How Would History Have Rated Nicholas II if....?

[Robert_Hall]

Good analogy, Elisabeth.  And you are correct- Silja is an excellent  resource on the French Revolution. I think she was actually there, in a previous life.
I do not think Charles I was mediocre at all. Of the 3, he was the only one to actually fight for his throne and  beliefs.  The other 2 gave in rather meekly, imo.

[lexi4]

Elisabeth,
I think you have cited another thing Nicholas II and Louis XVI had in common, They both (catastrophically) submitted their wives'  political judgment at a critical moments. I sometimes have wondered if Nicholas really knew what to think or how to act without input from Alexandra. He was, in some ways, a weak man.

[Elisabeth]

Elisabeth,
I think you have cited another thing Nicholas II and Louis XVI had in common, They both (catastrophically) submitted their wives'  political judgment at a critical moments. I sometimes have wondered if Nicholas really knew what to think or how to act without input from Alexandra. He was, in some ways, a weak man.

Yes, I agree with you, Lexi, I think Nicholas was a weak man, with all the inborn obstinacy of a weak man. At the same time, I am reluctant to follow the example of so many others here and agree  that, by way of compensation, he was also an entirely good man at heart. I can't get out of my mind those enthusiastic remarks of approval he scrawled across official documents announcing recent pogroms against the Jews of his empire.

So no,  I don't believe Nicholas was saintly in any sense of the word, at least, not while he was still tsar of all the Russias. There was not only the occasional bloodthirstiness where Russia's "internal enemies" (the Jews, the revolutionaries) were concerned, but there was also World War I. Which is not to say I believe he was bloodthirsty in the latter case - initially at least he seems to have felt supreme reluctance to sacrifice his subjects' lives, even in the name of a "good cause," the war against Germany and Austro-Hungary. Nevertheless, after the usual initial hesitancy (common to many rulers), he became resigned to the so-called political reality and let millions go to their deaths as if there had never been any other alternative (and yet, no doubt there were other alternatives).

On the other hand, everything I've read about Louis XVI would seem to indicate that he was a genuinely good, even saintly soul who could not bear the thought of anyone's blood being spilt in his name, even if it meant that he would be imprisoned by radical forces, even if it meant that he would lose his throne or, for that matter, ultimately his head. He was terrified of the prospect of civil war, of Frenchman killing Frenchman. But again, I'd counsel everyone to consult Silja on any matter regarding Louis XVI - she really is in command of an impressive amount of knowledge about the French Revolution and particularly about Louis and his wife Marie Antoinette.

[ilyala]

i want to point out that charles 1st of england also was quite dependant on his wife. henrietta maria was just as unpopular in england as marie antoinette and alix were in france and russia and for the exact same reasons: she was viewed as the foreigner who influences the monarch against his own country. and while i'm sure that none of the three women were aware of their doings, they were all doing that.

all three countries were at their patience's end and all wanted to get more involved in the ruling. all three monarchs were influenced and encouraged by their wives to not give in. of course, charles was inclined to let himself be encouraged by his wife's opinion because they matched his own a great deal (just like alix' opinions matched nicholas), however, i'm sure he would have been much less sure of himself and maybe a little more open to discussion had she not been there every step of the way.

what strikes me as odd is this:

i can understand henrietta maria's position. she grew up in a absolutist country where l'etates generales were completely submitted to the king or the king's minister. marie antoinette herself came from a simmilar position.

but  (and i've pointed this out before) i don't understand alix of hesse. she grew up with her grandmother, the ruler of the most democratic country that was at that point. from that background alone she should have been a moderating influence on her husband, and i'm sure that had she encouraged nicholas towards a democracy, he would have eventually given in. i will never understand why she became more autocratic than the autocrat himself.

[Belochka]

So no,  I don't believe Nicholas was saintly in any sense of the word, at least, not while he was still tsar of all the Russias. There was not only the occasional bloodthirstiness where Russia's "internal enemies" (the Jews, the revolutionaries) were concerned, but there was also World War I. Which is not to say I believe he was bloodthirsty in the latter case - initially at least he seems to have felt supreme reluctance to sacrifice his subjects' lives, even in the name of a "good cause," the war against Germany and Austro-Hungary. Nevertheless, after the usual initial hesitancy (common to many rulers), he became resigned to the so-called political reality and let millions go to their deaths as if there had never been any other alternative (and yet, no doubt there were other alternatives).

