Author Topic: Re: For Serious Claimants, Please  (Read 126549 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2004, 02:09:55 PM »
Rodger,

Sorry- I just dont understand your last post...
Is this about "survivor/claiments" or the respectability of revolutionary governments?

R.

Offline Candice

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #46 on: July 04, 2004, 04:54:37 AM »
The Monarchy has always been  in most countries the only stable form of rule even with the ruthless of rulers. The Monarchy has always been for the people and country. The majority of the Russian people were happy with having a Royal Family. 

With persistance the small minority revolutionary groups were able to confuse and distort truth and manipulate power by sheer chaos and confusion which created a revolution that became the darkrsk period of Russia. Freedom was no more!

The Russian people were led to believe that they could decide the direction of their own fate but the minority revolutionaries only wanted power. The power to control!  Once the undemocratic politician is elected all interest is in the power to rule.

The Whites were always hoping for the Monarchy to be reinstated. There were many that loved The Family and would do anything to help.  :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Candice »

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #47 on: July 04, 2004, 03:42:40 PM »
Candice...

    Your perspective on the virtues of Monarchy are certainly heartfelt.... but I must cordially disagree with you.
    I do not believe that most Russians "deeply loved" their Tsar - and they probably didn't all foster a "deep hatred" either  - I don't think most of them actually really spent a great deal of time thinking about him everyday.  Nicholas was an extreamly private man, rarely going to public events when he could help it. He wasn't constantly in the public eye. In fact this could have contributed to his unpopularity -  a lot of people wanted a spectacle - a  "Star" so to speak- and N & A were not going to give them the show that they desired.  
    About the Whites...
    Actually the "White Movement" during the Civil war was a conglomeration of various groups and many of them were NOT pro monarchy...In fact the only thing that they all had in common was the fact that they didn't recognize the Bolshevic claim to power. This may have been one of the many reasons that they failed.

    I like the sentiment behind your views - but I cannot agree with you.
R
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by rskkiya »

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #48 on: July 04, 2004, 03:54:32 PM »
Quote
The Monarchy has always been  in most countries the only stable form of rule even with the ruthless of rulers. The Monarchy has always been for the people and country. The majority of the Russian people were happy with having a Royal Family. 

With persistance the small minority revolutionary groups were able to confuse and distort truth and manipulate power by sheer chaos and confusion which created a revolution that became the darkrsk period of Russia. Freedom was no more!

The Russian people were led to believe that they could decide the direction of their own fate but the minority revolutionaries only wanted power. The power to control!  Once the undemocratic politician is elected all interest is in the power to rule.

The Whites were always hoping for the Monarchy to be reinstated. There were many that loved The Family and would do anything to help.  :)

///////////
Candice,
What is your background in Russian history?  I don't mean Imperial Russian history, but the history of the Russian people.  
You stated that after the Revolution of 1917 "Freedom was no more."  If you had even an introduction to Russian history you could not have written that, nor believed it.  The Bolsheviks were not by nature "democratic" as western democracies understand it today, but neither were the Romanovs nor the tsarist families who ruled before them.

Where do you find evidence that the average Russian "wanted a royal family."  I don't think it mattered very much to most Russians.  If they could have had either a royal family or a democratic government that would have been fine as long as they had some semblance of human rights (they had absolutely none), and allowed an education and a way to provide a decent living for their families.  Most of their lives were wretched with no hope for a better future.

While I take issue with a great many Soviet policies (particularly under Stalin, of course), the Soviets did, in fact, make it possible for education, medical care, and other benefits of a modern society.  The tsars did not bother much with this, much to their discredit.

As for the Whites, I do not believe their ultimate intent was to restore the monarchy, certainly not in the form it had existed in prior to the revolution.

If you can provide citations that disagree with my views, I would be happy to learn about them.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2004, 11:07:49 AM »
I must agree with Dashkova's last post.
R.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2004, 05:14:50 PM »
Daskova: << Where do you find evidence that the average Russian "wanted a royal family."  I don't think it mattered very much to most Russians.>>

According to the family stories,  the officers of the Tsar's army who fought for the "WHITES" were not in favor of democracy but wanted a government like England with the symbol of the Royal Family.

This was part of the earlier Decembrists Revolution which extented into the Whites.

Unforutantely,  some of the leaders of the Whites caught the "greed" bug and saw themselves rising to power.  

And,  the Royal family did matter to most Russians, no matter their ethnic background.  I would say you've been reading too many books who's authors didn't know the Russian people.  To them,  the Tzar sat on the right  hand side of God, and called  the Tsar "their little father" and his bride was their "little mother".  The church held fast to the importance of the royal family and the majority of the peasants were loyal to the church and to their Tsar.

The Russian Revolution of 1918, the Rusian Civil War and the communist party re-created a great deal of the history of Russia.  And a great deal of their historical accounts show the Tsar was hated and picture him sitting next to the beastly Rasputin.

To those of you who believe the Tsar didn't matter,  you haven't the real picture of Russia or it's people prior to Lenin and Stalin.....

