If the czar had stayed in power past 1917 would he have been forced out by the nazis

[AristoCat]

He was encouraged in that belief by both his mother and his wife - and considering how close they all were to the British royal family it shows a lot about what they felt about the rights of the people. Alexandra was partially raised at the court of Queen Victoria but never absorbed the lessons there of being a constitutional monarch. Their Aunt Alexandra (Queen Alexandra of the UK - aunt separately to both of them) was the perfect Queen Consort to a constitutional monarch but they saw her as weak and they distrusted Uncle Bertie who again was seen as weak.

I think it was more Alexandra; the Romanovs were all acting out and if Alexandra had been autocratic with htem and not encouraged Nicholas in this belief, I think that quite frankly, there would have been a lot of differnet things. There was also Alexei and his hemophilia and that is what brought Rasputin in. Empress Marie was angry that her son was not reaching out to the people the way he was supposed to and Marie was part of a cabal that wanted to get rid of Alexandra and possibly take over herself.

[Benedict XVI]

Ya I think although Nicholas was an autocrat he would have given into many of the peoples wants. His wife Alexandra was controlling an would bully him into doing what she thought was right in a country that she didn't understand at all. Nicholas was not prepared to become tsar because his parents always treated him like a kid and that is why he always obeyed his mother and his wife what ever they asked him to do. I think if Nicholas had been able to abdicate before he took the throne or shortly after he would have been much happier with his family living on a small farm.

Originally Posted by doric44

had the czar remained on after the WW1 that would have most likely been as a constitutional monarch like the UK.
and if the Nazis had invaded Russia they wouldn't have had as much success. i don't think because Stalin before the invasion killed most of his best generals leaving him with the incompetent and the stupid making the Nazi invasion that much easier.

That does make sense he didn't realize that you can't get rid of the old regime over night it takes in some cases a generation to do it. You have to replace the ones from key places but to get rid of all the old officers and generals only to replace them with undisciplined, unexperienced people who didn't car about human lives would be a nightmare. It is a spoil system that went on.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I recall that the monarchy in France and Russia had a similar problem that caused their downfall, the refusal to accept when the tide was turning against them and that "absolute power" was no longer theirs to hold. I recall reading that Marie Antoinette encouraged Louis to hold onto his birth rights and Nicholas of course was raised to believe only in the autocracy and its power over Russia, to heck with what the people have to say. Perhaps in both situations the monarchs death was needed for actual change to occur, because I can't say for sure if either side would have allowed itself to become like England and give up the reigns of power. By "deaths needing to occur" I only mean the monarch and possibly consort, not the entire family and extended family.
Though Alexandra was encouraging her husband, there is little in what I have read that Nicholas did not firmly believe in his rights as an autocrat to rule fully over his people, with or without Alexandra.
I have heard in a few classes that Stalin was much worse than Hitler, and while Hitler killed about 20million people, Stalin's was around that number or even over. I have never heard that Nicholas II was anywhere close to having killed 20 million people.

[Benedict XVI]

You make some very good points. By killing the tsar they where able to give Russia the clean slate they needed for a new government. This sounds like another of history repeating itself. Essentially Stalin was just like hitler the only difference is that he got away with it because he didn't start an actual war. Nicholas did have 7 million (most were killed by war or by accidents such as bloody sunday) unlike hitler or Stalin who did it on purpose. The killing of the entire family was not only unneeded but dumb, if this were to happen today Russia wouldn't have a chance they would be handed many human rights violations and world outcry.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yes I suppose people put the men killed in WWI on Nicholas' head which never really made sense to me. Does Stalin, Roosevelt, or Churchill get blamed for their soldiers who died during WWII? Of course it was two different wars, one justified and the other unjustified imo; but Nicholas himself didn't kill those men the same way Stalin ordered people to be taken out of their homes and shot and buried in secret.

[Benedict XVI]

I don't hear of people blaming the kaiser for the deaths of WWI (I maybe wrong I don't know) but also Nicholas was mobilizing his army (every country in Europe did so) and on August 1, 1914 GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON RUSSIA so the deaths first of all should go on the kaiser after all so all the deaths were in defense of the mother land. Yes the person in charge should have been someone who HAD military experience but he did what he thought was right.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Perhaps in both situations the monarchs death was needed for actual change to occur, because I can't say for sure if either side would have allowed itself to become like England and give up the reigns of power.

The English executed a King - in 1649 - and when Charles II was restored it was with the understanding that parliament had a say in the government of the country - autocracy died in England the same way it did in France and Russia - overthrow and execution of the monarch.

By "deaths needing to occur" I only mean the monarch and possibly consort, not the entire family and extended family.

No way for a clear restoration or a rallying point for opposition if all the claimants are dead. This makes sense actually - from a political perspective.

Though Alexandra was encouraging her husband, there is little in what I have read that Nicholas did not firmly believe in his rights as an autocrat to rule fully over his people, with or without Alexandra.

Nicholas' father was very autocratic as a result of the assassination of his father. Alexander II - Nicholas' grandfather - died as the result of a bomb and Nicholas saw him when he was returned to the palace. The Tsar liberator was assassinator so his son and grandson argued - less reform not more.

I have heard in a few classes that Stalin was much worse than Hitler, and while Hitler killed about 20million people, Stalin's was around that number or even over. I have never heard that Nicholas II was anywhere close to having killed 20 million people.

Stalin was responsible for 20 million in the late 20s - early 30s alone with the man-made famine. Conservatively his figure is close to 60 - 80 million, including most of the German PoWs and returning Soviet PoWs (captured Soviet soldiers were sent to a gulag and died as a result of life there - Stalin claimed that they had committed treason by being captured).

