelipa

His Majesty is to be found in Pskov, where he has expressed his agreement to announce the Manifesto to meet with the people’s desire to establish responsibility before the ministerial chambers, by granting the president of the State Duma to establish a cabinet.

By informing of this decision the High commander of the northern front to the president of the State Duma, the last, in conversation by apparatus, in three and one half hours on March the second, replied, that the appearance of this Manifest is to be timed for 27 February; in reality this act appears belated, in that now a horrendous revolution has approached; the restraining national passion is difficult; the military is demoralized. The president of the State Duma although they have confidence in, but he fears, that to restrain national fears will be impossible. Now the dynastic question can be placed point-blank and the war can be continued to a victorious end only if the presented demand concerning the abdication from the Throne in favor of the son under the regency of Mikhail Alexandrovich. The situation, apparently, does not permit an alternate decision, and every minute of further hesitation will only heighten the claim, based on the existence of the army and the functioning of the railways are in the hands of the Petrograd  Provisional Government. It is imperative to save the army in the field from disintegration; continue the battle to the end with the external enemy; save Russia’s independence and the fate of the dynasty. This must be placed on highest priority, even at the cost of considerable concessions. If you are divided by this view, then do not favor to telegraph without your highly loyal demand to His Majesty via Glavkosev, to inform me.

I repeat, that the loss of every minute may be fatal for the existence of Russia and among the highest leaders of the army in the field it is imperative to establish a unity of thought and purpose and save the army from hesitancy and possible events to alter one’s duty. The army must with all its strength fight with the external enemy, and the decision concerning internal affairs should spare it from the temptation to accept a role in the upheaval, which shall be painless if effected by a decision from above. 

Alexeyev

2 March 1917, 10hr 15 minutes, 1872

[lexi4]

Alexandra wrote to her husband: "Be more autocratic, my very own sweetheart....Be master and lord. You are the autocrat."

Upon hearing that the Duma was to be called in 1915 she wrote: "Deary, I heard that horrid Rodzianko and others...beg the Duma to be called at once together. Oh please don't it's not their business, they want to discuss things not concerning them and bring more discontent...they must be kept away."

Nicholas dissolved the Duma twice because it didn't please him.

His visit to the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday was nothing but a token appearance, probably more of a reaction to the reaction of the rest of the world than anything else. The workers who gathered that day did so to petition their Tsar. They had put their faith in the Tsar and saw him as a man of god. Instead, they were met with bullets while Nicholas sat in his palace. Nicholas responded to Bloody Sunday and the crisis that followed with his usual incompetence. Witte called it a "mixture of cowardice, bindness and stupidity."

In my country, we have a word for the type of comments I see in your posts vladm, we call it revisionist history. The problem with that is, that unless we face our past squarely, we cannot move forward. And if we can't move forward, history will most likely repeat itself.

[Belochka]

Margarita, the Sergei Fomin you mention here wouldn't in fact be the same person as Father Sergius Fomin, Metropolitan of Solnechnogorsk? Of him a web church news report says: "Metropolitan Sergius is known as an experienced church figure who is able to deal with both his brethren and representatives of the government. Throughout the time of Russia's democratic existence he has not sullied himself by participating in one of the numerous scandals. But from the point of view of many church figures, he has a serious shortcoming: he is a serious and consistent opponent of church 'gays' whose influence today in the Russian church is stronger than ever" (See the link http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0212f.html).

He also comes up on a web page dedicated to the martyrdom of Nicholas II and his family, see http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/nicholas-ii-tsar-martyr-and-his-family-05-of-05.html. The reference is to "Sergius Fomin, 'Rossiya pered vtorym prishestviyem,' Holy Trinity Monastery, Sergiev Posad, 1993, pp. 129, 132, 143, 155, 157, 158, 160, 169;" i.e., Sergius Fomin, Russia Before the Second Coming, Holy Trinity Monastery, Sergiev Posad, 1993, etc., etc.

I guess I'm suggesting that perhaps Sergei Fomin is not a historian first and foremost, and that furthermore he might have his own religious and monarchist biases (just as other historians might have anti-monarchist biases)? But of course if you are writing about a different Sergei Fomin then all this is by the by (I've spent a good time googling this name and it turns out there's yet another Sergei Fomin who was evidently a very renowned mathematician).

Hello Elizabeth,

I must confess that I rather miffed by your pronouncements.

Firstly, I am not aware that this Segei Fomin is the same as the one of whom you speak. I shall have to check with my Russian sources and confirm. My understanding is that we may be speaking about two different individuals here.

Now permit me to address the concerns which you have raised.

My reasoning for introducing Sergei Fomin was that he typifies the view as it was held in 1917. The fact that the Orthodox Church does not view gay people favorably has no bearing on this topic or upon the reliability of the author to offer his view on Russian history.  I have a number of his books and an extensive collection of his articles from journals that concern NII and Rasputin. He writes as Sergei Fomin and not as an ordained member of the Russian Orthodox Church by declaring any specific title. That consideration is telling. Inside Russia he is highly respected for his research in the field of late Russian Imperial history.   

His insight to my mind is appropriate to this discussion because NII was after all the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Since we are attempting to understand as to whether Nikolai was betrayed and by whom, then I tender that the Oath of Allegiance that was given with hand placed on the bible with God as their witness; is at the core to understanding why that sacred Oath was compromised.
 
If this person is indeed one in the same that you have identified and if Fomin's primary vocation is that of a Russian Orthodox priest embitters you - then so be it, but do not condemn his writing because of an intrinsic precept that the Russian Orthodox Church has always held.