Even though my relatives and ancestors in Russia were not part of the Russian church,  they, too, felt the importance of the Tsar.  Even the poorest farmer was aware of what was happening in St. Petersburg or Moscow or Kiev....  True,  the grapevine may have been slow but there was always someone in the village who held information, understood it and then repeated the latest events.  For example: One of my ancestors was a blacksmith in the center of his village.  He knew the news which he spread to the local people.  Plus there were schools with teachers who were in touch with other teachers.... Preachers who traveled from village to village and sometimes from country to country, also, spread the news.  There were newspapers in various languages.....  So,  I find it difficult to understand why you think the people in the Black Sea area or the Volga or the Crimea or the Caucasus or the Baltic or Siberia didn't know and understand their own personal duty to their God, to their Tsar, country  and family.

AGRBear

Note:  I should have added:  It was this loyality which frighten the CHEKAs in Ekaterinburg and why they claimed to have killed Nicholas II, his family, and every Romanov they could find within their boundaries and, maybe, a few outside their coundaries.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Candice

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2004, 06:20:40 PM »
On one of my posts I mentioned the possibility that two Grand Dutchesses were left at Oran in French North Africa.  I found by reading Michael Occleshaw's book 'The Romanov Conspiracies' that on page 154 he mentions the possibility of a Russian family settling in Morocco at that time.

I find that very interesting. 8)

Offline Ming

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 64
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2004, 06:43:31 PM »
Please forgive me if this has already been addressed...I'm new at this.   My question is about Nicholas' sister, Olga, who emigrated to Canada.  I know she was an artist and lived simply, but I'm wondering if anyone knows anything about her two (I think) sons?

Any info will be appreciated!

Ming

Offline Valmont

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 379
  • I love History  !!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2004, 07:06:39 PM »
Candice,
Why do you find that interesting?. I never read the book, but the way you say it, it could be any russian family settled in Moroco.
Could you quote, please, so I can understand perfectly what you are saying??

Thank you
Arturo
Arturo Vega-Llausás

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2004, 07:45:21 PM »
AGRBear,

Your last post was simply stunning. So, you actually believe that the average Russian had the time and inclination to express their loyalty and "personal duty" to the Tsar?

I think it is you who have read entirely the wrong books. So many here are caught up in the Imperial side of the Russian story.  I promise you they are such a minor part, and compared to the rest, not quite so interesting.

You wrote of "the family stories" and I am assuming you refer to your own.  I have Russian family myself, none of them revolutionaries, far from it, but they tell a very different tale from yours, especially the very old ones.

You are aware, aren't you, that a number of excellent ethnographies were written by Russians, and qualified outsiders, about the Russian people?  
I would recommend to you "Village Life in Late Tsarist Russia" by Olga Semyonova Tian-Shanskaia.  An upper class Russian herself, she lived amongst the people for four years.  She was far ahead of her time and wasn't afraid to report the truth of the matter.

I can recommend a great many more books on the same theme.  You don't need to recommend to me any books with the Imperial viewpoint, I've read most and own many of them. It was how I got started in Russian history. The material I'm working with now, I must say, is far more interesting than the gold, gilt, balls and "blind loyalty" of the Imperialist view.


There existed a type of "loyalty" in the population, but remember that the population was largely illiterate, desperately poor, and afraid of authority.  It was much easier to feign devotion or practice tradition by rote.  In fact, true devotion borne out of knowledge was not an option for these people.  Therefore, how can you say it was earnest loyalty?  

People (and we are talking about the vast majority, the whites nor the reds were a majority in the country) who knew they had no hope for a better life, who regularly worried about how they would feed their kids the next day or watched those same kids die from malnutrition or a medical problem (no money for doctors), please tell me when these people might have had the time to think about how great it was to have a tsar and that they would be loyal forever. That's a load of rubbish.

I am fortunate to be fairly well acquainted with both sides of this issue, and have respect for the Imperial past as well as the Russian people (note that I make quite a distinction between the two and believe the latter to be far superior human beings), but the fact of the matter is, if you were to have approached the average Russian (read: peasant) in Imperial times and caught him or her in an honest moment, and asked about their "loyalty" to the tsar, they would have thought you to be rather funny.

It was a little different with regard to the rich peasants (Kulaks) and with the growing middle class, to be sure. How interesting, as they had enough ease in their lives to play at Tsarist devotion.  They were, unfortunately, not the majority of the Russian people.

As to the last part of your post, regarding the Ural soviet and the killing of the tsar, please elaborate.  This part is not very clear to me.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Dashkova »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #55 on: July 07, 2004, 01:55:54 PM »
Dashkov wrote:  >> As to the last part of your post, regarding the Ural soviet and the killing of the tsar, please elaborate.  This part is not very clear to me.<<

I assume you were referring to my following quote:

Quote

Note:  I should have added:  It was this loyality which frighten the CHEKAs in Ekaterinburg and why they claimed to have killed Nicholas II, his family, and every Romanov they could find within their boundaries and, maybe, a few outside their coundaries.


