Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[Tsarfan]

In this article Sergei Fomin pronounces the Russian people a "deicidal [i.e., God-killing] people," who in 1917 had "given themselves up for adoption to Satan, the brew of global cataclysms, as well as his eternal helpers - the Masons, usorious bankers, free thinkers, godless atheists, liberals, communists, and socialists of every kind." Moreover, Fomin argues that Nicholas II was betrayed by everyone - "the nobility, peasants, army, the Guard, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of its hierarchs, priests and parishioners." But I believe this is the very same article as the one you referred to earlier?

Well, if this is a sample of what's coming out of the mouth of "one of Russia's most authoritative contemporary historians", there is really very little hope for this poor country.  This whole thread is really beginning to make me angry because nothing ever seems to change or get any better in Russia.  It's always more of the same crap.  These same quotes could have been written by Alexandra to Anna Vyrubova almost 100 years ago.

This post is just too good to have buried.  It hits so many nails on their heads.

[Louis_Charles]

So,  there Nicholas II was.   He was aware of the injured and dead.   He felt the blow of this event which was not just directed at him personally but at the Romanov  autocracy.

And,  here was a man,  Buchanan,  and Englishman, asking him:  ""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."

Like most of us,  we don't alway hear all the words being said,  however,  I'm sure he heard the parts  "people"  and  "regain their confidence".

What do you think he may have thought?  I don't know.  My guess is that  Nicholas II  probably thought:  Why in the world would he,  Nicholas II, the Tsar,  be the one needing the people to regain confidence of him, the Tsar?  He had not been the one who had been marching  who had caused the bloody event.

So,  Nicholas II, the autocrat and "Little Father" of his disobedient children,  sat up straight and gave this Englishman, who had just challenged his authority,  a hard look before responding,  " "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?"

Bear,

While you were channeling Nicholas, did he happen to mention the color of the wallpaper in the room or what he had for lunch that day?

Please, please stop arguing this way. The fact that you don't hear complete sentences has nothing to do with whether Nicholas II did. The description of this scene that you wrote tells us what Tsar Bear would have meant by the statement, and nothing at all about what Tsar Nicholas did.

Although I am sure you would have been a wonderful Tsar. Tsaritsa. Whev. 

Simon

[AGRBear]

His responce is exactly what was expected  from an autocrat who was Tsar and Emperor,  the "Little Father"  who viewed his people as his "children".

This viewpoint -- that all responsibility flows from the people to their government and none from the government to the people -- is a complete perversion of the theory of government, even in monarchical systems.

Of course, what else would I expect?  The only possible way to justify Nicholas' performance at the critical junctions of his reign, such as in 1905/06 and 1916/17, is to embrace such perversion of purpose.

This is also why you cannot comprehend the concept of betrayal except in terms of others abandoning their duty to Nicholas -- never in terms of Nicholas abandoning his duty to them  to provide effective leadership.

I am not  "justifying"  Nicholas II's actions.  I am trying to understand his actions.

First you want him to be strong and act like a Tsar but when he does it's, "OH MY GOODNESS,  the Tsar is so out of touch!"

Nicholas II was an autocrat.  He acted like an autocrat.  And,  as a leader of his country he made mistakes.
Because of those mistakes the people around him began to betray  Nicholas II, their Tsar.

The people who betrayed Nicholas II may have felt they were betrayed  by Nicholas II.

Each individual has his or her own story.

We've mentioned Gen. Alekeev.

Margarita has given us why Gen. Alexeev [Alexeyev] believed what he did and when he did.

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

Let me repeat the general's demand:

>>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.<<

It appears to me that Alexeev [Alexeyev]  did not want to hear anything but a "Yea" from the other generals and had, therefore,  closed his mind to any suggestions,  and was set in just one direction which was the abdication of  Nicholas II in favor of his son with GD Michael as his Regent.

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

et me repeat the general's demand:

>>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.<<

It appears to me that Alexeev [Alexeyev]  did not want to hear anything but a "Yea" from the other generals and had, therefore,  closed his mind to any suggestions,  and was set in just one direction which was the abdication of  Nicholas II in favor of his son with GD Michael as his Regent.

AGRBear

I am impressed that you could make any sense of that sentence from Alexeyev at all, given the chaotic nature of its' syntax.

