Did President Wilson help murder Nicholas II?

[griffh]

Bev that is interesting.  I have a source that says there was a vote during the Continental Congress.  I will try and find it.  I didn't mean to imply that I thought America had an offical language anymore than the idea it has an offical religion.  That would rather undermine the premise upon which the country was founded.  Thanks for catching my mistake about Germany.  What I was trying to get at was German/America business influence. 

The thing that is so curious to me about German influence is that it was seldom traceable.  Germans worked through so many neutral agent in such devious ways.  The bolder ones did get caught, but in spite of all of the fear of German agents in Russian, and how that played into the fall of Rasputin, other Germans were quitely working through Danish agents claiming to represent American firms and making huge profits off of Russia during the war.  But anyway that is another story.   

Hey I am so glad you are in agreement about a new thread.  Do you think just using a simple heading, such as "American/Russian relations 1916-1918."  I am going to have to be so very careful with Old and New style dates. 

I have really gained such an interest in this early period and the knee-jurk kind of political relationship that appeared and then dissappeared.  By the way have you read that new work on the Intervention as of yet.  It is so downplayed by so many historians that I have read, that I am amazed that the topic has been revived once again and that apparently America had a role.   

I think that I will start with the Root Mission chronology as it presents a perfect transition from the abdication to the Root Mission.  Then I can pick up the chronology with that covers all the mixed signals from Americans in Russia before and after the Brest Livosk treaty. 





   

[grandduchessella]

As regards an offical language, I found this:

"The only previous official-language legislation dates back to 1923: a bill designating "American" the national tongue. Less a patriotic gesture than a put-down of literary Anglophiles, the idea proved especially popular with Irish Americans, who saw an attempt to insult the British Empire. The measure died in Congress without coming to a vote, but was adopted by the state of Illinois (where English was quietly rehabilitated in 1969). "

And more pertinently:

"Notwithstanding a persistent legend that German missed becoming our official language by a single vote, American English has never been in jeopardy. In 1795, the 3rd Congress did consider and reject a petition by German Americans in Virginia to translate all federal laws into their language. A tie vote in the House of Representatives appears to have been broken by Speaker Frederick A. C. Muhlenberg, a Pennsylvania German with budgetary concerns and assimilationist tendencies. Poor recordkeeping leaves much uncertainty about what role he may have played. But the Muhlenberg legend is certainly false: German was never seriously considered as an official language – despite a century of claims by the likes of Ripley's Believe-It-or-Not, the German-American Bund, and Parade magazine....On the other hand, the Continental Congress saw nothing wrong with printing its Journals and other official documents in German and in French (hoping to win Québécois support for the Revolution). No patriotic objections were raised against accommodating these politically significant minorities. States were even more likely to cater to minority needs. Before World War I, bilingual education was common in areas where nonanglophone groups enjoyed political clout. During the 19th century, state laws, constitutions, and legislative proceedings appeared in languages as diverse as Welsh, Czech, Norwegian, Spanish, French, and of course, German.  "

[griffh]

Wow Grandduchessella your research always blows me away and that really locks Bev's point in place.  My source must have repeated that misconception.  Thanks for clearing that up beyond all doubt.  I even have in my pre-WWI collection a cereal coupon printed in Yiddish.  It is also interesting how before WWI foreign Amassadors felt a responsibility to their own ethic group in America.  I have one source that speaks of the attempts the one of the foreign Ambassadors to get their ethnic group outt of the big city ghettos and into the countryside.

 

[Bev]

Sounds fine to me, griffh.  I do like the header "did Nicholas help murder Wilson" though...

[griffh]

I'm rather fond of that heading too Bev... 

Well good-bye and farewell dear thread.  May you rest in peace.

[Richard_Cullen]

Griff

I admire your stamina and enthusiasm, just need to focus it a subject where you stand a chance of winning.  Bev Wilson helping to kill Nicholas is one thing but conspiracy after death is another.

Richard

[griffh]

Spot on Richard!!!  Hey, Speaking of fun new things, When does your new Rasputin trial begin? 

[komarov]

Just to put my two kopeks on a dead topic (I think), I'd have to say that - if there was a conspiracy going on, I'd bet all I had that Wilson would've been in on it.  After all, just thirty years later, Roosevelt and Churchill would have private talks at Yalta and Potsdam excluding Stalin in order to establish how to contain the perceived Soviet threat.  Generally speaking, if someone's trying to screw Russia over, the Americans - at least the government - will be in on it.

