Did President Wilson help murder Nicholas II?

[helenazar]

And Oh Bev just one more thing.  George F. Kennan's book, Soviet American Relations, 1917-1920, Russia Leaves the War, was not written in the 1940's as you keep claiming.  It was written in 1956 after he retired as a specialist on Russian Affairs for the American Foriegn Service.  He wrote the book during the time he became a Member and Professor of the Institute for Advanced Study In Princeton.  So, as you keep saying, that at the end of his life he was privy to secret docuements that had not been available to him before and that he therefore changed his opinions at the end of his life.  Well Bev, this book was written at the end of his life and he had full access to newly declassived docuements from The Foriegn Affairs Section of the National Archives, The Hoover Library of War and Peace; while his other sources for his book came from The Institute for Advanced Study, the Libraries of the University of Chicago, Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and the Historical Society of Wisconsin. 

George Kennan died last year at the age of 101. He was a faculty member at the Insitute for Advanced Study from 1956 until his death in 2005. Unless I am misunderstanding, you are saying that he wrote the book in 1956 - at the end of his life, except that the end of his life was not until a year ago...  
 

[helenazar]

Our posts crossed, Bev.

[AGRBear]

griffh wrote in part:

... America never recovered its ability to produce armaments.  In spite of American war socialism, Leuchtenburg states that it never built a war ship in time for the war, it never built an airplane in time for the war, and it built a couple of tanks and supplies a few guns.... 

History is always interesting because the historians are individual people, like the posters here on this forum.  Each person views history from different angles.  For example,  when visiting a museum in London,  there is a section called "American rebellion" which is refering to the US's Revolution.

When digging out facts and figures such as how many bullets did the US under Wilson sell Russia,  one can't just  look at the documents of the various dealings made by our government.  Being a free society based on capitalizm,  one has to look around more closely at the records of our various arms dealers.

For example,  when reading Richard Spence's book TRUST NO ONE, THE SECRET WORLD OF SIDNEY REILLY p. 121,  we see that the British agent,  who was one of the enemies of the Bolsheviks,  had ventured to the US several times to purchase guns for the White Armies...  One particular deal he made was with  Remington-Union in April of 1918 for 1,000,000 (one million) rifles.

I doubt that Remington-Union would have sold this number if our American soldiers were short on rifles.

There are records showing not only the number of rifles, they also show that for each rifled,  Reilly received 25 cents.

Let me read a few more pages here and I'll post figures of other arms dealers who made agreements just with Reilly for the British who was buying them for the Whites who were fighting the Bolsheviks....

AGRBear

[Alixz]

The original question, "Did President Wilson help murder Nicholas II?" has brought to mind that Wilson, as an proponent of world democracy and anti-monarchy, phrased his Fourteen Points and all of the additions in a way that let all of the nations of Europe know that American intervention in The Great War was dependent on those same European nations redirecting their governments and reforming them after the war into governments that were more on road to 'the self determination of their citizens" and the abolishment of autocratic rule.

I believe that the Allies would have been afraid to rescue the Imperial Family for fear of alienating Wilson and therefore endangering any help that they would recieve.

Germany, of course, offered asylum, but neither Nicholas nor Alexandra would accept that way out.  And the fall of the Kaiser was part of Wilson's reason for being in the war to begin with.

Germany was attacking American ships because she knew that the US was supplying war goods and food supplies to the Allies. Is Germany's attacking of a neutral US any different than the Allies' blockade of Greece because she wanted to stay neutral? (I personally find that one of the most reprehensable Allied abuses during the Great War.)

Any country, allied or not, who owed debt to the US, would also be unable to take in the Imperial Family without fear of retribution in the form of debt recall.

Somehow, Wilson, because he could send in fresh troops and more supplies and more cannon fodder, became a figure to be taken most seriously and his opinions could not be discarded.  I don't believe that any country with any tie to the US whether Allied or debtor, could have taken a stand against Wilson and his Fourteen Points after the US entered the war.

Suddenly, the US was a power player in Europe.  Whether as a debtor nation or a creditor nation is not the point.  The Allies had finally gotten the strength they needed to keep fighting and to win the war.  It would have been impolite    to invite the US in to help and then ignore Wilson and his requirements.

There may have been many covert actions begun and many agents sent to Ekaterinburg  but nothing was ever done, was it?  Why?

I am not saying that Wilson's Fourteen Points single handedly led to the murder of the Imperial Family.  I am simply saying that his announcement that the US was only joining the fight to further democracy and the rights of the goverened to have self determination would have given great pause to anyone who remotely thought about rescueing the Imperial Family or even offering sanctuary after a rescue.

Why, then, did Holland allow the Kaiser asylum?  Because the Queen did not want to see him murdered the way the Imperial Family had been.  Before the murder of the Imperial Family, no one really thought twice about a deposed ruler.  No one since Louis the XVI had been so treated.  All deposed monarchs had gone quietly into "retirement".