Nicholas didn't have to directly order the deaths of that many to be evil - he didn't allow his people freedom, he refused them a say in their government, he forced non-Russians to learn Russian (even if they didn't live in Russia as such e.g. Turkmanistanis had to learn Russia), persecuted non-Orthodox followers, especially Jews (the pogroms saw many Jews leave Russia for the Austrian Empire - where a disgruntled Austrian saw them and felt threatened by their presence, or migrated out of Europe to the US in particular, but also other nations), actively enforced a policy of Russification throughout the Empire etc etc.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Benedict XVI

I don't hear of people blaming the kaiser for the deaths of WWI (I maybe wrong I don't know) but also Nicholas was mobilizing his army (every country in Europe did so) and on August 1, 1914 GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON RUSSIA so the deaths first of all should go on the kaiser after all so all the deaths were in defense of the mother land. Yes the person in charge should have been someone who HAD military experience but he did what he thought was right.

Why did Germany declare war though? Because Russia was mobilising. The Kaiser asked the Russians to stop and Nicholas refused so the Germans then took action. Had Nicolas stopped the mobilisatoin who knows what might have happened? Could the war have been stopped at that point? Possibly but as Nicholas wouldn't stand the army down there was no chance to stop the progress to war.

Don't get me wrong - I am not putting all the blame on Nicholas but he does share some of the blame for the millions who died in that catastrophe, along with the Kaiser, Franz-Joseph, the British government (not George V as he was a constitutional monarch), the French government, the Serbian government and finally Gavrilo Princip.

[Benedict XVI]

I will say that Nicholas could have avoided war but chances are the kaiser was a land greedy person and probably would gave declared war on them but maybe a little later I don't know for sure. I do think that a partial mobilization may have worked better but if he didn't have any mobilization he risked being caught with his pants down which would probably been the kaisers plan anyway.

[Iluvbertie]

The Tsar did start with partial mobilisation on the 28th July against Austria-Hungary, while still in communication with The Kaiser. He was advised, by his military personnel, that partial mobilisation would result in chaos so on the 29th July he went to full mobilisation.

However, the Schlieffen Plan - required the Germany army to mobilise against both France and Russia at once so once things started to move partial mobilisation by the Russians wasn't possible.

[Benedict XVI]

That is true although the Schlieffen plan was a complete and total falure the french didn't quit like the germans thought it was a good guess and a good plan on paper but it failed the test. with the assaistnation of Franz Ferdinad it started a chain of events that i doubt could be reversed. so in the end i would bet that the same events would have happened and there would still be a World war I.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

WWI was an idiot's disaster, brought on by morons who thought the new technologies would be like playing war games. No one person was to blame, a bunch of persons were to blame. Whether Nicholas mobilized first second or third, the deaths he caused because of an ill-advised war isn't the same as the deaths Stalin oversaw.

[NGalitzine]

Russia was very unprepared for war. Although its armed forces were large, they were not well equiped or supplied to fight a modern war. Nicholas II did what he could to avoid war, trying to get the Kaiser to negotiate peace at the Hague etc but Russia was honour bound to aid its fellow Salvs in Serbia and once Germany took action there was no going back. Nicky felt the Kaiser had lied to him.

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by Benedict XVI

I will say that Nicholas could have avoided war but chances are the kaiser was a land greedy person and probably would gave declared war on them but maybe a little later I don't know for sure.

Other than Hitler the Kaiser was not an absolute ruler - he was the first among equals, as he was king "of Prussia" nut "German" emperor - most parts of Germany did not belong to Prussia but were more or less still independant states and any land gain for "The German empire" would have led to the formation of another little kingdom with its own ruler. The Austrian and German emperor already had plans for a kingdom of Poland which they installed in 1916 with an Archduke of Austria as new king. So I doubt it was greed for land.

[auntie]

Good morn' to all of you, I am relaxing with my Sunday morning coffee. I remember reading a few years ago that soldiers during WWII said the difference between the Tzarist regime, and Stalin's regime, is that in WWI the food they received was bug infested, and they revolted against the Tzar, and now the food is bug infested, but they dare not complain.

[Benedict XVI]

When I first read this I laughed. But it is actually very truthful the tsar was week and Stalin wasn't afraid to kill them all.

Originally Posted by Kataryn

Other than Hitler the Kaiser was not an absolute ruler - he was the first among equals, as he was king "of Prussia" nut "German" emperor - most parts of Germany did not belong to Prussia but were more or less still independant states and any land gain for "The German empire" would have led to the formation of another little kingdom with its own ruler. The Austrian and German emperor already had plans for a kingdom of Poland which they installed in 1916 with an Archduke of Austria as new king. So I doubt it was greed for land.

I just got done reading on world war 1 and you are right land wasn't his main concern I would say that it was simply a bonus. From what I read it was more of a way for the kaiser to get better trade because the Great Powers of Europe saw how well of the germans were military wise so they put limit to trading with Germany. But also we must remember that since 1878 the Great Powers had been building up for a war. So when in 1914 all the relations of Europe began to deteriorate then each country was preparing for war. I had read a book on the causes of war (very interesting) the author said that once the new generation comes of age they don't know of the terrible stuff of war they only know of the honor and the adventure. I also read that before 1914 the great powers of europe had been talking hostile things about each other and 1914 was the climax of this stuff. So I do believe that Nicholas could and should have demobilized the army and that would have given everyone more time to prepare for war but I doubt that the chain of events could have been stopped altogether but it could have been postponed. Another thing would be that Nicholas and russia in general believed that the Balkans where their people so they felt the need to protect Serbia and other countries from the wrath of Austria.