Author Topic: World War I  (Read 39260 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mike

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1326
    • View Profile
    • Erast Fandorin Museum
Re: World War I
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2004, 12:00:27 PM »
German trucks attacked by Cossacks [size=10][from the SGU collection][/size]:

A Russian WWI postcard. The rhymed text reads, more or less:
    Every time that I load my gun -
    I remember you, my little sun!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Mike »

jtareb

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2005, 10:52:57 PM »
My opinion is no, Nicholas could not by himself have prevented WW1. By the summer of 1914 all the great powers had armies far beyond what they needed for national defence and all that was needed was a spark like Sarajevo. With the Austrian army mobilized on its borders and the Kaiser rattling the proverbial saber, Russia had no choice but to mobilize its army and as was commonly understood at the time mobilization meant war.

Coldstream

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2005, 06:30:10 PM »
I think Herr Kaiser makes some valid comments concerning Germany's position in the world in the early part of the last century.  Kaiser Wilhelm's great mistake was giving the Austrians the "blank cheque" which, in effect, gave Germany's  blanket support to whatever the Austrians did regarding Serbia.  The Serbians did agree to most of the demands made by the Austrians.  They did not agree to letting Austrian officials into Serbia to conduct their own investigation into alleged Serbian government involvement in Franz Ferdinand's murder.  That would have violated Serbian sovereignty.  This refusal led to the Austrian decision to declare war on Serbia on 28 July 1914 (I suspect the Austrians knew all along that Serbia would not, indeed could not, accept the demand).  This activated the various military mobilizations throughout Europe when the diplomatic efforts failed.  Actually the Kaiser and the Czar were not enthusiastic about the prospect of war, but their general staffs were.  The Kaiser actually shook up his Chief of the Great General Staff by informing him that he could abort the invasion of Belgium and turn everything around to face the east!  Von Moltke the younger never fully recovered from that!

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: World War I
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2005, 02:08:51 PM »
Over on another thread, grandduchesselia has typed her fingers to the bone about Wilhelm II's abdication which is interesting reading.  Then she added to this the letters between Nicholas II and Wilhlem II.

Take a look:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=wilhelm;action=display;num=1080485144;start=75

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #19 on: February 11, 2005, 06:37:02 PM »
Quote

  If Nicholas had not gone to war, chances are he would have been overthrown by a popular revolution in 1914 instead of 1917, and the government that succeeded the autocracy would have taken Russia to war in his place.

Sadly, I don't believe either World War I or the Russian Revolution could have been avoided.  


Sorry, this is going back a long way, but I've just discovered it!
Do you not think that in 1914 Nicholas was enjoying the relative peace that followed the 1905 revolution - even Lenin thought revolution was unlikely (or was that later?).
Why do you think  neither the war nor the revolution could be avoided?
Was it because of the massive shift from rural to industrialised societies, the growth of cities etc. etc.? Or because education had taken people beyond their former acceptance of autocrats & led them to question their position in society? Or because of the arms race? Or some other reason?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by bluetoria »

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #20 on: February 11, 2005, 08:02:56 PM »
bluetoria,
It's very deceptive to think of the post 1905 era as peaceful! But perhaps you mean the peace that comes over an abused and beaten dog just before it turns viciously -once and for all- on its "master"...

I am not suggesting that Russia was a "dog" or that Nickolas was in any way masterful (IMO he was too week and fatalistic for that ---It was years of Tzarist repression taking their toll!)- this is simply the best metaphor to come to mind at the moment.

Sorry  to run, but I am off to see a friend!

rskkiya
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by rskkiya »

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #21 on: February 12, 2005, 04:31:21 AM »
Quote
---It was years of Tzarist repression taking their toll rskkiya


And Nicholas was merely the unfortunate last in the line. As a man he wasn't to blame; but he was a symbol of oppression? Wouldn't you say?

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #22 on: February 12, 2005, 03:51:10 PM »
Bluetoria
No.
I'm afraid that I cannot absolve Nicholas. He had many opportunies to change the system, to work with the Duma, to make an effort to limit the oppressive nature of tzarist Autocracy - but he did not act.