One consideration that perhaps may have by-passed you is that Fomin with unaffectedness condemned the past failings of his own Church.

We are after all discussing Imperial Russia with all its inherent prejudices. To judge those prejudices with contemporary eyes will only intensify the mystery as to why Nikolai believed he was so wronged. 

Again I stress that my personal position is irrelevant.

Margarita

[Louis_Charles]

M,

One of the links provided by Elisabeth seems to indicate that he regards Rasputin as worthy of canonization. Are you aware if this is true?

S

[Belochka]

This reminds me of the passage in Robert K. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra which recounts the English ambassador, George Buchanan's, last visit to Nicholas II in January 1917, when he warned the tsar of the impending revolution. Perhaps someone else has quoted this already, but it seems very à propos nonetheless and in any event deserves to be repeated:

Buchanan came straight to the point, telling the Tsar that Russia needed a government in which the nation could have confidence. "Your Majesty, if I might be permitted to say so, has but one safe course open to you - namely, to break down the barrier that separates you from your people and to regain their confidence."

Drawing himself up and giving Buchanan a hard look, Nicholas asked, "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?"

(Massie, Nicholas and Alexandra, p. 373.)

To me this exchange says it all.

Actually this quote tells me much more. The impudence of a foreign diplomat interferring with Russian internal politics come to mind.

How can you be so confident in believing that the texture of Nikolai's utterance had not implied something entirely different? 

Margarita

[vladm]

... to approach their tsar with a petition to redress their grievances? ....

? Have you managed to read the petition?
Please do so, but from independent point of view:
http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/jan1905.htm

And all made all right because Nicholas "donated" 50,000 rubles to the families of people his soldiers killed or wounded?

50,000 rubles to people who was killed and injured, not even by his order is quite substantial donation - US government gives less to solders widows killed in Iraq and none to people of New Orleans, regardless vast majority of the US paying taxes about 25-35% to feds. 

If you think it was only "commies propaganda" that blackened Nicholas' name after Bloody Sunday, you should read the international press coverage of the event in papers from New York to Berlin at the time.  I have.  The incident created international outrage and had a lot to do with the debate in Britain a dozen years later about whether to offer the family asylum.

I am talking not from Englishman and US citizen’s point of view, who had no idea about Russian life, and I believe have no idea today. But I am talking from Nicholas perspective, remember his grandfather Alexander II, btw who made enormous amount of reforms, was killed by revolutionaries inventing back then - terrorism (yes terrorism was originated in Russia, I hope world happy now days). So, to meet with the crowd January 1905 it was equal death penalty, on one hand, on another hand to let them go to Winter Palace was equal riots next to the Imperial residence (and we know what would happen, if they would made it all the way), Gendarmes, back than, did not had rubber bullets, how you could stop demonstration of 120 000?

some crank shows up on the board whose views are grounded in sheer fabrication. 

crank probably older and wise than you, with some knowledge you would never will be able to acquire because of the narrow vision

[Louis_Charles]

... to approach their tsar with a petition to redress their grievances? ....

? Have you managed to read the petition?
Please do so, but from independent point of view:
http://www.hist.msu.ru/ER/Etext/jan1905.htm

And all made all right because Nicholas "donated" 50,000 rubles to the families of people his soldiers killed or wounded?

50,000 rubles to people who was killed and injured, not even by his order is quite substantial donation - US government gives less to solders widows killed in Iraq and none to people of New Orleans, regardless vast majority of the US paying taxes about 25-35% to feds. 

If you think it was only "commies propaganda" that blackened Nicholas' name after Bloody Sunday, you should read the international press coverage of the event in papers from New York to Berlin at the time.  I have.  The incident created international outrage and had a lot to do with the debate in Britain a dozen years later about whether to offer the family asylum.

I am talking not from Englishman and US citizen’s point of view, who had no idea about Russian life, and I believe have no idea today. But I am talking from Nicholas perspective, remember his grandfather Alexander II, btw who made enormous amount of reforms, was killed by revolutionaries inventing back then - terrorism (yes terrorism was originated in Russia, I hope world happy now days). So, to meet with the crowd January 1905 it was equal death penalty, on one hand, on another hand to let them go to Winter Palace was equal riots next to the Imperial residence (and we know what would happen, if they would made it all the way), Gendarmes, back than, did not had rubber bullets, how you could stop demonstration of 120 000?

some crank shows up on the board whose views are grounded in sheer fabrication. 

crank probably older and wise than you, with some knowledge you would never will be able to acquire because of the narrow vision

1) I appreciate that you are not American, but you know nothing about the payments made to the families of servicemen killed in Iraq or the government monies being expended upon the citizens of Louisiana as the result of Katrina --- which, by the way, was a natural disaster, and not soldiers shooting into women and children. Your statements are patently untrue.

2) Nicholas could have staved off violence by meeting with a delegation from the demonstration. That's Monday-morning quarterbacking in Americanspeak, but it is at least an alternative to shooting unarmed men, women and children.

[Belochka]

I asked her would she put Alexandra's name on the list of betrayers...suggesting that Alexandra unintentionally betrayed Nicholas.

To presume an act of betrayal has been committed it must be proven that the act was intentional and effected with knowledge. In the absence of intent there can be no betrayal.

Alexandra offered advice in good faith to the best of her limited capability. She did not violate His Majesty's trust or confidence, and given these few legal considerations it is unreasonable to contend that she had betrayed Nikolai.

Margarita