Did President Wilson help murder Nicholas II?

[AGRBear]

My goodness,  what a huge task you've placed upon yourself, Griff.

And,  yes, the old style and new style dates are often a real pest for all of us at times.

I'm looking forward to reading all the comments on this subject.

AGRBear

[Richard_Cullen]

Griff

You will probably take this the wrong way but selective quoting can and often does create a misleading picture of whatever subject we want to research.  I am, nor do I believe is history a fan of Wilson.  I find him less than impressive and as far as I am concenred he had less than an adequate grip on what was happening.  Of course embargoes are serious matters but had Wilson and his Governemtn had the least political skill and analysis they would have realised the delusions of Empire that the Kaiser had.  Politically I think the over whelming balance is he was inept.  His peace plan was well if I am honest bizarre. If I had time I would balance some of your quotes with others as the period from 1870 to 1926 is the period of political and military history that I am most familiar with - by academic leaning - not age you understand.

There is, although I am quite happy to be convinced if you can find evidence, not one jot of evidence that Wilson or the American administration in general was in any way implicated in the death of the Tsar or anything that happened in Russia at the time.  The old Imperial Powers in particular Britain and France held sway and scared the revolutionaries. America really was a bit player in Europe, America's imperialism did not start until the 1930s by being anti British Imperilaism and not understanding that the gap left by the imperial powers of GB, France, Belgium etc would need to be filled.

Richard

[Bev]

disagree with a few of your comments.  America's first adventure into imperialism was the 1890s Spanish American war and our siezure of the Phillipines.  By the early 1900s, there was quite a backlash to that, and American public opinion was running very high against repeating that kind of predatory war.  Also, America was over 11% foreign born with very high German and Irish populations, and neither was in favour of any kind of war that would aid Great Britain.  After WW I, again there was a return to American isolationism which continued until 1941.  The U.S. was forced into WW II, we didn't join willingly. 

[griffh]

AGRBear I think I had better strap myself in, because it's going to be a very "bumpy ride"....just kidding...

disagree with a few of your comments.  America's first adventure into imperialism was the 1890s Spanish American war and our siezure of the Phillipines.  By the early 1900s, there was quite a backlash to that, and American public opinion was running very high against repeating that kind of predatory war.  Also, America was over 11% foreign born with very high German and Irish populations, and neither was in favour of any kind of war that would aid Great Britain.  After WW I, again there was a return to American isolationism which continued until 1941.  The U.S. was forced into WW II, we didn't join willingly. 

Good points, all, Bev.  Let me look at my comments and see where we disagree.  However I can't help agreeing with what you have said.  Can you tell me the comments that appeared to be opposed to what you have shared?  Thanks, and thanks again Bev for you assurance that there is life after ego. 

Griff

You will probably take this the wrong way but selective quoting can and often does create a misleading picture of whatever subject we want to research.  I am, nor do I believe is history a fan of Wilson.  I find him less than impressive and as far as I am concenred he had less than an adequate grip on what was happening.  Of course embargoes are serious matters but had Wilson and his Governemtn had the least political skill and analysis they would have realised the delusions of Empire that the Kaiser had.  Politically I think the over whelming balance is he was inept.  His peace plan was well if I am honest bizarre. If I had time I would balance some of your quotes with others as the period from 1870 to 1926 is the period of political and military history that I am most familiar with - by academic leaning - not age you understand.

Fair enough Richard.  As you know I deeply respect your rich historic perspective.

There is, although I am quite happy to be convinced if you can find evidence, not one jot of evidence that Wilson or the American administration in general was in any way implicated in the death of the Tsar or anything that happened in Russia at the time..

Richard, I'll do my best to find that evidence.  But as they say in Hollywood, don't hold your breath!  Really, I haven't had such a good laugh as I had reading your above quote.  Dry British humor is the best curative on earth!

Richard thank you so much for your comments.  I can't help agreeing with you that this chronology is very incomplete and certainly does not access enough information, which if it did, could reveal quite another picture.  I so respect you broad historic perspective.