[AGRBear]

Just to put my two kopeks on a dead topic (I think), I'd have to say that - if there was a conspiracy going on, I'd bet all I had that Wilson would've been in on it.  After all, just thirty years later, Roosevelt and Churchill would have private talks at Yalta and Potsdam excluding Stalin in order to establish how to contain the perceived Soviet threat.  Generally speaking, if someone's trying to screw Russia over, the Americans - at least the government - will be in on it.

Is that how you view Americans, who elect their govt. officials who are suppose to work for the people, that we're out to "screw Russia"  in 1917 to now? 

And,  what was wrong with trying to stop the communist threat during the time of Stalin?

And,  why  do you think of there was "a consprarcy going on" that Wilson would've been in on it" ?

And to which "conspiracy" are  you referring?

AGRBear

[griffh]

You know I regret that I chose such misleading title for this thread to discuss a topic of about American/Russian relations 1916-1918, which in itself is fascinating and very thought provoking.  Clearly Wilson had no desire to involve himself, at first, in the internal affairs of Russian and clearly the Provisional Government was already in place by the time Wilson declared war on Germany.  The fact that he used the first Revolution as part of his war-cry does not indicate in anyway that he was trying to harm the ex-Emperor. 

I have learned a great deal by having researched the topic and I appreciate both Richard Cullen and Bev's point of view.  I love Nicholas II for being something that is not valued anymore, and that is his modesty and refinement as a true gentleman.  I think that speaks more to this man's misunderstood motivation, than any of the cohersion theories do. 

In my own strange way I was trying to use an offensive thread title inorder to provoke interest in defending Nicholas' honor by attacking anyone who slurred his reputation.  I decided to start with President Wilson.  I am grateful that my chronology does reveal something of Wilson's complex roles between 1916-1918, but none of that evidence points to him as an accomplice in the demise of Nicholas II.

I think that anyone can see from this thread of mine and also from my contributions to the thread on Sebran's "Who is Old Jack" that I love to take a very minority point of view, even, as with the Old Jack thread, I have been encouraged by far more knowledgable individuals, to take a more logical approach.  Perhaps some of my desire to run against the stream is a hope of establishing contact with thinkers, but as a result of my actual experience, I must admitt that delibrately provoking discussions as I have done on this thread, is not a good idea.

As Richard pointed out early on, or it might have been Phil, Nicholas was a political non-entity the minute he abdicated, or more precisely, the minute the Provisional Government determined that they would loose their popularity and control if they promoted a Constitutional Monarchy.  The dual nature of the Provisional Government with the Soviet almost immediately eliminated the Romanoffs as players in the future of Russia, not to mention the three progressive stages the Provisional Government assumed in order to try and remain in power.  Each stage forced what ever hope the Romanoffs had, further and further down. 

The other offense I feel I have committed is my tendency to become silly and at times my misdirected sense of humor has sounded as if it was mocking what are very serious concerns.  I am very sorry for that too.  I hope that this thread will be allowed to rest in peace and not cause anymore dissention.

I nerver met to play off individuals with differing points of view. 

[komarov]

Just to put my two kopeks on a dead topic (I think), I'd have to say that - if there was a conspiracy going on, I'd bet all I had that Wilson would've been in on it.  After all, just thirty years later, Roosevelt and Churchill would have private talks at Yalta and Potsdam excluding Stalin in order to establish how to contain the perceived Soviet threat.  Generally speaking, if someone's trying to screw Russia over, the Americans - at least the government - will be in on it.

Is that how you view Americans, who elect their govt. officials who are suppose to work for the people, that we're out to "screw Russia"  in 1917 to now? 

And,  what was wrong with trying to stop the communist threat during the time of Stalin?

And,  why  do you think of there was "a consprarcy going on" that Wilson would've been in on it" ?

And to which "conspiracy" are  you referring?