[AGRBear]

So,  there Nicholas II was.   He was aware of the injured and dead.   He felt the blow of this event which was not just directed at him personally but at the Romanov  autocracy.

And,  here was a man,  Buchanan,  and Englishman, asking him:  ""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."

Like most of us,  we don't alway hear all the words being said,  however,  I'm sure he heard the parts  "people"  and  "regain their confidence".

What do you think he may have thought?  I don't know.  My guess is that  Nicholas II  probably thought:  Why in the world would he,  Nicholas II, the Tsar,  be the one needing the people to regain confidence of him, the Tsar?  He had not been the one who had been marching  who had caused the bloody event.

So,  Nicholas II, the autocrat and "Little Father" of his disobedient children,  sat up straight and gave this Englishman, who had just challenged his authority,  a hard look before responding,  " "Do you mean that I am to regain the confidence of my people or that they are to regain my confidence?"

Bear,

While you were channeling Nicholas, did he happen to mention the color of the wallpaper in the room or what he had for lunch that day?

Please, please stop arguing this way. The fact that you don't hear complete sentences has nothing to do with whether Nicholas II did. The description of this scene that you wrote tells us what Tsar Bear would have meant by the statement, and nothing at all about what Tsar Nicholas did.

Although I am sure you would have been a wonderful Tsar. Tsaritsa. Whev. 

Simon

Always be careful for what you wish,  Dear Simon

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

et me repeat the general's demand:

>>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.<<

It appears to me that Alexeev [Alexeyev]  did not want to hear anything but a "Yea" from the other generals and had, therefore,  closed his mind to any suggestions,  and was set in just one direction which was the abdication of  Nicholas II in favor of his son with GD Michael as his Regent.

AGRBear

I am impressed that you could make any sense of that sentence from Alexeyev at all, given the chaotic nature of its' syntax.

Due to my dexterous abilities  [or maybe it's called my own terrible American-English grammer , which is a direct  results of having  grown up in a community filled with  German-Russains who's first language was German, which was sprinkled with Russian and French,  and then was switched from German to English],   the "sense" of  Alekeev's  sentence came shinning through.

AGRBear

PS:  Did anyone noticed these words about Nicholas II?
>>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.<<

[Tsarfan]

Yes, Nicholas always seemed to see the light when he was staring down the barrel of a gun.  Unfortunately, he could have done more to keep Russia out of the throes of revolution if he had been equally amenable to the advice of the best of his advisers, such as Witte and Stolypin, and even some of his relatives.

[helenazar]

I have a question: would those of you who consider that Nicholas was betrayed, also consider that American revolutionaries betrayed George III in a similar manner? Why or why not? Thank you.

[AGRBear]

I believe the British called the American Revolution the "American Rebellion"

If you're talking about the men in the military who had sworn and oath to George III and joined the rebels,   then yes,  they betrayed their King.

Please note:  I assume the wording was different  from what was said to the English King than  to Emp. and Tsar Nicholas II.  So,  I'm not sure about the differences of the oaths themselves  to make comparisions.

I had  hoped by, now,  that someone would have found the actual words of the oath given to Nicholas II.

AGRBear

[Belochka]

Yes, Nicholas always seemed to see the light when he was staring down the barrel of a gun.  Unfortunately, he could have done more to keep Russia out of the throes of revolution if he had been equally amenable to the advice of the best of his advisers, such as Witte and Stolypin, and even some of his relatives.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly.

Margarita

[Belochka]

In this article Sergei Fomin pronounces the Russian people a "deicidal [i.e., God-killing] people," who in 1917 had "given themselves up for adoption to Satan, the brew of global cataclysms, as well as his eternal helpers - the Masons, usorious bankers, free thinkers, godless atheists, liberals, communists, and socialists of every kind." Moreover, Fomin argues that Nicholas II was betrayed by everyone - "the nobility, peasants, army, the Guard, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of its hierarchs, priests and parishioners." But I believe this is the very same article as the one you referred to earlier?

Well, if this is a sample of what's coming out of the mouth of "one of Russia's most authoritative contemporary historians", there is really very little hope for this poor country.  This whole thread is really beginning to make me angry because nothing ever seems to change or get any better in Russia.  It's always more of the same crap.  These same quotes could have been written by Alexandra to Anna Vyrubova almost 100 years ago.

This post is just too good to have buried.  It hits so many nails on their heads.

