Does Russia really need Monarchy?

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Lexi and Countess (and all here),
My grandfather (Paul Romanov) was born in 1880 in the Yaroslavl province (he died in 1942). I know, that he has arrived to St.-Petersburg per 1900 and worked till 1920 as simple worker at a factory. In a year after arrival in St.-Petersburg he lived with family in a separate two-room apartment. By 1913 they had four children. The grandfather worked one (the grandmother was engaged in housekeeping). The grandfather earned enough money and family was in well-being. He was not exception. Fair hardworking workers (not drunkards and not idlers) lived well till 1917. In 1907-1914 the workers lived well (at least, much better than after 1917).
I know all this from stories of my relatives which knew the grandfather and its family.
Revolution was madness of Petrograd.
The grandfather has been involved in this madness too. He wanted socialism and communism. He has believed in illusions of the Bolshevism and communism. Of course, I don't condemn him, - he was honest simple worker.
Boris
P.S. All of us we can consider as our luck, that I'm 62 years old and that I know the truth about that time in Russia directly from the parents (not only from president Taft and from Winston Churchill) :).

Boris, I think you place way too much emphasis on one statement made by Taft. You have consider the context and the politics of the time. All Taft wanted from Nicholas was the railroad. The fact remains that Nicolas was an inept ruler and was unable to see what was going on around him. It is said that one relies on the few words of two masterful politicians to justify Nicholas's rule.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Dear Boris, all those people in 2 rooms is hardly good living conditions. <...> The revolt did not just take place in St. Peterburg, it took place all over the country. People wanted a better life. Did they get it? It depends on your interpretation. <...>

Oh, dear Countess!
Certainly, under modern standards it is hardly good living conditions. However, for the beginning of XX centuries it were rather quite good conditions for workers.
Besides, after 1917 and down to 1970th years (!) the majority of people in large cities of Russia lived in «municipal/common apartments» (several families in one apartment, - up to 10-15 families (!), with one Water Closet!). Till now approximately 5-7 % of people in Petersburg are living in municipal/common apartments!
Bolsheviks in 1917-1937 have ruined villages that poor peasants have left villages and go to factories in large cities. Bolsheviks pursued a policy of " housing condensation» in all cities - so there were began «municipal/common apartments».

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

... The revolt did not just take place in St. Peterburg, it took place all over the country. People wanted a better life. Did they get it? It depends on your interpretation. Why is Russia so difficult to rule? I guess the mutiple ethic groups that have never homogonized into one people is a problem. The U.S. is large and we have regional difference, but we are all basically the same, even though we come from such different background. We are all Americans, in the end. So, maybe that is the problem.

In February, 1917 the disorders took place ONLY in Petrograd. Russia has been put before the fact of overthrow of a monarchy. Certainly, people has apprehended it in hope of improvement of a life and the termination of war. However, war has been continued, also a life worsened.
In November, 1917 bolsheviks have taken authority all over again ONLY in Petrograd and in Moscow. Lenin initiated Civil war to establish their authority in all Russia. Bolsheviks have won, because in Civil war they were the most ruthless. They have raped Russia.
Russia till now has not overcome 74 years of Soviet authorities (USSR). It is the main trouble and main problem of Russia.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Boris, I think you place way too much emphasis on one statement made by Taft. You have consider the context and the politics of the time. All Taft wanted from Nicholas was the railroad. The fact remains that Nicolas was an inept ruler and was unable to see what was going on around him. It is said that one relies on the few words of two masterful politicians to justify Nicholas's rule.

Lexi,
Do you read my post 89 (10-13-2007):
“ACHIEVEMENTS of Russia during the period of Nicholas's II reign” ?
Do you read my theme “False myths” on ColdHarbor forum?
Tuft and Churchill are only two of my several tens of reasons!
Boris

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Oh, dear Countess!
Certainly, under modern standards it is hardly good living conditions. However, for the beginning of XX centuries it were rather quite good conditions for workers.
Besides, after 1917 and down to 1970th years (!) the majority of people in large cities of Russia lived in «municipal/common apartments» (several families in one apartment, - up to 10-15 families (!), with one Water Closet!). Till now approximately 5-7 % of people in Petersburg are living in municipal/common apartments!
Bolsheviks in 1917-1937 have ruined villages that poor peasants have left villages and go to factories in large cities. Bolsheviks pursued a policy of " housing condensation» in all cities - so there were began «municipal/common apartments».

If conditions were so good, there would have been no need for a revolution. Russia had two. Bloody Sunday would never have happened.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Lexi,
Do you read my post 89 (10-13-2007):
“ACHIEVEMENTS of Russia during the period of Nicholas's II reign” ?
Do you read my theme “False myths” on ColdHarbor forum?
Tuft and Churchill are only two of my several tens of reasons!
Boris

Yes Boris, I have read them. I just don't buy it. It is easy to extrapolate quotes and take them out of context. You have to look/study Taft and Churchill. Did you read what I wrote about Taft being motivated by taking/leasing/buying Russia's railroad? He praised Nicholas because Taft for political reason.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

If conditions were so good, there would have been no need for a revolution. Russia had two. Bloody Sunday would never have happened.

Lexi,
Conditions of a life of Russian workers in 1900-1917 were not worse, than in other countries of the Europe. «Bloody Sunday» was tragical unfortunate accident. Initially it was usual peace demonstration which from time to time take place in all countries. Revolution of 1905 has been successfully suppressed. In 1907-1917 the Russia promptly and successfully developed.
Certainly, the autocracy (tsarism) was an anachronism. In 1917-1919 THREE large monarchy have collapsed in the Europe (not only Russia). However, ONLY in Russia the authority was grasped with a criminal gang of the international adventurers (bolsheviks). The further is known.
Boris

[BorisRom]

Nicholas II "is guilty" in collapse of Russian monarchy no more, than monarches of Germany and Austria-Hungary are guilty in collapse of their monarchies. He ruled (operated) Russia not worse, than they (I think, he operated better than they - as Russia by March, 1917 was on a threshold of a victory together with allies).

