We all know the of the circumstances which led to the downfall of Imperial Russia, and the rise of Bolshevism, but do you believe that such a chaotic sequence of events could have been avoided? Did the opportunity exist for the Tsar to retain the monarchy of Imperial Russia, and protect the Romanov Dynasty?
For example, what if the Tsar had:
1. Answered to the pleas of the moderates within his cabinet to form a Constitutional Monarchy with a representative government and an elected, parliamentary chamber? Tsarist Russia, before 1905, was very much an autocratic state, not nearly to the extent of the totalitarianism and repression of the Bolshevist dictatorship, but there was no definitive representation, as there was in Great Britain.
2. Kept his promises of concessions made during the October Manifesto of 1905? The Manifesto was the foundation upon which a Constitutional Monarchy could have been built - it even promised universal suffrage and representation. However, the Fundamental Laws of 1907 effectively curbed the influence of the Duma upon Russian politics. What if such laws were never introduced? What if the October Manifesto had been adhered to?
3. Not appointed himself as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army in 1915? What if he had attempted to conclude an honourable peace with the Central Powers in the first months of 1917, before the spontaneous (and I emphasise that word) uprisings of February? Could the disasters of the June offensive have been avoided, and the Dynasty remained intact?
The execution of the Romanovs brought a tragic end to the prestige of an entire Dyansty. If the above concessions had been made, perhaps the brutality of the subsequant revolution would have been avoided, and perhaps Tsarism would have survived to this day...
I apologise if this has been posted before, but your responses would be much appreciated.
Thanks...
Tsar Nicholas II and the Russian Revolution(s)
Lord Gort, the laws were commonly known as the Fundamental Laws of 1907. Essentially, they reduced the status of the Duma from a constitutional representative, to a consultative body. From then onwards, the power rested in the Imperial State Council (equivalent to the House of Lords, or the German Bundestrat).
Yes, a victory against the Japanese would also have helped, but the concessions of October 1905 should have rendered such action unnecessary. I believe it was the "Kadets" and "Octobrists" (the orginal parties who proposed the formation of a Constitutional Monarchy) who pushed for the concessions to be maintained. However, Nicholas' inner circle of ministers were from the "old school" of thought - much more suited to the reign of Alexander III than Nicholas II.What would have been good would have been a victory against the Japanese.
-
Lord Gort
- Member
- Posts: 2014
- Joined: 07 Apr 2002, 15:44
- Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory
Essentially Russia was experiencing the social upheaval common during industrial growth, made more acute by the backwardness of the government and people, and the rapidity of the industrialisation.
I am not sure that the monarchy could have been saved, not just for the reasons above but also because of the nature of Nicholas. He epitomizes the weakness of monarchies. When you have a strong sovereign the nation flourishes or oevrcomes its problems, when it is weak then the very survival of state is questionable. We managed to get out of that medieval cycle however Russia had not.
regards,
I am not sure that the monarchy could have been saved, not just for the reasons above but also because of the nature of Nicholas. He epitomizes the weakness of monarchies. When you have a strong sovereign the nation flourishes or oevrcomes its problems, when it is weak then the very survival of state is questionable. We managed to get out of that medieval cycle however Russia had not.
regards,
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
The only slim chance he had was to prepare to the WW I that it would be decided in quick and speedy manner in his favor. Russo-Japanese war an consecutive failed revolution was a wake-up call -he did not get it. He had 11 years to prepare and yet Russian Armies ran out of ammo in the first few months of war. That said Russian Monarchy was going downhill sin 19th century – what happened was logical conclusion.
Russia was not the Constitutional Monarchy that Great Britain was, but the opportunity was there, and the October Manifesto should have been built upon, not repealed.
Alexander (Nicholas' grandfather) abolished sefdom in 1861, and was on his way to the forming of a consultative chamber. However, most unfortunately, the "Tsar Liberator" was assassinated before such a measure could be initiated.
