Re: Reflections on Nicholas II - His Character Traits Good and Bad #2

[Alixz]

Can"t we see how interesting it is that we exalt two rulers who were violent and involved with the deaths of members of their own families, but shame the one who was the most loving to his.

I wouldn't want either Peter of Catherine at my dinner table.  I might not make it through the night if I upset one of them.

This thread is about positive attributes.  I think that the most positive is a respect for family and the protection of our loved ones.

[koloagirl]

 

Aloha all!

My feeling about Nicholas II is that he was a very much
a gentleman (and gentle man) who loved his family
foremost (perhaps after his God) and THEN his country.

I cannot help but be moved by someone who exhibits
the tenderness and love to a wife who - to put it somewhat mildly, had issues of her own - but they
ALWAYS loved each other, thru thick and thin.

As a father, I think he was certainly one of the very most
attentive fathers (especially Imperial ones) of his time...
his girlies and Alexei loved him dearly and even his captors to the end found him a ordinary, good-natured
fellow who they probably would have liked to sit and chat with if he weren't the "hated Tsar".  

My political feelings on his reign are mixed, but I am in
no doubt that he was a GOOD man and this picture
below shows me the type of love that he and Sunny had over all their years together.



We could all only hope for such enduring love.
Janet R.

[Alixz]

I had never seen that picture before.  It is wonderful to see Alix smiling with her arm around Nicky.

Even though she did have "issues"  she did have a very loving husband.

Positive attribute?  I think so.

Bad Tsar - good man.  That sounds like the general consensus.

[elfwine]

I had never seen that picture before.  It is wonderful to see Alix smiling with her arm around Nicky.

Even though she did have "issues"  she did have a very loving husband.

Positive attribute?  I think so.

Bad Tsar - good man.  That sounds like the general consensus.

     So the problem lies in the fact that often people will seize upon 'positive personal attributes' in an attempt to lessen Nicholas' massive failures as an Autocrat.
     He spoke several languages very well/he was devout/ he had wonderful manners/he loved his family - but he still was unable to realize that an Autocratic system based on a rigid devotion to the paradigms of the Orthodox Church and the strict restrictions of free speach/assembly/ or any political involvement by the people in their own government was a recipe for chaos.

Then again, Hitler was also a vegetarian and was generally believed to love childen and animals... not that THAT changes anything!

[Alixz]

I believe I said "Bad Tsar - Good Man".  We are all the sum of our parts.  Nicholas was no more and no less than we are.

Everyone has positive attributes and that is all that this thread was looking for.

I try to never mention Hitler, because I was told once that no matter the subject of a thread, eventually it will turn to Hitler and the Nazis.  It seems that the person who postulated that was right.

I know there are many posters who romanticize Nicholas and tend to make excuses for his short comings.  Perhaps it is the "nurturing" response that makes us want to see him as helpless in his surroundings and a victim of his place in history.

This thread is for "positive attributes".  I am not sure that this thread was meant to compare the positive to the negative or to excuse the negative.  I agree that "beautiful eyes" or a "sparkle" or "sadness" in the eyes aren't really positive attributes, but love of family and country (even blind love) certainly are.  

And as I have said before, Peter had his own son tortured and killed.  Catherine parrticipated in  the plot to kill her own husband.  Yet history calls them "Great".

However they ruled and no matter what else they did, they still had blood on their hands.

I have issues with that.  I would call them "Good Tsar - Bad Human"

[RichC]

I've always admired Nicholas' behavior during his captivity which, in the words of one scholar, "he bore with bravery and fortitude."  That took guts and I admire that.

I wish there could be an authoritative reading list posted on this site for those who wish to learn more about Russian history.  Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many posts condemning Nicholas for sticking so tenaciously to the autocratic system and fighting the Duma.  Certainly reforms were needed, but not necessarily the one's that are frequently mentioned on this forum.  

Instituting a democratic government would not have solved everything overnight.  Alexandra wrote that the Russian people were not ready for democracy, and she was right.  Indeed, most of Nicholas' best ministers, such was Sergius Witte, were staunch supporters of the imperial system.  The same is true of Stolypin, Pobedenotsev, etc.  These people were Russia's greatest minds.  They knew what they were talking about.  

Throughout Nicholas' reign, few people thought the system of government was the problem.  Rather they thought the Tsar himself, and later the Tsarina, were the problem.  So, in my opinion, statements deploring Nicholas' failure to "institute democratic reforms" betray a certain ignorance of what was happening in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Alixz]

RichC I think you are correct.  There are lists of books about Nicholas and Alexandra and many of their relatives, but books about Russian History, not just the monarchy might indeed help some.

