Author Topic: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?  (Read 34698 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pandora

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 71
  • Whatever you are, be a good one. Abraham Lincoln
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2007, 08:35:18 PM »
You are quite correct that the decision of Nicholas II to assume the position of Commander-in-Chief was extremely foolish. Taking up such a position made him 100% liable for all defeats and placed him far away from the capital of the empire. He was warned, like on so many other occasions during his reign, about the consequences of such actions. Sadly he chose not to listen. Nicholas seemed to go from one crisis to the next without learning and came out with the excuse that it was God's will or that he was born of the day of St.Job. Most of the situations he got himself into were completely avoidable, sadly. He seems to have been a very loving husband and father. Sadly this did not equip him to be the ruler of a vast empire. 

Dmitri, you are so correct. I keep thinking that every problem he encounters he'll surely learn from his mistakes but it's not to be. 

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #136 on: October 15, 2007, 05:14:56 PM »
Sometimes I have the feeling that the Tsar was running away from something or someone when he went to the field HQs of the Army.

However, had he remained in St. Petersburg, I doubt he would have been able to avoid the incoming disaster for his regime.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #137 on: October 15, 2007, 07:11:04 PM »
Sometimes I have the feeling that the Tsar was running away from something or someone when he went to the field HQs of the Army.

However, had he remained in St. Petersburg, I doubt he would have been able to avoid the incoming disaster for his regime.

Running away from what exactly? Nikolai II's primary concern was overseeing military operations to ensure victory.

The Duma in Petrograd was self destructing without his presence, whilst the opposing forces rather than supporting the government during wartime, ensured that civil disobedience ran rampant in the streets.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #138 on: October 20, 2007, 07:06:35 AM »
Sometimes I have the feeling that the Tsar was running away from something or someone when he went to the field HQs of the Army.

However, had he remained in St. Petersburg, I doubt he would have been able to avoid the incoming disaster for his regime.

Running away from what exactly? Nikolai II's primary concern was overseeing military operations to ensure victory.

The Duma in Petrograd was self destructing without his presence, whilst the opposing forces rather than supporting the government during wartime, ensured that civil disobedience ran rampant in the streets.

Margarita


If what you say is true, then would it not make sense for him to remain in Petrograd? After all, the job of running the armies could have been done by others.
Arguably, no one else seemed to have been able to quell the civil unrest - which means the correct strategy would have been to remain in the capital.

Offline Kurt Steiner

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 273
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #139 on: October 21, 2007, 11:08:29 AM »
Sometimes I have the feeling that the Tsar was running away from something or someone when he went to the field HQs of the Army.

However, had he remained in St. Petersburg, I doubt he would have been able to avoid the incoming disaster for his regime.

Running away from what exactly? Nikolai II's primary concern was overseeing military operations to ensure victory.

The Duma in Petrograd was self destructing without his presence, whilst the opposing forces rather than supporting the government during wartime, ensured that civil disobedience ran rampant in the streets.

Margarita


That's the problem, I cannot explain this odd feeling. I cannot tell exactly which was the reason for him to leave Petrograd, but I have this odd feeling.

Anyway, his presence in the Imperial HQs didn't help, either.

Offline Belochka

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4447
  • City of Peter stand in all your splendor - Pushkin
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #140 on: October 21, 2007, 06:03:17 PM »
Sometimes I have the feeling that the Tsar was running away from something or someone when he went to the field HQs of the Army.

However, had he remained in St. Petersburg, I doubt he would have been able to avoid the incoming disaster for his regime.

Running away from what exactly? Nikolai II's primary concern was overseeing military operations to ensure victory.

The Duma in Petrograd was self destructing without his presence, whilst the opposing forces rather than supporting the government during wartime, ensured that civil disobedience ran rampant in the streets.

Margarita


That's the problem, I cannot explain this odd feeling. I cannot tell exactly which was the reason for him to leave Petrograd, but I have this odd feeling.

Anyway, his presence in the Imperial HQs didn't help, either.

If he remained in Tsarskoe Selo he might have been more wisely advised to travel immediately to Petrograd. It really is a shame that he was not more determined to see what was happening on the streets. Whether he could have averted the chaos by that stage is rather moot.

Instead he left for Stavka on February 22 at 2 pm. His presence in Mogilev was disadvantageous for Nikolai solely because his own generals had cornered him into a no-win situation.

Margarita


Faces of Russia is now on Facebook!


http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/

Offline klava1985

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Did Nicholas have to abdicate?
« Reply #141 on: October 21, 2007, 07:41:49 PM »
I just want to say thanks to all for this great thread. Informative, because the participants have themselves been so well-informed.

I wish they all were like this...