It's possible that, no matter what any individual tzar could have done, there would have been a revolution - however it's the fact that he was so tragically indifferent that makes me not terribly sympathetic towards Nicholas.

sorry,
rskkiya

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2005, 06:24:51 AM »
Quote
Bluetoria
No.
I'm afraid that I cannot absolve Nicholas. He had many opportunies to change the system, to work with the Duma, to make an effort to limit the oppressive nature of tzarist Autocracy - but he did not act.


But he WAS hindered by his belief that he had a duty to uphold the autocracy, wasn't he? He was, IMO, just the wrong person for the wrong job. I don't think he was indifferent; I think he genuinely didn't know what to do. His dithering & deliberations before granting the Manifesto in 1905 show him to me as someone struggling to 'do the right thing.'
His chief fault, (IMO again!) was his inability to see from more than one angle or to make a decision. And with Alix pushing & pushing him to 'be strong' I think he was just TRYING to do his best (which, obviously wasn't good enough). He seemed to suddenly lunge out in his attempts to appear what he was not (i.e. a firm ruler) as when he made that first speech about 'senseless dreams' which was totally the wrong thing to say.
He didn't, after all, want to be Tsar & he just couldn't manage it!
 

olga

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2005, 04:52:50 AM »
Quote
His dithering & deliberations before granting the Manifesto in 1905 show him to me as someone struggling to 'do the right thing.'


It shows him to me to be a weak and indifferent man, without reagard for what so many people were asking for and what he was stubbornly refusing.

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2005, 09:04:00 AM »
He surely wasn't indifferent. He may have been weak - but it seems more he was 'overwhelmed' by the amount of responsibility he had. His wider family expected him to take a stand, he had not had the training to prepare him for his responsibilities, Alix was pushing him....He really was in a very difficult position.
Perhaps had he been able to go out and meet with more of the people he would have seen things differently. Everything came to him via ministers & he was constantly being told to appoint some quite reactionary ministers.
The Russo-Japanese war was obviously a massive mistake and he should have listened to de Witte...but I still don't think it was indifference. Weakness perhaps. (And also he had already witnessed the murder of his grandfather & Serge which may have made him feel more pressurised into appearing 'strong' - which was not really in his character)

Silja

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2005, 02:36:48 PM »
Quote
He surely wasn't indifferent. He may have been weak - but it seems more he was 'overwhelmed' by the amount of responsibility he had.


Quite agree!! If he had been indifferent he would have remained quite unaffected by the situation, which he was NOT. He was lethargic, which is however something quite different!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Silja »

bluetoria

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2005, 05:52:58 PM »
Quote
He was lethargic, which is however something quite different!


Was he really lethargic or rather at a loss as to what to do? What could he have done? He HAD tried to persuade Serbia to accept Austria's ultimatum & the Serbs had virtually accepted it. And he HAD to defend the Serbs because he saw it as his duty.
I don't think any one person could have prevented the war - the whole of Europe had been gearing up to it for so long that it was simply a pot boiling over.
I don't think it could ever happen in the same way again (even by the time of WWII it was different.)


Offline HerrKaiser

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1373
    • View Profile
Re: World War I
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2005, 06:11:10 PM »
Unfortunately, indifference and incapable are often confused, especially when the result of either is about the same. Nickolas was in large part unaware of the horrible living situation his people were in and had been in for decades. Ignorance can be seen as indifference. To the extent he was aware and willing to do something to get Russia into even the 19th century, he seemed incapable of using his power effectively. The power and wealth of the ruling class had a stangle hold on nearly everything.
It does appear he was a well meaning, nice man who was totally wrong for the job, both from a personality standpoint and from an apparent lack of ability to grasp the "big picture" of what he was dealing with. He was the Jimmy Carter of his era (not to offend any one who likes Jimmy Carter! Apologies in advance!).
Going back to earlier points, the data suggest that the 'gasoline thrown on the fire' was not the Russian, Serbian, Austrian, German issue in the east and Balkans, but rather the French activity and the English declaration of war prematurely. Had the British held their trigger fingers a few weeks or so after Germany crossed the Belgium frontier, much could have been worked out, especially given the dispositions of William and Nickolas.
HerrKaiser

Silja

  • Guest
Re: World War I
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2005, 03:03:18 PM »
Quote



I agree. To a large extent it was this isolation of the imperial family that brought them down.
Everyone holding high office in any system is destined to become ultimately isolated from "real life" to some extent. But in autocratic Tsarist Russia the sealing off of those who rule was next to complete.