Because of the calculated indifference to the fate of the Tsar caused by either Wilson's Fourteen Points or by George V just trying to keep his own throne, most of Europe gave little thought to what might happen to the Imperial Family at the hands of the Bolsheiviks.

After the murder and the horror of what had been done, not just to Nicholas, but to his entire family, suddenly, even Wilson, canceled a dinner and retired in shock.

[AGRBear]

Bev wrote in part:

....The U.S. was the third largest exporter of armaments, and from the first deployment of 85,000 troops in March of 1918, by September of 1918 they had trained, equipped and transported over 1,200,000 men to an overseas theater of war.  ...  

Please go to the Revolution section and read the thread on Americans Fighting the Bolshseviks.  You can read a great deal of information about our boys in Russia,  see photographs, and,  you'll note they have plenty of guns.... You'll find links to stories written by individuals...  I don't recall them talking about shortages of food.  They did talk about the "cold" and the Russians who were by that time in bad shape...  It also talks about ships and transportation of troops....  

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,2593.0.html

What is happening on this thread, I think,  the range of the conversation has widen and too much data has been tossed into the discussion.  So,  we're pulling in a huge range of years.  I suggest that we agree on a  limit in the years being discussed at this time,  discuss it fully, then take in a few more years or mabye start different threads.

What seems to have been the intent in the early posts was about Wilson's actions which may or may not have caused the execution of Nicholas II which was in July of 1918.

I find Griffh, Bev and all posters giving us information on a subject which many of us really don't know very much.   Like Tania,  most of us appreciate everyone's contribution.

I love sources everyone is giving  

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

FIGHTING THE BOLSHEVIKS by Donald Carey, edited  by Neil G. Carey who wrote the preface p. x:

>>This is the daily record and recollections of Pfc. Donald E. Carey, E Company, 339th Infantry Regiment,  85th Division (detachment in north Russia), one of the 5,600 American soldiers who fought the Bolsheviks there during 1918 and 1919.<<

Let me repeat the number of American soldiers who fought the Bolsheviks.  There were 5,600 known soldiers.  

The Preface of this books gves us seven reasons why Pres. Wilson ordered American troops to Russia and Siberia from p. x to xii.

AGRBear

"Why are we here?" these American soldiers asked.  They never received adequate answers.  What meager information their officers possessed was soon made obsolete by events on the Western Front.

Some of the ackowledged reasons causing President Wilson to order American troops to Russia and Siberia:

1.He wanted to maintain an Eastern Front.  With the collalpse of the Czar's government in 1917, the Germans were able to move more than forty divisions and great quantities of materiel westward.  Even more German fighting forces could be deployed to the Western Front aft the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, signed on 3 March 1918 by German and the Russian revolutionaries.  Transfer of these German troops from the Eastern Front to the Western Front was expected to prolong the war until 1919-20.
2.  [to be continued]

AGRBear

[Bev]

and I don't care for it.

I've explained twice now, the difference between "good" debt and "bad" debt.  Leuchtenburg, like most historians, is not an economist.  What seems to be misunderstood here, is that the fact that we were a debtor nation, not because we were borrowing money to subsist, the debt was FI (FDI + FPI = FI) - foreign investment.  The government wasn't borrowing money because the economy was bad, foreign investment was LENDING money because the economy was good.  Foreign direct investment and foreign portfolio investment is an indication of a healthy economy - it is the way modern economies grow.  Yes, foreign debt was a whopping 20% of the GNP (gross national product) in 1914, and yes it did drop precipitously in four years, but that's because Foreign governments severely restricted FI when previously there were few institutional changes.  We were a debtor nation because of the immensity of investment opportunities and profits.  The country was not on some keynesian spending spree with the government borrowing money to prop up a failing economy - that is the difference between our status then as a debtor nation and our status now as a debtor nation it's not the debt that matters (although yes, there are considerations and problems there too) it is the KIND of debt that matters.

Again today the U.S. is a debtor nation - but the kind of debt is very different - the government itself is borrowing money, not for investment with real net returns, but to fund a national defense which has absolutely no profit - like Great Britain during the world wars.  Just as Great Britain did beginning with WW I, we're financing a military which provides no profit in which to repay the debt.  The U.S. like GB is incurring expense without profit.  That doesn't work for companies and it doesn't work for countries - sooner or later the system will bottom out.  Unfortunately, the solution will be pretty much the same - punitive tax measures to repay government debt.  
So goes the ways of Empire...

[Bev]

Neither Wilson nor the American military wanted an Eastern front.  They were both firmly convinced that the war was to be won or lost on the Western front.  Wilson actively dissuaded the British from trying to re-open an Eastern front, pointing out to them that the American entry into the war would bring overwhelming resources to bear on the Germans - they would be forced to seek peace or suffer complete attrition.  Whether that judgement was correct, I don't know, but I suspect it was right.