If the CHEKA or the Soviets or the Reds didn't fear Nicholas II return to power, or replacing him with Michael or another Romanov then there was no need to order their executions.

What reason do you believe was behind the orders of executions of Nicholas II and the others?

Even the tearing down of the Impatiev House proved the undying devotion of some of the Russians continued to be a thorn in the side of the old communists.

AGRBear

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Candice

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #56 on: July 07, 2004, 04:13:11 PM »
Arturo,

This Romanov mystery is a puzzle.  There are so many pieces. One cannot assume that all pieces are correct of course. I'm trying to fit  pieces into my puzzle by a process of elimination.  Some pieces seem credible so I will consider them.  

'The Romanov Conspiracies' mentioned a woman claiming to be a GD having escaped and living under an assumed identity in the UK.  Was supposed to have arrived in England from Morocco.  Her name Larissa Haouk/Feodorovna.

What I'm trying to say, is, that so far North Africa and Southern Europe is a possibility for the children to have escaped to. They would not have had any problems with languages spoken in those areas as they could speak French and Italian.

The article that appeared in The Mail newspaper which mentioned French North Africa, is one. Two, the book written by Michael Occleshaw 'The Romanov Conspiracies' and three, a book that I came across recently that was printed 1930s 'The Paradise of Fools' by Michael Mason printed 1936 on page 72 mentions Anastasia in Libya.

As you know my believe is that at least two of the children survived.

Candice



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Candice »

Offline Candice

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #57 on: July 07, 2004, 04:55:33 PM »
Village life in Russia in the late 1900, I would imagine was the same as in most places anywhere in Europe under any rule.  People either had money and were able to afford anything.  However, if they were poor a person wasn't considered as human.

Religion played a dominant factor that ruled people's lifes and frightened anyone regardless of class.  The church was the rod.  

I would'nt put any blame on the Monarchy or the people's ignorance, in my opinion it was purely the sign of the times where society had not yet evovled.  I think if Alexander III not died when he did change would have continued for the better.

In todays society the  Russian people aren't afraid to speak out, they expect change and demand equal rights. Something that is still questionable. They still have a long way to go.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Candice »

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #58 on: July 07, 2004, 05:50:01 PM »
It's unfortunate to always disagree with you, Candice, about this matter, anyway. However, once again I must point out certain facts of Russian history.


"Village life" the same all over Europe in the late 19th century??? You must be joking! Hurry and read some real Russian history (the kind without costume balls, k?) because in this one comment you blatantly reveal your lack of knowledge regarding Russian history.

When the "Tsar Liberator" "freed" the serfs (slaves) in 1860, he may have had good intentions, but he didn't properly follow up on what precisely "freedom" meant to the newly "freed."  

Listen.  These people (most of the population) had less than nothing. Freedom did not change this, in fact, it made life much worse.  Aside from the obvious (think about what life was like for newly freed African-American slaves), Russian peasants were given only the poorest quality land and had to pay the landlords for it (the payment plan was 50 years).  Again, these people had NOTHING. No money, no education, and the poor land they were given was invariably landlocked and guess what?  They had to pay a fee to transverse the landlord's property to reach water necessary for crops, trade, transport, indeed, even for life.

Sound like a good deal to you?  Yes it was the fault of the Tsar, if the  buck didn't stop with him, where else?  Nothing was done about the plight of the peasants because the Tsar was too busy placating the noble landowners. It was not a pleasant position to be in, but it was not impossible. He (Alex II and his successors) didn't take the time to deal with the problems brought on by "freeing" the serfs.

You see what it got them.  I don't know of any late 19th century, early 20th century European countries whose leaders were assasinated/murdered over such blatant abuse of the people.  Except, of course, Russia!

If you bother to read books about Russian history from this period (from 1860-1920) (nothing with pastel tinted photos, mind you), you will quickly realize that Russia was SO far behind the times that to compare it to Western Europe of that age -- in ANY capacity -- is not only preposterous, but also demonstrates an inexcusable type of ignorance.

Also, regarding the Occleshaw book, this book, to the best of my knowledge, has never, ever been taken seriously except by the most outlandish conspiracy theorists.

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: For Serious Claimants, Please
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2004, 05:55:42 PM »

Religion played a dominant factor that ruled people's lifes and frightened anyone regardless of class.  The church was the rod.  

###
Oops, almost forgot!  Yes, religion. Sorry, but while there were many religious people in Western Europe during the period in question, the sort of oppressive rule of church was a Medieval thing.  Don't you remember, Russia missed the Renaissance? (largely due to the Mongol invasion). Even unto Nicholas II rule, the people were still languishing in "Medieval Times".
###

In todays society the  Russian people aren't afraid to speak out, they expect change and demand equal rights. Something that is still questionable. They still have a long way to go.
[/quote]

###
To go to where?  Russian culture is an extremely complex issue, and this is already on the wrong thread.  If you'd like to spar over this particular issue, start a new one.