Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[AGRBear]

Zvezda:  You also forget that Peter III had a German pedegree: 

1728-1762 EMPEROR OF ALL RUSSIA 1761-1762. Son of Karl Friedrich, Duke of Holstein-Gotorb, and Anna Petrovna, Peter the Great's daughter.

And his wife Sophie (Catherine the Great) was also German.  There is no proof that Catherine's son Paul was even the child of Peter III, so that lack of Russian blood goes a long way back.

But as Belochka pointed out - Nicholas II was born in Russia and was the grandson of a ruling tsar at the time of his birth.  No matter what blood ran in his veins, he was Russian.  Just as no matter what blood runs in my veins, I am American.

I still believe that the Imperial Family betrayed Nicholas.  From the first days of his reign, they coveted the power for themselves and looked for ways to influence him and shape him to their liking.  Perhaps had he had better support from his uncles and mother, he would not have been so suspicious and unbending in his later years.

Most historians do not believe that Paul I was the son Peter III, however, if he was,  as Alixz posted,  you'd have to dig into his lineage.  I believe I read a number somehwhere that Nicholas II would have had something like 1/96 of any kind of Slavic blood running in his veins.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Although both Nicholas II and Alexandra bloodlines were German,  one doesn't find the political cartoons making Nicholas II look German, it was Alexandra,  who was twisted into a German, and,  was labeled all to often as a "German Spy".

Does anyone have a copy of any of these old posters?

AGRBear

[Eurohistory]

I think that there is plenty of blame to go around...however et us not whitewash the ineptitude of the Tsar, who ultimately was responsible for the dynasty's fortunes and the well-being of the monarchy in Russia.

Arturo

[LisaDavidson]

And once again, a reminder to stay on topic.

Nicholas' ethnicity = off topic, do not discuss on this thread
Nicholas' intelligence, ability as a ruler = off topic, see above
Imperial Family betrayed Nicholas = on topic
Criminal Capitalism betrayed Nicholas = on topic

Is this clear? Nicholas II has his own section on this Forum. There are plenty of places to discuss him. This thread is for everyone from monarchists to rabid Communists to discuss who betrayed Nicholas. And, nothing else.

[Michael HR]

In my view the one person above all else was the Tsarina herself with the meddling in affairs of state where clearly she was not competent to do so. This being because of Rasputin (to a large extent) competent ministers were removed and persons of low ability replaced them reducing the empire to ashes in the end. While I am sure she thought she was doing the right thing from her point of view she helped lead Russisa to ruins and the destruction of her family and the dynasty. By her actions she had betrayed Nicholas and his ability to reign with competence of the state. The Tsarina was a person who should never have been allowed near power as we all know with hindsight.

I would like to add to this the GD who marched on the Duma in support and removed the guards form the Alexander Palace thus leaving the Imperial Family to it's fate. By his actions he betrayed his oath and the Tsar and therefore his country as it was at that time. No doubt he wanted the throne for himself as was shown then and by later actions in exile by him and his line. By his actions I feel he was guilty of treason and by this act alone removed himself from the line of succession to the Imperial Throne. I would not have trusted him as Tsar under any circumstances.

This is one of those cushions that cannot be answered as there are so many candidates you can throw into the discussion.

Michael HR

[Tania+]

It's one thing to point to real substance, it's another to keep posting propoganda. One would think with one particular poster that its important we embrace not only the issues of the communists, but as they enlarge on statistics it's important we keep that in our memories. Yup thats exactly the way of how communism was taught. I don't mind reading what other posters have to say, but to have this communist cabbage thrust down my gullet, is impossible. Most of the times the informations put forthe is not right and the tone at times quite harsh and most times, most slanted. Thank God Communism is no more! Just my two cents...

Tatiana+

[Michael HR]

Hello,

I am not sure that I have or would believe anything the Communists ever said about the Romonov dynasty myself. This is such an intelligent question that was asked about Nicholas II but the drawback in answering everyone will offend someone else and their point of view. Also it is such a complex issue and the bottom line is almost everyone in some way failed the Tsar at some time in Nicholas reign. I think most people here are well educated on the subject, better than most of the general public from what I can see, and understand the dynamics between the various persons and the Tsar at the time. Everyone from the Tsar down made mistakes it is just the cost of those mistakes that is so awful for them, Russia and us.

Michael HR

[strom]

 'Treason, cowardice and deceit --all around!' 

I have looked at the strange itinerary of the last Emperor on his last journey as sovereign. 

Of course, the old plan was to hijack the Imperial Person on the way.  Somewere I heard that a likely spot to squirrel Him away would be the extensive Rodzianko estates near Novgorod just North of Dno (DNO).  Rodzianko certainly planned to force a 'ministry of confidence' sometime on March 1 either holding up the emperor at Bolognoe  or at Dno and it would appear that the beginning of the interruption of the Imperial passage was at Bolognoe, at around 12:00 A.M. on March 1 (O.S.) even if the Person's Train was not stopped until about 2:30 A.M.  The meeting at Bolognoe did not materialize possibly for a number of reasons, but Dno might have been a better spot for Rodzianko anyway --it was just south of Novgorod.  However, by the time the Emperor got to Dno Rodzianko had some serious problems at the Tauride Palace.  In any event, one must not forget that the Rail was compromised already by about 4:00 P.M. on 2.28. 

What interests me just now though is the strange triangulation of the Emperor's terrible day of March 1 that began at Bolognoe and ended at 7:30 when he pulled into Pskov with the depressing interlude at the 'abyssmal' DNO around 4:30. 

Petrograd, Pskov and Bolognoe form a perfect equilateral triangle defined by the Imperial rail!  It was a trap, a web, directed from the 'hub' of Petrograd at the 'summit'.  I wonder if some occult machination might have been applied?   