I am so grateful for your remarks about Wilson.  Honestly he should have stayed at Princeton.  You can’t run a nation by addressing everyone as if they were your graduate students.  Clearly Wilson is not trying to “murder Nicholas.”  But I still cannot help feeling that the timing of Declaration of War with its cruel implications for Nicholas, being so broadcast in England between the times that George V agreed to asylum and the withdrawal of asylum, did unconsciously influence the fate of Nicholas.

The one thing I did enjoy about putting together the chronology was how, and I don’t mean this in a cruel way, insincere Wilson became as he jumped about trying to find the spot light the would reveal him as the world’s great leader.   He apparently didn’t care what he said as long as long as it would achieve his goal.   

Bev I hope I am not changing the goal posts again. 

I can't wait for your comments when I get my chronology of events for the American's in Russia.  It will not be so scattered as it will relate to just the events in Russia, and I want to say beforehand that Lenin didn't consider America important at all.  Trotsky appears to be another story. 

You know the thing that shocked me the most in putting together this chronology was Ambassador Page’s attitude towards Europe, were the insulting remarks about Britain.  He sounds like some "mad dog" white supremist; and his idea that the losses incurred by WWI would be forgotten in ten years is truly outrageous to me.

It is in the quotes of Wilson and Page that I really feel something empty and void of humanity, something almost akin to Lenin, or at least something that could be used to advance socialist ideals without meaning to. 

Well I have some work to do on the next chronology.  I will not try to outline my objectives but will just post the chronology and then we can take it apart, piece by peice.   

In thinking about it, I don’t feel that I need to post F. White and his experience as the Russian aide for the Root Mission or his time in Washington D.C. as Military attache.  I think that is too detailed and we need to get on directly to June 1917 when thoses American’s Wilson sent to Russia started to interface with, not only the Provisional Government, but with the Bolsheviks as well. 

[Bev]

I was disagreeing with a few of Cullen's comments, I've already listed my objections to yours, and though I think the chronology is certainly interesting and represents a terrific amount of work, it hasn't proved your claim (or answered your question if you prefer that qualification)  - not only  is your claim false, but it is supported by false arguments.

You haven't provided any evidence, Griffh.  Quite frankly, if you were in my studies group, while I would be impressed by your enthusiasm and your serious reading, I would be very concerned that your bias for the Tsar has tainted your objectivity in considering all the evidence.

[griffh]

Bev I was so tired out when I read your post and Richard's post that I did not quite realize what I was reading and my response was therefore muddled.  Sorry, I was in the process posting my confusion when I got your post. 

By-the-by, thank you for even thinking of including me in one of your study groups, seriously.  It is just that my two Cossack Guards, that accompany me on all my public excursions, might cause unnecessary alarm were I to participate in group.  And then there is the sartorial question of my Chevalier Guards uniform….epaulettes and all…such a moot point since the Revolution…   Oh dear I don’t think last evening’s vodka tonic has quite worn off as of yet…or perhaps it is giddiness from having put that chronology together…but on a more serious note I agree with your assessment of when American Imperialism began.   

Bev I think your point is very sound and I believe that 1898 was a pivotal year in American history.  Senator Hoar establishes legitimacy for your claim about the rise of American Imperialism rather clearly.  Not only was there the violent seizure of an unarmed Nation such as the Philippines, but there also began that spurious use of the press to manufacture war “Put the Blame on Maime Boys” for material gain with the seizure of Cuba.  In supporting your point Bev the late 1890’s, there was also American capitalist’s imperialist “Dollar Diplomacy” in Central and South America.  The unrestricted ability of American business interests to buy and sell governments to increase their profits.  By 1917 there is no question that Imperialist America was thirsty for more conquests. 

Other than the issue of my argument being false, I wanted to address this other point that you have made. 

I was disagreeing with a few of Cullen's comments...

...Quite frankly, if you were in my studies group, while I would be impressed by your enthusiasm and your serious reading, I would be very concerned that your bias for the Tsar has tainted your objectivity in considering all the evidence.