[lexi4]

Boris,
Had the "subjects" been happy, none of the kingdoms would have fallen. That is the point. There was revolution because people were not happy with their living conditions, among other things.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

Is one of the problems in governing Russia simply that the country is so large and has so many ethnic groups? Whether a President of a Tsar is at the top, they have the same geography to work with.

I think that is a fair assessment. Not to mention that there is no infrastructure outside of the cities. The infrastructure in the cities is a shambles. Education is poor.

[COUNTESS]

First of all "Bloody Sunday" was not the usual peace demonstration. It was organized by Father Gapon who was concerned about the conditions experienced by the working and lower classes. He drew up a petition to be presented to the Tsar, making clear the many problems and the opinions of the workers, who were not happy. This petition called for improved working conditions, fairer wages, and a reduction in the work day to 8 hours a day. It also, requested the end to the Russo-Japanese War and "universal sufferage". The previous December a large strike occurred at the Putilov plant. Sympathy strikes in other parts of St. Petersburg had 80,000 people involved. The demonstrators had hoped that the Tsar did care about them. They brought along their families. They were murdered. There were thousands of strike around the country and in many villages. They took place because of terrible conditions, not because they were happy.

As for the other 2 fallen monarchies after WWI, both brought their own disaster, too. Wihelm II was not too sane and plunged his country into this mayhem, so he like the Tsar was responsible just the same. Emperor Franz Joseph was very old and in despair. How he got involved in the mess is a lengthy explanation. He died before its end. Yes, they, the Blosheviks took over Russia, but they were the extreme answer to an extreme question. Germany fared better for a time and then came Hitler, who was also a result of WWI and the lunacy of the Kaiser, so none of them escaped scott free.

[lexi4]

Countess,
Excellent assessment.
The organized by Father Gapon were acting on the right they had to petition the Tsar. The marchers carried icons, Russian flags and portraits of Nicholas. While the walked, the sang "God Save the Tsar." There intent was peaceful. They were greeted by gunfire. This day destroyed the belief that the tsar and the people were one. Or that the tsar cared about their plight. One of Nicholas's advisors, Witte, tried to talk Nicholas into distancing himself and declare that the soldiers had fired without orders. Nicholas refused to do so. Bloody Sunday was a turning point.
Lexi

[ysbel]

I think its a rather cheap shot to blame Nicholas II for the Russian Revolution.

Russia was far too big and far too unwieldy for a single autocrat to rule no matter how able he was. This was why Alexander II moved towards his reforms and Alexander sought to keep a lid on things though it killed him in the process. The Russia of Nicholas II was a vast territory that included Finland and parts of Poland including areas that bordered the Pacific Ocean.

Part of the reason for Russian's unwieldiness was the backwards technology and social structures but even today satelite nations are spinning off of the Russian motherland because the whole is definitely less than its parts.

As much as I adore Massie's books, I think he led to an increased personalization of the view of Russian history which doesn't always tell the whole story.

The story of the fall of the Russian imperial dynasty is more than the story of Nicholas, Alexandra, and Rasputin. There were a lot more moving parts involved.

[lexi4]

I didn't realize anyone blamed only Nicholas. He did play a part in bringing on, but it was a long time in coming. And certainly not on the basis of anything Massie wrote. His books aren't all that well sourced. His book are a good way to get interested in Russian History, but by no means definitive.

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I didn't realize anyone blamed only Nicholas. He did play a part in bringing on, but it was a long time in coming. And certainly not on the basis of anything Massie wrote. His books aren't all that well sourced. His book are a good way to get interested in Russian History, but by no means definitive.

No what I meant is that Massie got people interested in the individuals involved, Nicholas, Alexandra, Rasputin, to the point where people now focus on those individuals when discussing the fall of the Russian Empire to the exclusion of wider ranging forces at work that would have stymied the most able administrator.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

No what I meant is that Massie got people interested in the individuals involved, Nicholas, Alexandra, Rasputin, to the point where people now focus on those individuals when discussing the fall of the Russian Empire to the exclusion of wider ranging forces at work that would have stymied the most able administrator.

Interesting perspective. That has not been my experience either in my Russian Studies classes or on other forums.
I think that it has more to do with Nicholas being the last tsar and a lack of knowledge of Russian history.

[ysbel]

lexi you said:

Originally Posted by lexi4

I do agree that Nicholas, had he any sense, could have avoided the Revolution.

I'm saying that he couldn't. There were too many forces at work towards making a revolution for Nicholas even with a lot of sense to prevent.

That is all.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by ysbel

lexi you said:



I'm saying that he couldn't. There were too many forces at work towards making a revolution for Nicholas even with a lot of sense to prevent.

That is all.

What that the cheap shot to which you were referring? Maybe I overstated it, but I do think Nicholas had the opportunity and in some instances, the advisors to avoid a Revolution. I'm not saying it would have been easy, it would not have been. The seeds of revolution were planted long before Nicholas took the throne. Nicholas would have had to be willing to move towards a Constitutional Monarchy, listen to his advisors (including his mother) to avoid Revolution. But, imo, he was too thick-headed to do any of those. He was completely unable to let go of any power as evidenced by the Duma. Some of those forces working against him were of his own doing. The end result was tragic, not only for Nicholas and his family but for the Russian people as well.