It should be recalled that Nikolai initiated the first Hague Convention having an interest in the limitation of armaments and setting down international standards for the rules of war.

I would rate Nikolai with a 5* rating for this incentive.

Nikolai was appauled by the heavy loss of Russian life. He understood the meaning of life and death - it was an issue which he confronted personally. With respect it is rather harsh to postulate that Nikolai "let millions go to their deaths." It must be borne in mind that this was a military engagement that requires soldiers in battle. In doing so each man on the battle field understood the possible ensuing consequences. As would be expected multitudes gladly volunteered to serve their country. My maternal grandfather was one of the lucky ones - he survived the battlefields of WWI to fight another world war as an officer under Zhukov's command serving under a very different regime. But like he, each soldier on the field was proud and believed that they were fighting for their Emperor and Imperial Russia. Many failed to return and it for those we weep and shall remember. Please do not take that dignity away from them.

My star rating for the fallen soldiers is a 5* rating and for their determination to win for their country and their supreme commander.

Margarita

[Louis_Charles]

Nicholas II was the leader of Russia. The soldiers who died in World War I did so under his command. Hence, it is correct to say that he "let millions go to their deaths". In fact, it was worse than that. He let them fight a twentieth century war with hopelessly inadequate weapons, inadequate supply lines and leadership in the field that lead soldiers into mass slaughter. It doesn't really matter if the soldiers --- each and every one? And this is determined through . . .? --- believed in their Tsar. Their Tsar had an obligation to protect his soldiers and he failed.  Miserably. That's not an opinion, it's an objective fact. He was certainly not alone in his ineptitude --- Wilhelm II, Franz Josef and the constitutional governments of England and France in 1914 were nothing to write home about, either. As for the Hague Convention --- it was a noble, if ineffective, effort.

No one is taking anyone's dignity away. It is to their credit that the Russian soldiers fought as well and as heroically as they did, given the quality of their leadership. But it doesn't make the leadership right simply because the soldiers did fight and die for it. The undeniable bravery of the Red Army is not a valedictory for Stalin.

[ilyala]

i agree with the whole 'he let the army fight unequipped for the war'.

but i don't think he did out of any other reason than ignorance. it was pointed out on this forum elsewhere that both nicholas and alexandra received falsely optimistic reports on the actual life in russia. they honestly believed that russian peasants loved them, they believed they were popular. i am sure it wouldn't have been very hard to conceive such a report about the state of the army.

i don't think nicholas was bloodthirsty or intentionally cruel to his army. he was careless and incompetent. he believed whatever other people told him and forgot to check for himself. not a compliment on his account, most likely, however, a different criticism.

[Kurt Steiner]

Nicholas II was the leader of Russia. The soldiers who died in World War I did so under his command. Hence, it is correct to say that he "let millions go to their deaths". In fact, it was worse than that. He let them fight a twentieth century war with hopelessly inadequate weapons, inadequate supply lines and leadership in the field that lead soldiers into mass slaughter. It doesn't really matter if the soldiers --- each and every one? And this is determined through . . .? --- believed in their Tsar. Their Tsar had an obligation to protect his soldiers and he failed.  Miserably. That's not an opinion, it's an objective fact. He was certainly not alone in his ineptitude --- Wilhelm II, Franz Josef and the constitutional governments of England and France in 1914 were nothing to write home about, either. As for the Hague Convention --- it was a noble, if ineffective, effort.

As you say, the same can be said about Wilhelm II, Franz Josef and the rest. It is not a question that he was guilty because he just let them go. The main problem was that no one had the slightest idea of what was going to happen in WW1 -after all, all was going to be over by Christmas'14-.

If the Tsar failed to his soldiers, the same can be said about Wilhem II or George V or Franz Joseph. Those who died at the Somme or at Passchendaele were wasted in the same way that those butchered at the Mansurian Lakes or at Tannenberg.

To make it short, they all fought a 20th century war as if they were fighting in the 19th century.

[ilyala]

i don't think wilhelm 2nd had an untrained army... i think his was the most trained of all! 