Jacques Barzun states: 

"Claiming detachment need not raise the issue of objectivity.  It is a waste of breath to point out that every observer is in some way biased…

“Since some events and figures in our lengthy past strike me as different from what they have seemed before, I must occasionally speak in my own name and give reasons to justify the heresy.  I can only hope that this accountability will not tempt some reviewers to label the work “a very personal [work].”  I would ask them, What [work] worth reading is not?  If Henry Adams were the echo of Gibbon, we would not greatly value the pastiche.”

“On this point of personality, William James concluded that reflection that philosophers do not give us transcripts but vision of the world.  Similarly, historians give visions of the past.”

And Richard in thinking about your remarks below, I again want to use Barzun to establish my intentions.   

You will probably take this the wrong way but selective quoting can and often does create a misleading picture of whatever subject we want to research…If I had time I would balance some of your quotes with others as the period from 1870 to 1926 is the period of political and military history that I am most familiar with - by academic leaning - not age you understand.

Jacques Barzun states:

“There is nothing personal about facts, but there is about choosing and grouping them.  It is this patterning and the meanings ascribed that the vision is conveyed.  And this, if anything, is what each historian adds to the general understanding.  Read more than one historian and the changes are good that you will come closer and closer to the full complexity.  Whoever wants an absolute copy of what happened must gain access to the mind of God.”

You know in rethinking this other comment of yours Richard…

There is, although I am quite happy to be convinced if you can find evidence, not one jot of evidence that Wilson or the American administration in general was in any way implicated in the death of the Tsar or anything that happened in Russia at the time.

 

I think that I will include the information about White and the Root mission as it is helpful in establishing American influence in Revolutionary Russia.  I suppose that the kind of evidence that I would need to produce to sustain my argument would be producing actual documents that directly implicate America. 

The fact that governments can interfere in the internal affairs of other nations without being caught, that fact alone, is a great drawback to establishing my claims.  However I do have the advantage of time and I have more evidence to share.   

[griffh]

...Not only was there the violent seizure of an unarmed Nation such as the Philippines, but there also...that spurious use of the press to manufacture war “Put the Blame on Maime Boys” for material gain with the seizure of Cuba.

My attempt to use that popular WWII hit to make my point about Cuba, rather missed as I meant to say; "Put the blame on [Maine] Boys, i.e. the sinking of the Maine.  Oh well upwards on onwards....
 

[Bev]

Griffh, I don't think there is any way to dissuade you from this claim.  It was a fun discussion and I enjoyed it, but there's really nothing more I can contribute other than to repeat the basic flaws in your arguments.  Good luck on your chronology.

[griffh]

Hey Bev thank you so much for your participation.  Griff

[AGRBear]

Griffh wrote:

I think that I will include the information about White and the Root mission as it is helpful in establishing American influence in Revolutionary Russia.  I suppose that the kind of evidence that I would need to produce to sustain my argument would be producing actual documents that directly implicate America. 

The fact that governments can interfere in the internal affairs of other nations without being caught, that fact alone, is a great drawback to establishing my claims.  However I do have the advantage of time and I have more evidence to share.   

This is where I become very interested.

Like I've already stated,   when looking at the positions [physical not politicaly] of Americans in June and July of 1918,  it appears Americans with British,  French and Japanese were taking part in skemes which had something to do with various plots of rescue of  Nicholas II and his family.

It doesn't appear,  however, that these  [rescue attempts] are NOT the direction you're taking.  You're  referring to political moves,  I believe.



AGRBear

[griffh]

This is where I become very interested.

Like I've already stated, when looking at the positions [physical not politicaly] of Americans in June and July of 1918,  it appears Americans with British,  French and Japanese were taking part in skemes which had something to do with various plots of rescue of  Nicholas II and his family.

It doesn't appear,  however, that these  [rescue attempts] are NOT the direction you're taking.  You're  referring to political moves,  I believe. AGRBear

AGRBear Thanks.  If I am reading your right, as I am still a bit tired out, thank you for understanding and yes I am interested in establishing the ever changing political moves of American's in Russia from about April 1917 to July 1918 and how their naïve participation in events they had no real understanding of helped to seriously impair Nicholas' survival.  I can name at least three historians who hold similar views so I have a hard time understanding the exasperation I appear to have caused. 