My primary objective in introducing Sergei Fomin is provided in my prevoius quotes re-posted below:    

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.

My reasoning for introducing Sergei Fomin was that he typifies the view as it was held in 1917.

None of us here may agree with his writings or his fundamentalist beliefs and style, but as I have stated earlier his views concerning the monarchy strongly align with those that were held in Imperial Russia. In our progressive thinking democratic societies we see Fomin's views as being extremist or as has been identified by Elizabeth as "kooky" and that he is a "crank", and thus few of us would be able to identify with Fomin. Thankfully RichC has confirmed that Vyrubova and Alexandra thought in the same way as Fomin writes today.

I trust that now you shall understand what I was attempting to do here.

My only concern is to establish whether or not this Sergei Fomin is a reputable historian by universal academic standards.

Agreeably Fomin has hardly been heard of in the West, but it is noteworthy to appreciate that his audience inside Russia is large and they are the ones who listen, not us. The church has gained considerable status and though it - it has created a frightening resurgence to return to many of the old fashion values.

When I posted Fomin's statement concerning betrayal, it pretty much had identified the many levels of Russian Imperial society that were presumed to have betrayed Nikolai II. Nikolai believed that was the case, and guided by his diary entry I fail to comprehend why Fomin's extract is inappropriate. Nothing further was implied by me. Reading that single statement in the absence of any surrounding contentious issues that he has raised are irrelevant to this discussion.

Elizabeth I do hope that you can understand my honest intentions.

I shall again stress that my personal position concerning the merits or flaws of Fomin's writing are not germane to this topic.

Margarita
 

[Belochka]

et me repeat the general's demand:

>>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.<<

It appears to me that Alexeev [Alexeyev]  did not want to hear anything but a "Yea" from the other generals and had, therefore,  closed his mind to any suggestions,  and was set in just one direction which was the abdication of  Nicholas II in favor of his son with GD Michael as his Regent.

AGRBear

I am impressed that you could make any sense of that sentence from Alexeyev at all, given the chaotic nature of its' syntax.

Simon,

Perhaps there may have been a methodical disarragmement in that original sentence, paricularily after it translates into English, but it was my intention to maintain the structure as close as possible to the style in which it was written 90 years ago.

Margarita 

[Tsarfan]

Agreeably Fomin has hardly been heard of in the West, but it is noteworthy to appreciate that his audience inside Russia is large . . . .

From Elisabeth:

"Sergei Fomin pronounces the Russian people a 'deicidal [i.e., God-killing] people,' who in 1917 had 'given themselves up for adoption to Satan, the brew of global cataclysms, as well as his eternal helpers - the Masons, usorious bankers, free thinkers, godless atheists, liberals, communists, and socialists of every kind.'

If this is what "one of Russia's foremost contemporary historians" is convincing Russians about their history, then they might as well gird themselves now for a continuing cycle of repression and violence.  If today's Russians truly buy into the notion that freedom of thought is a manifestation of Satan and that a few Jews (those "usurious bankers" who keep cropping up in these crackpots' quasi-religious rants) are the cause of all their problems, then they will have other Stalins in their future . . . and will deserve no better.

Really, Margarita.  One can divine enough about Nicholas' viewpoint from reading his diaries, his private correspondence, his public pronouncements, and the memoires and diaries of those who lived and worked in proximity to him.  It seems hardly necessary to keep the likes of Fomin on one's bookshelf to illimuninate the matter.

[Tsarfan]

Bear,

While you were channeling Nicholas, did he happen to mention the color of the wallpaper in the room or what he had for lunch that day?

At dinner tonight I was discussing the number of posters who seem personally invested in Nicholas and his family to the point that they lose the dividing line between themselves and these historical figures -- figures who would not have given any of these posters the time of day had they lived in their world.

One of the diners was a psychologist who, after listening to the discussion, piped up with two words:  "merger fantasy".  Look it up, Bear.

[Belochka]

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.

Thanks for the translation, Margarita.  Could you clarify something, though, from the Russian?  When Alexyeev wrote, "this must be placed on the highest priority," was he referring to the last clause of the preceding sentence (the fate of the dynasty) or to the entire preceeding sentence?

Tsarfan,

The way I read "this must be placed on the highest priority" refers to the entire preceding sentence.

The preceding sentence to my mind is partly rhetoric made to inspire its reader.

Margarita