Author Topic: Abdication and Alexandra  (Read 27205 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline RichC

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
    • View Profile
Re: Abdication and Alexandra
« Reply #75 on: June 05, 2006, 01:08:59 AM »
We'll have to agree to disagree, Ilyala. I don't think the Bolsheviks cared one iota about public opinion. Lenin always believed in terror as a political tool and espoused it as such even in his earliest political writings, long before the October Revolution. So, I repeat for the nth time, even if Nicholas II had been a much-loved monarch it would not have saved him from the revolutionary vengeance of the Bolsheviks or for that matter the SRs, which was indeed the party with the most popular support amongst the Russian masses in 1918 (and a party which needless to say also believed in terror).

I have to agree with Elisabeth, here.  The Bolsheviks were vicious killers who eliminated anyone whom they suspected might stand in their way.  They did not concern themselves with public opinion in their decision making.  If there was concern about public opinion, they made sure that whatever happened was reported in such a way as to eliminate a negative public reaction.  In other words they lied.  I'm sure this is why no mention was made of the Tsar's family being killed with him.

Which only goes to show the tremendous difference between the Russian and Chinese imperial traditions - the Russian one was hated and destined for outright destruction, down to its last physical remnants, whereas the Chinese one, so many thousands upon thousands of years older, was so deeply ingrained in the Chinese psyche that even the most radical elements of the revolutionary movement could not bring themselves to lift a hand against the person of the former emperor.

The only thing I wish to add here is that although the Tsar's family was wiped out, as well hundreds-of-thousands of other people associated with the ancien regime; the buildings, the churches, and many of the historical and cultural institutions created and supported by the Tsarist government were left intact and for the most part protected.

Despite the revolution, numerous reminders of Russia's imperial past were ever-present for many Russians who lived through the communist era.



  • Guest
Re: Abdication and Alexandra
« Reply #76 on: June 06, 2006, 03:05:26 AM »
we'll agree to disagree. it is my personal opinion that no nation can be ruled in terror for long against its will. if you wish, look at the russian regime today. it's not far off from comunism, although it tries to maintain the illusion of capitalism. the moldavians elected the communist party out of their own free will to rule them. the communist regime was maintained in russia through terrorizing the ones who opposed them, true, but had they been that many, it wouldn't have worked. it worked for so long and it's still kind of working because the majority of the population were agreeing with it.

i read on this site, a biography of alexandra written by a baroness who lived with her almost till the end. a very favorable biography, mind you, and it still confirmed my opinion of her. in it, the baroness talked about the fact that the soldiers, after the revolution were starting to discuss their 'rights' (this is exactly how she put it: 'rights'...). the baroness couldn't understand how they could even think such things and not devote their lives to serving the mighty emperor of russia.  this was the general attitude at the beginning. the people finally felt free to discuss their rights, and they had the right to do so after years of oppression. nicholas and alexandra with their 'i'll do what i feel is right and the whole people must agree with me cause i'm the emperor and autocrat of russia and i don't need to explain myself to anyone' added to the whole seclusion in which they lived, added to the fact that they simply could not conceive rebellion, they didn't understand it, they didn't think anyone would want a free life and they thought of the ones who did and were lured by the (sometimes) charming ideas of communism as traitors. when in fact people thought of how it was before, they thought of what the communists were prommising and it sounded much better (communism sounds good in theory). nicholas and alexandra were the opressors then, they were the symbols of years of censorship, they made a strong contrast with the general people of russia who lived in poverty because of war and bad politics. they were the symbols of a depraved man who ruled the country because he got the tsarina dependent of him (or at least that was the general opinion). yes, the baroness mentioned the fact that once they talked to the tsarina, the soldiers got a better opinion, but how many, except the ones that guarded them got to do that? the general opinion was bad or, at best, indifferent. i don't think the russians felt too affected by the death of the imperial family at the time.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: Abdication and Alexandra
« Reply #77 on: September 11, 2006, 12:26:55 PM »
I agree with everything Tania has said on this thread. Also, I think some others made good points. Alexandra is frequently blamed in popular history for the revolution, both because of Rasputin, and because she influenced Nicholas and that she had nothing to do with Russian society when she should have. It is true she should have presented herself to the court more, and gained people's support by that. But she was shy, and didn't see a particular reason to overcome that as we might. Nicholas undoubtedly was unfluenced by his wife; but I think much of the time they simply held views in common. I am not sure she was aware of the full damage Rasputin was doing to the reputation of the dynasty; not that she would listen to anyone saying, nor did she always have the chance to.She was dependent on him, and should have been more aware. But I think it's easier to blame her rather than think a bit deeper.

As for Nicholas, he did sometimes let his wife influence him. And he did sometimes feel torn, and then make desicions that might better not have been made. He was willing to go farther with a more liberal goverment than Alexandra; perhaps because he was pressured, or perhaps because he was better informed. Russia did need some reforms, and some were made and others never got beyond the planning stage. But reform woudn't have fixed everything, as one person said, and they also said that's what we assume, now. And I sort of used to think that, but after being on the forum, and reading what people have to say, I realize it's not all that black and white. I think Nicholas sometimes felt torn between tradition, and the pressure on him to reform- Alexandra never did. I also agree that it would have just caused people to dislike her even more if she had stayed loyal to English ideas of goverment, and then imposed them on Russia. This is a great thread, with great discussion.