Did President Wilson help murder Nicholas II?

[griffh]

Bev, I'll try not to move anymore goal posts. 

Eddieboy_uk I agree with you.  There was something timeless about Queen Mary.  In spite of the fact that George V made her wear Victorian high collars all the way to the 1930's or that 1911 touque that he made her wear, with variations, all the way to 1950, Queen Mary never looked outmoded.  She turned her husband's moral conservatism into her own signature and always looked majestic.  Queen Mary had great mental stature which translated itself into her regal appearance.

But anyway I have got to finish my chronology...speaking of which I just read the American Ambassador to England, Walter Hines Page's Wartime memoires and hope to add some of his perspective on Wilson in the chronology.   

[Eddie_uk]

Yes Griffh I completely agree!!

[grandduchessella]

Eddieboy_uk I agree with you.  There was something timeless about Queen Mary.  In spite of the fact that George V made her wear Victorian high collars all the way to the 1930's or that 1911 touque that he made her wear, with variations, all the way to 1950, Queen Mary never looked outmoded.  She turned her husband's moral conservatism into her own signature and always looked majestic.  Queen Mary had great mental stature which translated itself into her regal appearance.

Like Eddieboy, not to get off topic but... I wouldn't say GV 'made' QM do anything. He didn't like modern fashions and made his opinion known but I think it was her own choice. She certainly didn't wear high collars into the 1930s--there are tons of photos of her in relatively low cuts (for the time) even during QV's time. The thing that didn't seem to change was the hemline but she did reveal ankle (shocking, I know!  ) and was occasionally seen in shorter hems (though not short) during GV's lifetime. She lived almost 20 years after her husband and didn't seem inclined to change even a little from her earlier fashions. I think she was comfortable in them herself.

Also, regarding GV seeming 'perplexed' by the new era--I strongly disagree. He may not have agreed with it all but he adapted extremely well through the immense upheavals of the time--including the first Labour and Socialist governments and leaders in Britain. Even anti-monarchists conceded this in various memoirs and allowed that it was this stewardship which helped ease the transition. He even established friendships with many of them and QM was friends with the noted Socialist Mary McCarthy. But all this is for another thread. 

Okay, back to topic.  In light of what all is being covered, it says something for GV's instincts that he didn't care for Wilson much at all. 

[griffh]

Hi Granduchessella.  So that you can see more clearly what hat style I am referring to, here is a photo of Queen Mary and the Queen Mother, Alexandra in 1916 both wearing a turban toques that were still in style after their first introduction to the world of fashion in 1911.  Smaller toques had been in vogue since the late 1880’s and were favored well into the early 1900’s by the Young Empress, but the turban toque came became la mode in 1911.  I have a photo of Queen Mary in a toque in 1911 but I can’t find it.


I am sorry for the confusion, Granduchessella, as it was the Queen's 1930 day dresses, afternoon gowns, and visiting gowns that I was referring to when I spoke of her use of high collars in the 1930's, not her décolleté reception gowns, dinner gowns, evening gowns, opera gowns or her ball gowns. 

Here is a charming photo of stately Queen Mary with that darling Princess Elizabeth in the 1930’s.  The Queen is wearing a variation on signature 1911 turban toque and sporting a high collar.  I am sorry the picture is so blurry so that it is hard to see the high collar, but you can clearly see that her diamond and pearl pennant was suspended from her high collar and you can make out its outline just under her chin.  I have a much clearer photo of the Queen at her writing desk in 1932 wearing a high collar that is unmistakable.  I will do my best to find that other photo.


While I agree with you about Queen Mary’s own conservative sense of fashion, and I applaud George V and Queen Mary’s progressive minds, I think Pope Hennessey bears me out in regard to my remarks about George V sartorial restrictions; especially noticeable after his mother’s death.  It was George V withdrawal for society in general in the 1920’s which was incomprehensible to his own children and which along with his sartorial restrictions caused, among other issues, such terrible friction with his son David.

Thanks for your helpful perspective Granduchessella about George and Mary.  I have alwasys repected the couple so much...  Is it back to the topic at hand, or does this side-bar need to be explored a bit more?               