AGRBear

I refer to no "conspiracy" in particular; however, in regards to the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, a majority of what caused the ever-paranoid Stalin to feel truly threatened and therefore in need of security - security that took form in Russian tradition as conquest and occupation of satellite states.  The American and English governments, trying to reestablish Western control of governments in southeast Europe and the Middle East, began dividing up what territories would have their leaders restored by which nation, and began planning ways to deny any Russian territorial regains.  The American government also offered Stalin a loan for rebuilding Russia (instead of the prior plan of Germany paying debts), but the Russian government was strongly opposed to allowing themselves to be tethered to the West, and so tightened their firm grip on Eastern Europe in order to ensure security.  The English and Americans overreacted, claiming that Communist revolutionaries in Yugoslavia, Greece, and other Asia Minor states were all answering to Moscow, which is nearly impossible.  And so, while this is not a formal "conspiracy", it does show that the Cold War was mostly due to a perceived threat suggested by Churchill and Roosevelt that unfortunately grew into a real threat.

I also do not claim that America is out to screw Russia in particular, but rather that America looks out much more for its own gains than what was wise towards the end of not one war, but two.  If I hated America, would I be living here?

[AGRBear]

Ivan,

Thanks for the clearification.

Griffh,

There is no need to apologize for having created this thread.  Being one who does not know very much about Wilson,  I learned a great deal,  and, now, I am  able to understand various opinions and why certain posters believe as they do.

AGRBear

[LisaDavidson]

Just to put my two kopeks on a dead topic (I think), I'd have to say that - if there was a conspiracy going on, I'd bet all I had that Wilson would've been in on it.  After all, just thirty years later, Roosevelt and Churchill would have private talks at Yalta and Potsdam excluding Stalin in order to establish how to contain the perceived Soviet threat.  Generally speaking, if someone's trying to screw Russia over, the Americans - at least the government - will be in on it.

It's really hard to judge someone's tone, so I don't know if you're kidding or not. I certainly hope you are kidding.

My first impression of "Russia", was the head of the government coming to my country and saying - "we will bury you". Can you imagine an American President going to Russia and saying such a thing? This was the tone of the time. Americans felt, with much justification as it turns out, that the USSR was trying to destroy them.

Bad feelings against Russia were not prevalent in the US prior to the Cold War and have not been prevalent since. Please don't confuse the rhetoric of the Cold War with the behavior of Wilson or Clinton, for that matter.    

[komarov]

Lisa,

My tone was partially serious, especially in the respect that the United States and the United Kingom made gross miscalculations and errors in actions towards the end of World War II that led to the Russian response of tightening its grip on current posessions.  And I do not wish to compare Clinton to Wilson, since the two are seperated somewhat drastically by time and the issues thereby.  Generally speaking, though, America has never really gotten along with Russia - or indeed any of the "East" - at all until recent years, when Bush and Putin have become closer allies.

[Bev]

What "gross miscalculations" did the UK/USA make that caused the USSR to "tighten its grip on current possessions"?  Communists in China, Yugoslavia, Poland, Hungary, Greece and others were answering to the USSR, because the USSR was funding them.

As to your claim that the US capitalized on "gains" it made in two world wars, I don't know what that means.  The Potsdam and Yalta conferences were about an agreement as to when those nations, whose governments were destroyed by war would hold free and open elections - the US lived up to its part of the agreement, it was the USSR that reneged.  No country was entitled to territorial gains and no country but Russia kept territories it had liberated from the Nazis.  That American "loan" you referred to, was called the Marshall Plan, which was called by Churchill, "the only unsullied act in the history of the world."

Stalin tightened his grip on the Baltic and East European countries, because historically Russia has always used those countries as a buffer and Russia thought that they were entitled to those countries by tradition - that was the "perceived threat", which as it turned out was not just a threat but reality.  Has America historically been at odds with Russia?  I don't know, but the fact that we purchased Alaska from Russia, instead of helping ourselves, would indicate some level of co-operation, and during WW I and II, we seemed rather supportive of Russia - in 1917, America sent a volunteer group of railroad engineers and workers to the Eastern Russian empire to rebuild the railroad system, which had completely broken down - no goods at all were moving from any Eastern ports.  During WW II we actively supplied Russia with raw and finished goods and considering the fact that both oceans were fraught with danger for US ships, I would call that support and after the attack on the US by Japan, the shipments continued even though we were no longer a "neutral" country.

I have no idea as to what "conspiracy" anyone is referring to...