I believe that had it not been for the spontaneous occurances that led to the February Uprising in 1917, the Tsarist Government would have stood a chance of retaining power. Like I said, the conclusion of an honourable and conditional peace with the Central Powers before February 1917 would have prevented the chaotic sequence of events that followed...
Nicholas should ideally have answered to the pleas of the moderates in the Duma (Kadets, Octobrists), but the obstacle of the Imperial State Council proved to be too high.
Well, optimists from the time believed that a continuation of Alexander II's reform would have strengthened the position of the Monarchy. The "populists" who assassinated him in 1881, eliminated a figure upon which Russia's constitutional reform rested.That said Russian Monarchy was going downhill in 19th century – what happened was logical conclusion.
Alexander (Nicholas' grandfather) abolished sefdom in 1861, and was on his way to the forming of a consultative chamber. However, most unfortunately, the "Tsar Liberator" was assassinated before such a measure could be initiated.
I believe that had it not been for the spontaneous occurances that led to the February Uprising in 1917, the Tsarist Government would have stood a chance of retaining power. Like I said, the conclusion of an honourable and conditional peace with the Central Powers before February 1917 would have prevented the chaotic sequence of events that followed...
Nicholas should ideally have answered to the pleas of the moderates in the Duma (Kadets, Octobrists), but the obstacle of the Imperial State Council proved to be too high.
-
Oleg Grigoryev
- Member
- Posts: 5051
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:06
- Location: Russia
When compared to the defeat of the Russian Navy in the Battle for Tsushima Straits, the Battle of Mukden (whilst still a defeat) was a mere setback. When concerning the Russian Army, pride and morale suffered the heaviest losses, as opposed to men and material...I have never seen much information on the battle of Mukden. Could you tell me the scale interms of land and men etc and anything else about the battle.
-
Balrog
- Member
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: 17 Feb 2003, 16:09
- Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic
czar nicholas II buried himself. i think if he had actually set up a constitutional system like england he might have saved himself. why?
a parliament would have demanded that czar nicholas II pull russia out of ww1. the czar's commitment to fight the war to the finish sealed his fate. alexander kerensky replaced the czar, and decided it was russia's duty to stay in the war. also the allies told kerensky point blank ,"no fight, no loans". kerensky was knocked out of power because he continued the war.
one point you make about czar nicholas II is critical. he DID appoint himself commander in chief of the army, replacing his uncle the grand duke, who was a respected commander. nicholas II was a completely incompetent general. he could not be reasoned with by russians intelligent generals. general wrangel, who would be a general in the white civil war commented that the czar had to be removed to save russia. nicholas II was rightfully blamed for many of russia's misfortunes.
from memory the czarist military was rebuilding itself under grand duke (nicholas?) , the czar's uncle. the grand duke and the general staff had forseen that no major war would probably be started before 1917, and that by then they would be a in fairly good situation to fight. yes, the czar's army was not prepared for 1914. i remember reading that in massie's "nicholas and alexandria". i don't remember the logic for the date of 1917, but i believe that was the schedule the imperial army was working with.
also, the czar was weak minded and hen pecked by his wife. the influence of rasputin also played a role in the czar's downfall. "without rasputin, there could have been no lenin". alexander kerensky wrote that in exile. i don't know if that is an exagerration or not. however, rasputin was the man who got the grand duke fired from stavka(russian headquarters) and replaced by czar nicholas II. rasputin used his influence to get competent ministers and government civil service people fired and replaced by his worthless, corrupt, friends. rasputin seemed to control the empress, and the empress had a lot of control over the czar.
all in all, without a war, the czar eventually would have had to become some kind of constitutional monarchy or be toppled from power. it was the largest country in europe, and the only one that ruled absolutely.there was too much pressure, not only from workers, but even the czarist nobility and elite for constitutional change. the czarist monarchy was a dinosaur in 1905, let alone in 1917.