[Tania]

Alexz,

I have read and re read what you have offered, and agree with this particular statement of why countries did not get involved.

"Any country, allied or not, who owed debt to the US, would also be unable to take in the Imperial Family without fear of retribution in the form of debt recall.' and this statement as well ;

"Somehow, Wilson, because he could send in fresh troops and more supplies and more cannon fodder, became a figure to be taken most seriously and his opinions could not be discarded.  I don't believe that any country with any tie to the US whether Allied or debtor, could have taken a stand against Wilson and his Fourteen Points after the US entered the war."

I can well see that this was indeed the outcome of it all :

"Because of the calculated indifference to the fate of the Tsar caused by either Wilson's Fourteen Points or by George V just trying to keep his own throne, most of Europe gave little thought to what might happen to the Imperial Family at the hands of the Bolsheiviks."

But what is more striking is that of what Bear has offered in terms of troops participating in fighging the Bolsheviks:

"Let me repeat the number of American soldiers who fought the Bolsheviks.  There were 5,600 known soldiers."

with most of them probably asking the same question : ""Why are we here?" ...never really receiveng an adequate government response.

Tatiana+

[Bev]

if any nation offered refuge to the Imperial family?  The Imperial family were not enemies of the U.S. 

[AGRBear]

Neither Wilson nor the American military wanted an Eastern front.  They were both firmly convinced that the war was to be won or lost on the Western front.  Wilson actively dissuaded the British from trying to re-open an Eastern front, pointing out to them that the American entry into the war would bring overwhelming resources to bear on the Germans - they would be forced to seek peace or suffer complete attrition.  Whether that judgement was correct, I don't know, but I suspect it was right.

Wilson and our Allies were well aware that the Eastern Front couldn't be allowed to collapse:

  (Fighting the Bolsheviks by Carey is continued)

2.  Collapse of the Eastern Front would permit the Central Powers to obtain food, oil, and natural resources from Russia; pluls allow ships to bring supplies via Murmansk and Archangel, presently denied to Germany by the Allied blaockade. 

 [/quote]
So there was Lenin and  Germany, who with a stroke of their pens,  made it possible for the Germans  to stop worrying about the Eastern Front which meant they could  pull their "forty divisions"  from the Eastern Front and move then to the Western Front....

Do you have any idea how many solders are in "forty divisions" .....

Wilson and the the Allies knew how many men are in "forty divisions" just as they knew what went with all these men such as weapons [Big Bertha Cannons, tanks, planes...] . this included. 

Do you really think the Allies, including Wilson,  were going to let "forty divisions" to be moved to the Western Front without fuss or bother?

So what was happening at that period of time between Lenin and the Allies?

Lenin's was being threaten and suffering defeats by the Whites who were being supported and supplied  [remember those 1,000,000 rifles being shipped by Remington-Union] by the British, French, Japanese,  Americans and others.   

Germany saw what was happening and so they knew they couldn't  just pull out those troops, now, could they?

It appears that Wilson's actions override whatever he was saying to the public who didn't want to hear that the US was fighting on two fronts  [Germany and the Bolshviks].

AGRBear

[Bev]

it is, and how many men were left in each division by 1918.  Probably around 300,000 men.  Nonetheless, despite popular misconceptions, the U.S. military thought it was on the Western front that resources should be concentrated, and the collapse of the Eastern front would not have major consequences for the fight on the Western front.  In truth, there was no "collapse" of the Eastern front - Germany still had to contend with the Balkan states such as Roumania which by that time had joined the allied cause. 

Yes, I remember the Russian order for 1M 1911 Colt revolvers - which were shipped before the Russian revolution, not afterwards.  The standard issue U.S. army rifle was the Springfield rifle, however, since they were in short supply, about half the U.S. troops were supplied with an "American Enfield" rifle which was actually the British Lee Enfield rifle.

[Rodney_G.]

GRIFFH, You've got it right. I certainly don't have your mastery of the details but I think I understand Pres. Wilson well enough. Basically he was aman of the left and an idealistic and pompous fool. His mindless support of the Revolution could only encourage the violent and extremist forces (Bolsheviks) who would inevitably sweep aside the impotent and ridiculous Kerensky regime.

 Wilson was one of Lenin"s useful idiots, and a man whose foolish leftism got countless others killed, including the Romanovs.

[Bev]

In what way did he support Lenin? 

[Alixz]

Bev,

The Imperial Family were not enemies of the US, but they were in opposition to Wilson's ideals of democracy.

To take in the Imperial family would be to accept Nicholas in spite of the judgement of most of the world that he was a bloody tyrant.  To do that would be akin to accepting his deeds and misdeeds.

That is why Geroge V wouldn't take him, cousin or no cousin.

That is why the French would not take him as they were now a Republic and still thought that Alexandra was a German by birth and in sympathy.

Smaller and weaker nations would feel the same and feel even more pressure to reject the Imperial Family to become one with the winning side or clique who would control Europe in the end.