[Louis_Charles]

Perhaps not. They did lose.

[Robert_Hall]

Yes, being the best armed, equipped and trained is not a sure sign of victory.  Just look at what is going on now...

[ilyala]

Perhaps not. They did lose.

they lost because their allies were not so well trained and they couldn't fight the whole world by themselves. they lost because england and france had access to resources around the globe, none of their allies did.

[Louis_Charles]

See, it they had been better trained they would have realized these possibilities before starting the war. And before you post, Robert, The parallels are eerie, I tells you, EERIE.

[lexi4]

Elisabeth,
I think you have cited another thing Nicholas II and Louis XVI had in common, They both (catastrophically) submitted their wives'  political judgment at a critical moments. I sometimes have wondered if Nicholas really knew what to think or how to act without input from Alexandra. He was, in some ways, a weak man.

Yes, I agree with you, Lexi, I think Nicholas was a weak man, with all the inborn obstinacy of a weak man. At the same time, I am reluctant to follow the example of so many others here and agree  that, by way of compensation, he was also an entirely good man at heart. I can't get out of my mind those enthusiastic remarks of approval he scrawled across official documents announcing recent pogroms against the Jews of his empire.

So no,  I don't believe Nicholas was saintly in any sense of the word, at least, not while he was still tsar of all the Russias. There was not only the occasional bloodthirstiness where Russia's "internal enemies" (the Jews, the revolutionaries) were concerned, but there was also World War I. Which is not to say I believe he was bloodthirsty in the latter case - initially at least he seems to have felt supreme reluctance to sacrifice his subjects' lives, even in the name of a "good cause," the war against Germany and Austro-Hungary. Nevertheless, after the usual initial hesitancy (common to many rulers), he became resigned to the so-called political reality and let millions go to their deaths as if there had never been any other alternative (and yet, no doubt there were other alternatives).

On the other hand, everything I've read about Louis XVI would seem to indicate that he was a genuinely good, even saintly soul who could not bear the thought of anyone's blood being spilt in his name, even if it meant that he would be imprisoned by radical forces, even if it meant that he would lose his throne or, for that matter, ultimately his head. He was terrified of the prospect of civil war, of Frenchman killing Frenchman. But again, I'd counsel everyone to consult Silja on any matter regarding Louis XVI - she really is in command of an impressive amount of knowledge about the French Revolution and particularly about Louis and his wife Marie Antoinette.

Very good point Elisaabeth. And I do think you are correct in saying that he led millions to thier death. He did. As ruler of all Russia, he had the authority to send soldiers to war as he did. I do think he mourned for the loss of so many soldiers, but not to the extent of Louis XVI.
I think his remarks about the progroms says it all. He endorsed those. I think that Nicohlas lacked the ability to thnk things through. I think he relied too much on the opinion of his wife. I have difficulty understanding the idea of sainthood, but just chalk that up to the fact that I am neither Orthodox of Christian. So I lack that perspective.

[Raegan]

I can't get out of my mind those enthusiastic remarks of approval he scrawled across official documents announcing recent pogroms against the Jews of his empire.

I'm curious to know what documents you are referring to. Nicholas II's Anti-Semitism was brought up in a thread several months ago, and I thought the post below was very enlightening.

Please read the excellent discussion on this subject in "Fontanka 16".  The authors researched the Okhrana archives which had been sealed until the late 1990s.  The genuine truth is that the government of Nicholas II NEVER EVER ordered nor sanctioned a single pogrom.  Nicholas, to the contrary, is on record ordering pogroms to cease and/or be prevented. The genuine source of pogroms during Nicholas II's reign is of lower level police and governmental officials all on the local level.
Now, Nicholas was not exactly what we would modern people call totally open minded about Jews. I'm Jewish myself.  However, Nicholas realized that many of his subjects were indeed rabidly anit-Semitic and he sought to keep the peace with all groups.

http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,7339.0.html

After reading this, I checked out "Fontanka 16" through interlibrary loan, and it provided a lot of interesting information on this topic. Nicholas was not nearly as Anti-Semitic as some have made him out to be. I just put in another request for it, and if anyone wants me to post the pages from the book regarding this issue, I would be more than happy to do it.