a parliament would have demanded that czar nicholas II pull russia out of ww1. the czar's commitment to fight the war to the finish sealed his fate. alexander kerensky replaced the czar, and decided it was russia's duty to stay in the war. also the allies told kerensky point blank ,"no fight, no loans". kerensky was knocked out of power because he continued the war.
one point you make about czar nicholas II is critical. he DID appoint himself commander in chief of the army, replacing his uncle the grand duke, who was a respected commander. nicholas II was a completely incompetent general. he could not be reasoned with by russians intelligent generals. general wrangel, who would be a general in the white civil war commented that the czar had to be removed to save russia. nicholas II was rightfully blamed for many of russia's misfortunes.
from memory the czarist military was rebuilding itself under grand duke (nicholas?) , the czar's uncle. the grand duke and the general staff had forseen that no major war would probably be started before 1917, and that by then they would be a in fairly good situation to fight. yes, the czar's army was not prepared for 1914. i remember reading that in massie's "nicholas and alexandria". i don't remember the logic for the date of 1917, but i believe that was the schedule the imperial army was working with.
also, the czar was weak minded and hen pecked by his wife. the influence of rasputin also played a role in the czar's downfall. "without rasputin, there could have been no lenin". alexander kerensky wrote that in exile. i don't know if that is an exagerration or not. however, rasputin was the man who got the grand duke fired from stavka(russian headquarters) and replaced by czar nicholas II. rasputin used his influence to get competent ministers and government civil service people fired and replaced by his worthless, corrupt, friends. rasputin seemed to control the empress, and the empress had a lot of control over the czar.
all in all, without a war, the czar eventually would have had to become some kind of constitutional monarchy or be toppled from power. it was the largest country in europe, and the only one that ruled absolutely.there was too much pressure, not only from workers, but even the czarist nobility and elite for constitutional change. the czarist monarchy was a dinosaur in 1905, let alone in 1917.
In June 1917, Kerensky himself ordered a full-scale offensive by the Russian Army against the combined Austro-German force on the home soil. However, such an attack proved to be a disaster, and as with the French Army at Verdun, the Imperial Army was pushed to the brink of mutiny.
As for the Allied proposal of "no fight, no loans", I do not know whether the French or British had, at that time, an actual grasp of the situation in Petrograd and Moscow. The Western Front consumed the vast majority of their attention, and with good reason too - 1917 was the year of Ypres III, Arras and the Nivelle offensive. Had the Allies known of the genuine need for the Tsar to relinquish his position in the Entente Cordiale (to save the Russian Monarchy), they may not have been so strict in their reasoning.
Remember: No Russia = No Eastern Front. No Eastern Front = More German reinforcements for the West...
To Summarise:-
I believe that had it not been for the spontaneous occurances that led to the February Uprising in 1917, the Tsarist Government would have stood a chance of retaining power. Like I said, the conclusion of an honourable and conditional peace with the Central Powers before February 1917 would have prevented the chaotic sequence of events that followed...
As for the Allied proposal of "no fight, no loans", I do not know whether the French or British had, at that time, an actual grasp of the situation in Petrograd and Moscow. The Western Front consumed the vast majority of their attention, and with good reason too - 1917 was the year of Ypres III, Arras and the Nivelle offensive. Had the Allies known of the genuine need for the Tsar to relinquish his position in the Entente Cordiale (to save the Russian Monarchy), they may not have been so strict in their reasoning.
Remember: No Russia = No Eastern Front. No Eastern Front = More German reinforcements for the West...
To Summarise:-
I believe that had it not been for the spontaneous occurances that led to the February Uprising in 1917, the Tsarist Government would have stood a chance of retaining power. Like I said, the conclusion of an honourable and conditional peace with the Central Powers before February 1917 would have prevented the chaotic sequence of events that followed...