The thing that has possibly exhausted Bev and possibly Richard is that they have defined my goals in a very literal way.  They want proof that Wilson took part in a plot to murder Nicholas.  Basically that is my fault because of the title I gave to this thread, however, as I have tried to explain several times, I am dealing with the effects of political mood and influence, I am sure that this thread is considered a "false" and a waste of time by individuals who are looking for a set of incriminating documents to prove that Wilson maliciously set about to murder the late Emperor.  Wilson was too wrapted up in himself to ever be driven by any other consideration.  He was a blind man on a crowded street randomly swinging an enormous carving knife and without knowing it he tripped over a fallen man and sliced away. 

I must admit that I am very interested in American intervention and that I need to get that book and read it.   

[Richard_Cullen]

Guys

Griff I am not exhausted I just know that factually there is no link between Wilson and or the American Administration and the death of the Tsar and the IF.  On the genral topic of American involvement in Russia and the World War I I am always happy to discuss, if I have the time that is. Bev I think one should congratulate Griff's endeavour and interest and although there is no evidence of a link the general theme is of interest.  Maybe if America had not been so isolationist early on and become involved with the Entente early on the Germans might have sued for peace or been defeated earlier on.  The knock on effect; far less deaths on the esatern front and possibly, although the war was the yeast on which the 1917 revolutions fermented it may still have occurred, 1905 did but maybe the troops and Navy would have remained loyal, who knows?

So maybe the hypothesis needs to be re phrased so we can continue to postulate on it?

Richard

[Bev]

Richard, I have had a nice discussion with Griffh, and have mentioned my interest and encouragement to him before.

Your comment that "if America had not been isolationist early on..."  which might have lead to a different resolution is interesting, but absolutely not possible, given the domestic political situation.  I'm not so sure that our isolationism was such a bad thing for America. 

[griffh]

I get this sinking feeling when people leave, but just to say Bev has been a very good opponent, and very supportive.  I think that she felt I was beating a dead horse. 

Richard I love your idea of re-phrasing the hypothesis so that we can continue to discuss American/Russian relations in 1916-1918.  I so want to share the White information and the Kennan information from that perspective and see how the information might be useful. 

Maybe if America had not been so isolationist early on and become involved with the Entente early on the Germans might have sued for peace or been defeated earlier on.  The knock on effect; far less deaths on the esatern front and possibly, although the war was the yeast on which the 1917 revolutions fermented it may still have occurred, 1905 did but maybe the troops and Navy would have remained loyal, who knows?

I think another aspect of America's delayed entry into the war was caused by the size of it's German population.  It still is a suprise to learn that only one vote determined whether Americans would speak English or German.  I have always wondered if American, other than its Bill of Rights, actually shared a national identity before WWI.  While the country did have an ever evolving political identity, I don't think the country actually had an cultural identity until after WWII.  The intellectual and creative community of Americans before WWII had been schooled in Europe and lived there as expatriate Americans.  This trend was even more noticable after WWI in Paris.  I think that there was intensely varying familial loyalty to the European war among the collection of tight ethnic communities that comprised the American population during the war, but there was no national rallying point, except for those biosexist "White Supremist" assumptions Ambassador Page was so proud of.   

I think that your points about the possibilties for peace are very similar in nature to Sir Edward Grey's points to Ambassador Page about when an League for Peace could have been effected a peace.  Of course Sir Edward did not include United States, and was speaking of the power of arbitration, but he did use the same logic that if Germany knew what it was up against from the beginning it would have backed down.

although the war was the yeast on which the 1917 revolutions fermented it may still have occurred, 1905 did but maybe the troops and Navy would have remained loyal, who knows?

That is a wonderful point.  Well what about starting a new thread then?  We can call it, "Did Nicholas II help murder Woodrow Wilson, or did he do that all by himself?"  Just kidding.

Any suggestions?

[Bev]

Griffh, that vote never happened.  Not only did it not occur, but America has no official language.  The U.S. has a large population of Americans of German descent, but the Irish population by far is the largest ethnic group to have emigrated to the U.S.

I like your idea for a new thread.