[AGRBear]

griff wrote:

....[in part]... 
Oh AGRBear, just a quick note to say how nice it is to hear from you.  Please share some of your great American history insights.  Hey do you think if Witte had lived, knowing his strong support of Michael, that Witte would have been had the power to establish Michael, and overcome the fear that seemed to grip Rodzianko and the others?  Well anyway  Nighty night....

Because Nicholas II had not given anyone warning or had not even given  a hint that he was about to or going to abdicate,  Michael had not made any kind of prepartations for the transfer of power.

Due to Michael's exile due to his marriage,  he had not only been out of the country for a time but he had been out of the political loop which gave him even a greater disadvantage.

Without Michael's preparation, whcih would have involved gathering of supporters,  making promises to undesided people and all the rest of the poltiical juggling needed, AND, the need of   troops,  around him which would protect him in the transitition,  I doubt if Witte had been alive, that it would have made a difference just in this event,  the transfer of power from Nicholas II to Michael.

It's been awhile since I've read MICHAEL AND NATASHA by Crawford and  A FATAL PASSION by M. J. Sullivan,  so I don't rcall the exact details of those particular days after abdication and Michael's arrest.

If I recall correctly, it was not Nicholas II who informed Michael that he was Emp. and Tsar.  So there was a laspe of time, which was important, to this transfer of power, that was lost.  Those first important hours were not only important to Michael's reign,  those hours allowed all his enemies,  who knew, and, had been part of causing the abdication,  time needed for continued treachery.

Perhaps,  this should be discussed on it's own thread, if it's not already in exsistence.

Discussion about Witte and his influences, if he had been alive, I believed he died in 1915,  would be a good "what if" thread.  That, too, may have already been discussed.  If it has maybe someone can direct us to the thread which must be old and we may not be able to pull it up due to the changes of the URLs and the new.

Back to Wilson.

Remember, and I think Elisabeth has already mentioned this fact,  that Wilson and our Alliies  needed Russia to stay in the war as long as they could.  Even if it meant to recognize the Revolutionaries under Kerensky or the Counter- Revolutionists under Lenin.  In this policitcal tight-rope-walking,  every hour longer Russian troops remained on the Western Front helped the Allies....

AGRBear

[griffh]

Back to Wilson.

Remember, and I think Elisabeth has already mentioned this fact,  that Wilson and our Alliies  needed Russia to stay in the war as long as they could.  Even if it meant to recognize the Revolutionaries under Kerensky or the Counter- Revolutionists under Lenin.  In this policitcal tight-rope-walking,  every hour longer Russian troops remained on the Western Front helped the Allies....

AGRBear you are spot on, and that is exactly the arguement that both Gen. Judson and Mr. Robbins used to vindicate themselves of any charges of duplicity when they were brought before the Senate sub-committees.  As for Gumberg, he is a different story.  However I do believe that both men's intent, with the exception of Gumberg, was patriotic.  Hey just to say it will take a couple of days to double check my chronology and I have decided that my first post should  cover the really complex days of November-December 1918. 

Just a quick note to say that I cannot go forward without expressing my gratitude for the hardy-good-fellow tone this exchange of varying views has taken on.  It reminds me of the descriptions my Granny told me of the heated debates in the English Parliament, and how the both sides went to dinner afterwards and enjoyed each other's company in spite of their differences.  I am not sure that cordial exchange extended to the labor party, but you get my drift and in the name of that same free spirit of the spontaneous exchange of ideas, I did want to take a moment and apolgize for my former rudeness or abruptness to those individuals who presented opposing views. 

At the risk of sounding patronizing, I want to say how unpardonably rude I was to Bev at one point and equally abrupt with ARGBear, both of whom know ten times more than I could ever hope to know.  My uncivil behavior only speaks to my own uncertainty and weakness.  Well onward and upward.  See you in a couple of days.......toodle pip....griff

[griffh]

Oh AGRBear, in the fervor of my self immolation, I neglected to respond to your very helpful historic perspective on Michael.  That helped me to re-think my judgment of him.  Now that I think about it appears that he was overwhelmed and unprepared by the sudden decision of his brother.  What a great point.  I met a gentleman in NYC who just adored Michael and felt that he was the true liberator of the Russian Revolution by his courage to step down until he was elected by the people.  I can still see that man’s town house and the wonderful photographs of Michael in silver frames that were sprinkled about his drawing room.  I must admit that at the time I was not so much attached to the man’s argument, but I could not help being moved by the sincerity that played across his youthful face.  I could not help but feel sympathy for his views, however much my young heart bristled under the surface with hostility to what I consider Michaels lack of moral courage.  However, all these years later, you have tamed my judgment of the man.  Poor Michael; it all began and ended with him. 