Well, although certainly very different to the economies of Western and Central Europe (who embraced gradual free market policies, as opposed to the "closed economy" of Russia) under Alexander II, the Russian Empire was on a path to genuine reform and modernisation. Alexander abolished serfdom and encouraged economic self-sufficiency.Lord Gort wrote:Essentially Russia was experiencing the social upheaval common during industrial growth, made more acute by the backwardness of the government and people, and the rapidity of the industrialisation.
I am not sure that the monarchy could have been saved, not just for the reasons above but also because of the nature of Nicholas. He epitomizes the weakness of monarchies. When you have a strong sovereign the nation flourishes or oevrcomes its problems, when it is weak then the very survival of state is questionable. We managed to get out of that medieval cycle however Russia had not.
He also proposed the formation of a consultative chamber in the "Ukaz Plan" but was, most unfortunately, assassinated before such a measure could be initiated. Consequently his son, Alexander III, cancelled the "Ukaz Plan" and strengthened the position of autocratic rule.
Nicholas may have been ill-suited to autocratic rule, but it was the ministers of the Imperial State Council who presented the highest obstacle to constitutional reform. Ministers such as Stolypin and Goremykin enjoyed close relationships with the moderate Octobrists, and despite their natural conservative outlook, were not opponents to reform.
As I stated previously, Tsar Nicholas II had a golden opportunity to reform and "westernise" Russia into a true constitutional monarchy - the October Manifesto proves this.
To summarise:-
The execution of Nicholas Romanov and the Russian Royal Family brought a tragic end to the prestige of an entire Dyansty. If concessions had been made, perhaps the brutality of the subsequant revolution would have been avoided, and perhaps Tsarism would have survived to this day...
>... Tsarist Russia, before 1905, was very much an autocratic state, not nearly to the extent of the totalitarianism and repression of the Bolshevist dictatorship, but there was no definitive representation, as there was in Great Britain.
In other words the Tzarism crushed because of lacking of democracy and liberalism. Seemly it was a wide-spread opinion in the Russian society in 1917. They were sure that all the disasters had been caused by some government's limitations in the political life (most of them were necessary during the war) and as soon as all the limits were cancelled everything would become well. That was why the Interim Government were making one act of liberalization to another. But the history proved they were wrong - the IG crashed rather more miserably and quickly than their "authoritarian" predecessors.
>3. Not appointed himself as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army in 1915?
What I can't agree with is that Nicholay II was anyhow worse as a commander than his uncle. May be lacked military education (which is not the key point for a supreme military leader as the WW2 proved) but nevertheless the Tzar proved himself as an excellent strategist especially in the front of these "great experts" (I mean Front Commanders) as Ivanov (later the main responsible person for the February 1917), Evert, Ruzsky, Bonch-Bruevich (damned commy-scum) or Kuropatkin (super famous since the Russo-Japan War). The dull system of appointment created by Nicholay Nicholayevich didn't allow to put a better officer in charge of someone elder. Unfortunately it took too much time for Nicholay II to crush this damned system and to make really usefull appointments like ones of Brusilov and Kolchak.
>What if he had attempted to conclude an honourable peace with the Central Powers in the first months of 1917, before the spontaneous (and I emphasise that word) uprisings of February?
I don't it was the matter. 1917 was the year of German's failure. Basing on all accounts Germany must have suffered an unavoidable defeat. From another side no honourable peace while the Germans were on the Russian territory was possible.
We may blame Tzar for his bad military command but the fact is that under his guidance (in 1916 and early 1917) the Army lost no a square meter more of the Russian territory. There was conducted the most brilliant Russian action of the WW1 - Brusilov offensive. There was reached a great victory on the Turkish Front. There was ressolved the key problems of military supplyment. Russia got a new ally - Romania was encouraged to enter the war seeing Russian successes.