One wonders if the Emperor took the mortal web imposed by his enemies as a moral ruin --he certainly knew the map.                       

[strom]

Oh, one more thing.

Anna Anderson Manahan said on the tenth aniversary of the revolution that Grand Duke Kirril was the 'first to betray the emperor'.  I suspect he was the 'premiere' --the highest personage, but he may have also been among the first to organize the ruin of the soverreign.  I suspect Kirril was up to his neck in the machination to replace the sovereign already days before 2.23 and was likely a close associate of Rodzianko on the morning of Mon. 2.27 as the revolt became a general mutiny in the capital.

Does anyone know when Kirril arrived back in the capital from his 'exile' at Port Romanov (Murmansk) in Jan. 1917?       

[Elisabeth]

Of course practically everyone betrayed Nicholas II in the end, because they clearly felt that he had already betrayed them, by being such an incompetent ruler. I realize this is not considered "on topic," but the fact of the matter is (and almost every historian of imperial Russia will tell you so) that by the winter of 1916-1917 the Romanov dynasty and Nicholas in particular had managed to alienate virtually every single section of society (including, fatefully, the army!) with the sole exception of career courtiers and most likely, the older generation of peasants. Whether or not this was a fair judgment of Nicholas on the part of his so-called subjects is the topic of another thread. But this judgment nevertheless existed. It would be foolish to deny it.

[Constantinople]

I would like to add the British who armed and trained the Japanese and created the first serious erosion of the Russian Army and the allies who were prepared to use Russian troops to keep the Germans away from the Western front and refused to arm  the Russian military unless they paid cash. and finally the Americans  and allies who could have prevented the Bolsheviks from consolidating their hold on power by supporting the White army in 1919 and 1920.  The success of the Czech army shows that the Red army was very vulnerable and could have been defeated by a major allied incursion.  Finally the British who did not demand the exiling of the Imperial Fanily in 1918.

[AGRBear]

Oh, one more thing.

Anna Anderson Manahan said on the tenth aniversary of the revolution that Grand Duke Kirril was the 'first to betray the emperor'.  I suspect he was the 'premiere' --the highest personage, but he may have also been among the first to organize the ruin of the soverreign.  I suspect Kirril was up to his neck in the machination to replace the sovereign already days before 2.23 and was likely a close associate of Rodzianko on the morning of Mon. 2.27 as the revolt became a general mutiny in the capital.

Does anyone know when Kirril arrived back in the capital from his 'exile' at Port Romanov (Murmansk) in Jan. 1917?      

There were a number of Romanovs, including Nicholas II's mother,  who beat GD Kyril's betrayal after Nicholas II's abdication.  

Source: It's been sometime since I read my source and at the moment don't recall where I read it.  I believe it's been mentioned on this thread some time ago.  I'll post it when I remember.

Anyway,  Nicholas II's mother wanted to kidnap Alexlandra and send her off to some distant place  because they didn't like her "interference"  and felt once she was gone they could talk sense into Nicholas II who had just replaced his uncle as Commander-and-Chief.

AGRBear

[Constantinople]

Well in the end I think if you are an autocrat, its hard to blame anyone for what happened.  My personal view is that it was ultimately Nicholas' belief in his right to be an autocrat that caused most of the problems that ended so tragically for him and his family.

[AGRBear]

I would like to add the British who armed and trained the Japanese and created the first serious erosion of the Russian Army and the allies who were prepared to use Russian troops to keep the Germans away from the Western front and refused to arm  the Russian military unless they paid cash. and finally the Americans  and allies who could have prevented the Bolsheviks from consolidating their hold on power by supporting the White army in 1919 and 1920.  The success of the Czech army shows that the Red army was very vulnerable and could have been defeated by a major allied incursion.  Finally the British who did not demand the exiling of the Imperial Fanily in 1918.

There was a huge presents of the British in Baku because they were interested in the oil which they knew they would need more and more as gagets,  ships, airplanes needed that black sticky stuff.  So, yes, they were stirring the pot and making all kinds of deals with Japan before the Great War

By July of 1918,  the British and the Americans didn't have the energy to fight the Bolsheviks.  Had they known what we know today,  maybe,  they would have prevented the rise of communism.  But they didn't and they didn't.   Although, with that said,   there were American and British troops landing in Russia in the north and some were joining the Whites in the south.  There is a section in the Russian Revolution devoted to the Americans in Russia at that time.

There were secret negotiation occurring between a lot of people but nothing was going to stop the murder of the Russian Royal Family as far as the leaders of Russia were concern.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Hello,

I am not sure that I have or would believe anything the Communists ever said about the Romonov dynasty myself. This is such an intelligent question that was asked about Nicholas II but the drawback in answering everyone will offend someone else and their point of view. Also it is such a complex issue and the bottom line is almost everyone in some way failed the Tsar at some time in Nicholas reign. I think most people here are well educated on the subject, better than most of the general public from what I can see, and understand the dynamics between the various persons and the Tsar at the time. Everyone from the Tsar down made mistakes it is just the cost of those mistakes that is so awful for them, Russia and us.

Michael HR

This  thread was meant to provide the viewers an insight into the imperial world and show the dynamics between Emperor, his Empress,  brother, uncles, aunts, cousins, generals right on down the social and political ladder to the peasants....  

Here is a slightly different angle.

 Emund Burke wrote in REFLECTING ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE:  "Kings will be tyrants from policy, when subjects are rebels from principle."  

What was the first policy of Nicholas II's which caused his subject to rebel with principles on their side and who was the leader of this group?

AGRBear