Here is my favorite picture of Michael and Nathalie taken in exile in 1910 when it was still illegal for him to be photographed with a commoner, even if it was his wife...Am I wrong or is Nathalie looking at the camera with the bold defiance of an “Alexandra want-to-be.” 

[Bev]

it is absolutely, positively not true that Wilson wanted to maintain the Eastern Front.  He was against it, Newton Baker, Wilson's secretary of war was against it, and the U.S. Chief of Staff Peyton March was against diverting resources to the Eastern front and Pershing was against it.  "All responsible military opinion knows that the war will be won or lost on the Western Front," March commented, "no one believes that the Allies will ever be able to reconstitute Russia into a military machine."  I agree that the allies wanted to continue the war on the Eastern front, but the Americans would not join them until and unless, as in the words of Baker, "there were other considerations."  If you remember, America was never a member of the "allied powers".  The U.S. declared war independently of the allied powers, first because of the Jeffersonian policy of maintaining "friendly but distant relations with foreign countries, and secondly Wilson knew that the U.S. army would not fight under the command of foreign officers.  Pershing himself told Wilson that he thought that the army officer corps would not follow orders from the foreign officer corps.  The American policy was to bring overwhelming force and resources to bear - that's why the German government was so desperate to negotiate a separate peace with the U.S. and why the Spring offensive was so important - the Germans knew that once the U.S. forces were deployed, the war was over for them.  We weren't fully deployed until September (and that's being optimistic) and the war was over by November.  The American military strategy was absolutely correct.  

When Wilson finally consented to send troops to Russia, it was for "other considerations" - ostensibly to free the Czech legion, but in reality for two other reasons - the first to shut up the allies who were frantic, secondly to protect American property in the millions of dollars held in Russian ports and thirdly to fight the bolsheviki.  Wilson knew that the American public would not in any way support Amreican intervention in the domestic affairs of Russia.  American public opinion was against the Tsar and for revolution.  

[David_Pritchard]

Your post does not seem to be too off topic. It beats arguing with someone who confuses the quality of one's words with the sheer volume of one's words. At this point it would seem quite a noble and humane gesture to start discussing Grand Duchess Tatiana's first facial blemish.

David

The photo above shows the Wilson's in the company of George V, Queen Mary and their daughter in Dec. 1918, shortly before the Wilson's depart to the Paris Peace Conference.  The King already preplexed by the "Brave New World" he had so reluctantly become a part of would not allow Queen Mary to wear the new short skirts sported by Mrs. Wilson and his own daughter, Princess Mary. 
 

Not to get off topic but, with a shorter skirt or not, Queen Mary still manages to look the best dressed there!! In my opinion

[griffh]

Bev, while it is rather dangerous to speak to another's intention, I believe that the point ARGBear was making was America's desire for both the Provisional Government and the Bolshevik government to actively pursue the War was because of their fear that a separate peace with Germany would allow Germany to deploy 40,000 troops on it's Eastern front to the Western front, which, unhappily is exactly what happened after the Bresk Livosk treaty. 

The other consideration pushing America and the Allies, especially France with it's heavy financial backing of Russia, was the possible loss to the Germans of the 600,000 tons of mutions and supplies in Vladivodstak if a separate peace was concluded.  It is during this terribly confusing period that America diplomacy was turned up side down by Robbins and Judson through the complicity of Gumberg, which made it appear to the world just before and during the treaty negociations to favor a separate peace.  That is, in part, why I am beginning my chronology in Nov. 1918. 

That last concern about the German taking the 600, 000 tons of supplies, however, was never really a threat, as the total breakdown of Russian railways in late 1916 prevented it. 