The books we read tend to concentrate on the Aristocracy and their excesses and short comings.  I have a book called "Before the Revolution" which a friend of mine gave me thinking that it was about N&A.  It turned out to be about the serfs and the common people and their hardships.

Of course Russian history has to include the Tsars, but the mind set of the Russian people and the truth about the things that effected them would help us to better understand the times.

I have read that the people in the Provences had no problem with the Tsar himself.  They seldom blamed him directly for their problems.

[RichC]

Thanks AlixZ.  It just seems to me that although Nicholas may not have possessed the solutions to Russia's problems, it doesn't appear that anyone else did either.  I see posts on here sometimes that make it seem as if the solutions to Russia's problems were as plain as the nose on your face, and how could Nicholas have been so blind not to have seen that.  I think that view is very simplistic.

[Forum Admin]

RichC has hit the nail on the head about this and many other disucssions here. It is VERY simple to "monday morning quarterback" (non-US users feel free to PM me for an explanation!) history. However, what is critical to genuinely understand history is  a CONTEXTUAL view of the events, ideas, thoughts, etc of Nicholas and others.  Sure, we can say "Nicholas should have done x y or z, but, could he have given other wider historical concerns...?

[Tania]

Hi Rich,

Your insight is great in regards to his IH Nicholas. I always look forward to your postings. Your care to offer that which is not much regarded, shines again in terms of where to focus in terms of positive attributes. Thank you for your fairness, and in thinking, where some think not, and just express to express...

Best Regards,

Tatiana

I've always admired Nicholas' behavior during his captivity which, in the words of one scholar, "he bore with bravery and fortitude."  That took guts and I admire that.

I wish there could be an authoritative reading list posted on this site for those who wish to learn more about Russian history.  Perhaps then we wouldn't have so many posts condemning Nicholas for sticking so tenaciously to the autocratic system and fighting the Duma.  Certainly reforms were needed, but not necessarily the one's that are frequently mentioned on this forum.  

Instituting a democratic government would not have solved everything overnight.  Alexandra wrote that the Russian people were not ready for democracy, and she was right.  Indeed, most of Nicholas' best ministers, such was Sergius Witte, were staunch supporters of the imperial system.  The same is true of Stolypin, Pobedenotsev, etc.  These people were Russia's greatest minds.  They knew what they were talking about.  

Throughout Nicholas' reign, few people thought the system of government was the problem.  Rather they thought the Tsar himself, and later the Tsarina, were the problem.  So, in my opinion, statements deploring Nicholas' failure to "institute democratic reforms" betray a certain ignorance of what was happening in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Alixz]

I have been for so long saying that everything needs to be taken in context.  I guess I just put it incorrectly.  I have always said that we are the sum of all of our expierences and all of that which impacts us and those around us.

Thank you FA.  Good show RichC.

It is so easy to simplistic in our views, but life is not simplistic and the life of an autocrat was the least simplistic of all.

[Romanov_fan]

Nicholas is often called a fatalist; certainly it seems that he showed every earmark of this attitude, beyond what is written about him. Is this true? And if so, why might he have had this view? I am myself rather this way, and I just wondered more about Nicholas II and fatalism.  Also, I have to write a philosophy paper and was going to do it on Nicholas II and fatalism as a philosophy.I coudn't find this topic when I searched for it. Thanks in advance for your replies.

[Georgiy]

I don't think of it so much as 'fatalism' per se, but as an acceptance that ultimately all is as God wills. It is quite normal Orthodox thought.  It may be hard to do a decent paper on it, not having in depth knowledge of Orthodox philosophy, - it may pay to look at some books on (Russian/Byzantine) Orthodox theology or even the philocalia.

[Romanov_fan]

Thanks for your help!

[Georgiy]

I wanted to add a bit more about this so-called 'fatalism'. We often hear that the Tsar would say such things as 'it's God's will', etc., which to a non-religious person may sound like fatalism and lack of will on one's own behalf, but it is not that at all. For example one might have prayed and asked and begged God for something, but God's answer may have been 'No.' One might have prayed and prayed for a son, and one gets a son with an incurable disease. Accepting that what has happened is God's will, to my mind is not fatalism but realism - what has happened has happened and we can't change it, so better to accept what God has willed than to get uptight and upset and angry about things.

I suspect this is closer to the Tsar's outlook than what may be implied by the term fatalism.