As about Nicholay Nicholayevich - IMHO he anticipated the worst characters of the Soviet commanders of the WW2. His main method of offensive - to concentrate main efforts around a big geographical object totally ignoring enemy forces like he did during the offensive in the East Prussia when he directed Rennenkampf on Koningsbierg (of course it looked as a very big spot on a map) instead of to help to Samsonov, then L'vov offensive (all forces on L'vov), Lodz' offensive (everything on Lodz') etc. - all the results were giant Russian losses. But his tactic of defence was even worse, here he applied the later Soviet one - no a step backward. All the catastrophes of 1915 beginning from the fall of Novogeorgievsk happened thanks to Great Knight Nicholay Nicholayevich personally. In 1915 Russia lost more than 50% of all the war's losses.
Unfortunately the Tzar was too soft to hang his uncle on a Winter Palace's balcony in the first weeks of the war. It required more than a year for him to fire this "military expert". But even then he remained too soft to fire the rest nullities and to force the front commanders to carry out his orders. The same can be said about his Chief of Staff General Alekseev who was developing good projects but wouldn't be able to make the commanders to obey them. This was the main problem of Russian command during the WW1. Nevertheless even in these bad conditions the Tzar managed to reach significant successes in the war.
IMHO the Tzar's appointment of himself to the Supreme Commander was his best decision of all his life.
--------------------
>a parliament would have demanded that czar nicholas II pull russia out of ww1. the czar's commitment to fight the war to the finish sealed his fate.
As you know there REALLY WAS the Parliament (aka Duma) in Russia in 1914. And they unanimously approved and supported the government in the war.
>the grand duke and the general staff had forseen that no major war would probably be started before 1917,
Yes, it would be better if the war had started in 1917 or even hadn't happened at all. But the problem is that Russia didn't choose the date of beginning of the war. The war was initiated by German aggression, it was a German soldier who crossed the border first - Russia had no choice whether to fight or not.
In other words the Tzarism crushed because of lacking of democracy and liberalism. Seemly it was a wide-spread opinion in the Russian society in 1917. They were sure that all the disasters had been caused by some government's limitations in the political life (most of them were necessary during the war) and as soon as all the limits were cancelled everything would become well. That was why the Interim Government were making one act of liberalization to another. But the history proved they were wrong - the IG crashed rather more miserably and quickly than their "authoritarian" predecessors.
>3. Not appointed himself as Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army in 1915?
What I can't agree with is that Nicholay II was anyhow worse as a commander than his uncle. May be lacked military education (which is not the key point for a supreme military leader as the WW2 proved) but nevertheless the Tzar proved himself as an excellent strategist especially in the front of these "great experts" (I mean Front Commanders) as Ivanov (later the main responsible person for the February 1917), Evert, Ruzsky, Bonch-Bruevich (damned commy-scum) or Kuropatkin (super famous since the Russo-Japan War). The dull system of appointment created by Nicholay Nicholayevich didn't allow to put a better officer in charge of someone elder. Unfortunately it took too much time for Nicholay II to crush this damned system and to make really usefull appointments like ones of Brusilov and Kolchak.
>What if he had attempted to conclude an honourable peace with the Central Powers in the first months of 1917, before the spontaneous (and I emphasise that word) uprisings of February?
I don't it was the matter. 1917 was the year of German's failure. Basing on all accounts Germany must have suffered an unavoidable defeat. From another side no honourable peace while the Germans were on the Russian territory was possible.
We may blame Tzar for his bad military command but the fact is that under his guidance (in 1916 and early 1917) the Army lost no a square meter more of the Russian territory. There was conducted the most brilliant Russian action of the WW1 - Brusilov offensive. There was reached a great victory on the Turkish Front. There was ressolved the key problems of military supplyment. Russia got a new ally - Romania was encouraged to enter the war seeing Russian successes.