Well I hope I have not misrepresented AGRBears points.   Can you believe it, here I am again after signing off for two days...... 

 

[David_Pritchard]

Bear your post made me do some research to determine if Mikhail Aleksandrovich was indeed the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat if for only a moment of time. This question is not an easy one to answer as one must first resolve the issues of the Emperor's and the Tsarevich Grand Duke's abdication.

According to the Fundamental Law of 1906, Second Chapter, Article 38: That a renunciation when promulgated according to the law is irrevocable. The original text is below:

38. Отречение таковое, когда оно будет обнародовано и обращено в закон, признается потом уже невозвратным. 1825 Дек. 12 (1); 1906 Апр. 23, собр. узак., 603, ст. 24.

Therefore the abdication of the Throne of Nikolai II was legal. The next question is if the so-called abdication of the Tsarevich Grand Duke Aleksei was legal. According to the Fundamental Law of 1906, Second Chapter, Article 28: Therefore, the inheritance of the Throne belongs before all to the senior son of the reigning EMPEROR, and after him, to all of the males of the same generation.  The original text is below:

28. Посему, наследие Престола принадлежит прежде всех старшему сыну царствующего ИМПЕРАТОРА, а по нем всему его мужескому поколению. Там же.

So according to Article 28, the Tsarevich Grand Duke Aleksei automatically became the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat upon the abdication of the Throne. Emperor Nikolai II signed his manifesto of abdication in the favour of his son Aleksei Nikolaievich at 3:05 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS). Let us remember that a renunciation when promulgated according to the law is irrevocable. According to the Fundamental Law, Nikolai II ceased to be the Emperor at 3:05 PM. The de jure emperor was now Aleksei II according to Article 28 though he was still required to take the Oath and to be anointed before he would full fill the requirements of the Fundamental Law. At 11:00 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS) the Provisional Government pressured the former Emperor Nikolai II into signing a new manifesto of abdication in favour of his younger brother Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich. This document was countersigned by Count Fredricks the Minister of the Imperial Court and dated 3:05 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS), despite the fact that the emperor had already abdicated eight hours and ten minutes earlier. This document, besides being fraudulent, was in direct contradiction of the Fundamental Law, Chapter 2, Articles 28 and 38.

According to the law Aleksei II was now the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat and Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich was now (once again) the Tsarevich Grand Duke. The most that I can write in favour of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich is that he was the de facto Russian Emperor for less than 20 hours.


David Pritchard

[Belochka]

The most that I can write in favour of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich is that he was the de facto Russian Emperor for less than 20 hours.


David Pritchard

On this legal issue it seems that we agree David!

Regards,

Margarita 

[Bev]

I have discussed this before with Bear, and once again, that is not the  case.  The Wilson administration and the U.S. military saw no point in continuiing the war on the Eastern front.  As to the comment about the Germans siezing the supplies, I think you might have misread the post.  The Americans didn't want the supplies going to the Bolsheviki.  That's the only reason the admin. agreed to send troops to Russia.

[AGRBear]

Bear your post made me do some research to determine if Mikhail Aleksandrovich was indeed the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat if for only a moment of time. This question is not an easy one to answer as one must first resolve the issues of the Emperor's and the Tsarevich Grand Duke's abdication.

According to the Fundamental Law of 1906, Second Chapter, Article 38: That a renunciation when promulgated according to the law is irrevocable. The original text is below:

38. [see above the original post]
Therefore the abdication of the Throne of Nikolai II was legal. The next question is if the so-called abdication of the Tsarevich Grand Duke Aleksei was legal. According to the Fundamental Law of 1906, Second Chapter, Article 28: Therefore, the inheritance of the Throne belongs before all to the senior son of the reigning EMPEROR, and after him, to all of the males of the same generation.  The original text is below:

28.  [see above the original post]
So according to Article 28, the Tsarevich Grand Duke Aleksei automatically became the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat upon the abdication of the Throne. Emperor Nikolai II signed his manifesto of abdication in the favour of his son Aleksei Nikolaievich at 3:05 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS). Let us remember that a renunciation when promulgated according to the law is irrevocable. According to the Fundamental Law, Nikolai II ceased to be the Emperor at 3:05 PM. The de jure emperor was now Aleksei II according to Article 28 though he was still required to take the Oath and to be anointed before he would full fill the requirements of the Fundamental Law. At 11:00 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS) the Provisional Government pressured the former Emperor Nikolai II into signing a new manifesto of abdication in favour of his younger brother Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich. This document was countersigned by Count Fredricks the Minister of the Imperial Court and dated 3:05 p.m. 15 March 1917(NS), despite the fact that the emperor had already abdicated eight hours and ten minutes earlier. This document, besides being fraudulent, was in direct contradiction of the Fundamental Law, Chapter 2, Articles 28 and 38.

According to the law Aleksei II was now the Sovereign Lord Emperor and Autocrat and Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich was now (once again) the Tsarevich Grand Duke. The most that I can write in favour of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich is that he was the de facto Russian Emperor for less than 20 hours.

David Pritchard

I agree that the first document signed was the legal document and that once it was signed that the ex-Emperor Nicholas II no longer had the power to change anything. 

At that point in time,  Alexei became Emp. and Tsar

Grand Duke Michael became  Tsarvich Michael and Regent which was agreed upon after Michael was called back to Russia by Nicholas II.   This meant   all power at that point in was in Michael's hands and would continued to be so until Alexei came of age.

[continued below]

[AGRBear]

continued.....

------
BUT there is trouble in River City...
Trouble, Trouble, Trouble
With a capital "T"...

---------

There is a slight problem with the first document.

The document was destroyed....

Because it was destroyed doesn't make it any less legal, this is true.

The person who torched it did so illegally.

So,  how does one undo smoke and ashes?

Most importantly,  how does one prove the first document existed in the first place?

All this would have to be proven in courts.

Better minds than my own have wrestled with this problem.

______

Let's say,  the existence of the first document can't be prove.

This means all we have is the document which exists.
________
Trouble, trouble, trouble continues

________

The only document in exsistence is the one Nicholas II signed and gave the right to be his sucessor was his brother Michael who at that moment became Emp. Michael I/ Tsar Michael II of All the Russias.

Nicholas II's wording as to why he skipped over Alexei was NOT quite right.  Telling  people that his father [Nicholas II] and his mother didn't wish to be parted wasn't the words needed to make this legal....  I believe the words had to stimpulate that Alexei was not capable of becoming Emp./Tsar...  His hemophilia was not reason even if he had stated that Alexei was terminal ill....  I believe it had to pretain to his inability to rule due to mental incapabilities....  No one could have suggested this since it was not the case.

Years later, if Alexei so wished,  he [or someone appointed by the courts] could have made claim that the ex-Empr/Tsar Nicholas II hadn't the right to skip over him as rightful heir to the throne.  Alexei's  lawyers could have haggle over the wording Nicholas II used which were not the words Nicholas II should have used.  These lawyers could have proven that he was quite capable of ruling Russia.  They probably could have proven that Alexei's  illness had not prevented him from reaching legal age and that hemophilia did not affect his mental abilities......  I'm sure I've left out a dozen excellent reasons Alexei's lawyers  could have claimed.

BUT, there wasn't any claim from March 1917 to July 1918.

Alexei was a prisioner of the Bolsheviks who held as their leader a man called Lenin.

Back to March 1917? 

----------------

There is a point where we have to be realistic about this abdication and sucession stuff.

The Duma and the Provisional Govt. accepted the second document [the one which  David and I called the illegal document  as the legal document.

No one at that time questioned it.

No one went to the Russian courts to make any claims for Alexei's legal rights..

So, at that point in time,  right or wrong,  the majority of Russians in all factions believed Nicholas II had turned the power over to Grand Duke Michael.

Right or wrong,   Michael was viewed as Emp. Michael. I/ Tsar Michael II in March 1917.

Speaking of Wilson, our subject,  I don't think he recognized  Michael as anything more than a man who just kinda faded away....

So,  legally or illegally, it was believed that  Michael was Emp./Tsar of All the Russias from March to his death in 1918.

AGRBear