As about Nicholay Nicholayevich - IMHO he anticipated the worst characters of the Soviet commanders of the WW2. His main method of offensive - to concentrate main efforts around a big geographical object totally ignoring enemy forces like he did during the offensive in the East Prussia when he directed Rennenkampf on Koningsbierg (of course it looked as a very big spot on a map) instead of to help to Samsonov, then L'vov offensive (all forces on L'vov), Lodz' offensive (everything on Lodz') etc. - all the results were giant Russian losses. But his tactic of defence was even worse, here he applied the later Soviet one - no a step backward. All the catastrophes of 1915 beginning from the fall of Novogeorgievsk happened thanks to Great Knight Nicholay Nicholayevich personally. In 1915 Russia lost more than 50% of all the war's losses.
Unfortunately the Tzar was too soft to hang his uncle on a Winter Palace's balcony in the first weeks of the war. It required more than a year for him to fire this "military expert". But even then he remained too soft to fire the rest nullities and to force the front commanders to carry out his orders. The same can be said about his Chief of Staff General Alekseev who was developing good projects but wouldn't be able to make the commanders to obey them. This was the main problem of Russian command during the WW1. Nevertheless even in these bad conditions the Tzar managed to reach significant successes in the war.
IMHO the Tzar's appointment of himself to the Supreme Commander was his best decision of all his life.
--------------------
>a parliament would have demanded that czar nicholas II pull russia out of ww1. the czar's commitment to fight the war to the finish sealed his fate.
As you know there REALLY WAS the Parliament (aka Duma) in Russia in 1914. And they unanimously approved and supported the government in the war.
>the grand duke and the general staff had forseen that no major war would probably be started before 1917,
Yes, it would be better if the war had started in 1917 or even hadn't happened at all. But the problem is that Russia didn't choose the date of beginning of the war. The war was initiated by German aggression, it was a German soldier who crossed the border first - Russia had no choice whether to fight or not.
-
Balrog
- Member
- Posts: 1248
- Joined: 17 Feb 2003, 16:09
- Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic
docent, i can't agree with you.
general wrangel is quoted as saying that is was nicholas II that was personally responsible for ruining russia. not just making a mess of the war, but of appointing government ministers who were bad for russia.
as for not losing a square meter of territory while the czar was in command of the army, i have never read that. i've read the opposite. even the brusilov offensives, while intially very successful, by the end had cost russia 500,000 dead soldiers. brusilov was russia's best generals, but he wasn't able to save the situation and was replaced by general kornilov in early 1917. most(if not all) brusilov's successes were reversed by 1916. ( i know he did push the frontline back 80KM, but the cost was too high for the russians to tolerate, revolution was coming)
yes, it is true that many in the duma voted to support the war in 1914,but so did all the european parliments who started fighting in 1914. war fever. but, by 1917, most people in russia did not want the war to continue. and remember, the duma was only an "advisory" group. it had no real power. if it had been a democratically elected and powerful part of the government, it would have voted russia out of the war.
writing that the czar's appointment was a good thing, you are the first person i've ever read that thinks that...
general wrangel is quoted as saying that is was nicholas II that was personally responsible for ruining russia. not just making a mess of the war, but of appointing government ministers who were bad for russia.
as for not losing a square meter of territory while the czar was in command of the army, i have never read that. i've read the opposite. even the brusilov offensives, while intially very successful, by the end had cost russia 500,000 dead soldiers. brusilov was russia's best generals, but he wasn't able to save the situation and was replaced by general kornilov in early 1917. most(if not all) brusilov's successes were reversed by 1916. ( i know he did push the frontline back 80KM, but the cost was too high for the russians to tolerate, revolution was coming)
yes, it is true that many in the duma voted to support the war in 1914,but so did all the european parliments who started fighting in 1914. war fever. but, by 1917, most people in russia did not want the war to continue. and remember, the duma was only an "advisory" group. it had no real power. if it had been a democratically elected and powerful part of the government, it would have voted russia out of the war.
writing that the czar's appointment was a good thing, you are the first person i've ever read that thinks that...