Susan Hopkins

100 years since the Abdication of Nicholas II

17 posts in this topic

This week marks the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II Romanov, Czar and Autocrat of All the Russias, in the face of what is called either the First or the February Russian Revolution. (It was in February on the old Julian calendar but in March on the new Gregorian calendar.) Far from being the "bloody Nicholas" of Bolshevik propaganda, Nicholas was a mild-mannered and ineffectual ruler, well-intentioned but easily dominated by his (German) wife and a camarilla of reactionary ministers. In the 20 years before 1914, Russia had made enormous economic and social progress, but blundering into war with Germany and Austria was a terrible mistake. His feeble and corrupt government was unable either to fight the war effectively or to get out of it, and after three years of defeats, huge casualties and privation, the Russian people had had enough. In the face of riots and mutinies, the regime collapsed without resistance, and Nicholas abdicated without complaint. But the liberal republic which then took office was also unable to escape from the war, and this gave the Bolsheviks their chance to stage the coup now called the Second or October Revolution, despite having virtually no support in the country outside Petrograd. Nicholas and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what time is the PARTY?  ;)

 

 

And it's a lucky thing the revolution came about.  Otherwise, we may have never been treated to DOCTOR ZHIVAGO.  :blink:

 

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever his faults, Nicholas did not deserve execution... and his son and daughters definitely didn't.

if you got some free time I suggest you see a musical called Fiddler on the Roof. it has some history in it that you need to check out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week marks the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II Romanov, Czar and Autocrat of All the Russias, in the face of what is called either the First or the February Russian Revolution. (It was in February on the old Julian calendar but in March on the new Gregorian calendar.) Far from being the "bloody Nicholas" of Bolshevik propaganda, Nicholas was a mild-mannered and ineffectual ruler, well-intentioned but easily dominated by his (German) wife and a camarilla of reactionary ministers. In the 20 years before 1914, Russia had made enormous economic and social progress, but blundering into war with Germany and Austria was a terrible mistake. His feeble and corrupt government was unable either to fight the war effectively or to get out of it, and after three years of defeats, huge casualties and privation, the Russian people had had enough. In the face of riots and mutinies, the regime collapsed without resistance, and Nicholas abdicated without complaint. But the liberal republic which then took office was also unable to escape from the war, and this gave the Bolsheviks their chance to stage the coup now called the Second or October Revolution, despite having virtually no support in the country outside Petrograd. Nicholas and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

 

Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI were a nice couple too. I'm sure all the starving French peasants thought so as well.

 

The other thing is Fiddler On The Roof is a very good musical. Have you seen it?

 

But I love music so much I shouldn't complain. We'd had fewer Great American pop music composers, if not for the pogroms in Russia. Irving Berlin,George Gershwin's family-- they all came over here to escape from the anti-Semitic terrorism of the Tsarist state. So I guess there's always some good that comes out of evil. When Irving Berlin wrote "God Bless America", I just can imagine what he was thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week marks the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II Romanov, Czar and Autocrat of All the Russias, in the face of what is called either the First or the February Russian Revolution. (It was in February on the old Julian calendar but in March on the new Gregorian calendar.) Far from being the "bloody Nicholas" of Bolshevik propaganda, Nicholas was a mild-mannered and ineffectual ruler, well-intentioned but easily dominated by his (German) wife and a camarilla of reactionary ministers. In the 20 years before 1914, Russia had made enormous economic and social progress, but blundering into war with Germany and Austria was a terrible mistake. His feeble and corrupt government was unable either to fight the war effectively or to get out of it, and after three years of defeats, huge casualties and privation, the Russian people had had enough. In the face of riots and mutinies, the regime collapsed without resistance, and Nicholas abdicated without complaint. But the liberal republic which then took office was also unable to escape from the war, and this gave the Bolsheviks their chance to stage the coup now called the Second or October Revolution, despite having virtually no support in the country outside Petrograd. Nicholas and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

 

You left out that Trump's great grandfather talked to the Russian ambassador according to a leaked FBI memo in 1917. He knew someday it would come in handy to help elect a grandson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week marks the 100th anniversary of the abdication of Nicholas II Romanov, Czar and Autocrat of All the Russias, in the face of what is called either the First or the February Russian Revolution. (It was in February on the old Julian calendar but in March on the new Gregorian calendar.) Far from being the "bloody Nicholas" of Bolshevik propaganda, Nicholas was a mild-mannered and ineffectual ruler, well-intentioned but easily dominated by his (German) wife and a camarilla of reactionary ministers. In the 20 years before 1914, Russia had made enormous economic and social progress, but blundering into war with Germany and Austria was a terrible mistake. His feeble and corrupt government was unable either to fight the war effectively or to get out of it, and after three years of defeats, huge casualties and privation, the Russian people had had enough. In the face of riots and mutinies, the regime collapsed without resistance, and Nicholas abdicated without complaint. But the liberal republic which then took office was also unable to escape from the war, and this gave the Bolsheviks their chance to stage the coup now called the Second or October Revolution, despite having virtually no support in the country outside Petrograd. Nicholas and his family were murdered by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

I understand very well that Nicholas had some close relatives in England-- the Royal Family. They didn't lift a finger to help him, so I guess some relatives are just that way.

 

When the French people executed Marie-Antoinette her mother, Maria Theresa, the Empress of Austria organized most of Europe to attack France.

 

But Napoleon took care of all that. There are always people like Napoleon who take advantage of revolutionary situations. In Russia it was Lenin.

 

Once a Revolution starts, no one has any control over it and no one knows what the ending will be.

 

That's the nature of the Beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever his faults, Nicholas did not deserve execution... and his son and daughters definitely didn't.

 

First rule of dictatorship...eliminate your future enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule of dictatorship...eliminate your future enemies.

 

Quick-- somebody needs to check and see if Ted Cruz's children got safely out of the White House after that dinner the other night.

 

Trump may have held them there to question them about their grandfather's alleged implication in the assassination of President Kennedy.

 

Or, at least that's what he said he might hold them for. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good riddance to bad rubbish. He abdicated in favor of the

next relative in line, who wisely said Thanks, but no thanks. 

 

Trump's granddad, Friedrich, did write the prince regent of

Bavaria in 1905 asking to be allowed to stay there because

he had failed to complete his military service and register

his first immigration to the U.S. many years before. He was

turned down and left again for America.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good riddance to bad rubbish. He abdicated in favor of the

next relative in line, who wisely said Thanks, but no thanks. 

 

Trump's granddad, Friedrich, did write the prince regent of

Bavaria in 1905 asking to be allowed to stay there because

he had failed to complete his military service and register

his first immigration to the U.S. many years before. He was

turned down and left again for America.

 

I hope you read that somewhere recently or just looked it up, and that this knowledge was not taking up space in your brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replacing one tyranny with another, hate to rain on anyone's parade.

 

 

Hmmm....where have I heard THAT before?  Oh, YEAH!

 

"Meet the new boss.  Same as the old boss".   ;)

 

 

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread just reminded me of "The Battleship Potemkin" (1925) TCM recently aired.  It is set in 1905 during the first Russian Revolution.

 

The Odessa Steps scene

 

 

 

312b7yd.jpg

 

Vintage_Potemkin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you read that somewhere recently or just looked it up, and that this knowledge was not taking up space in your brain.

Yes, I just read it in a magazine. Despite the deeply

obsequious tone of the letter that Friedrich wrote, he was

not allowed to stay in Bavaria, so it was back to the U.S. 

Germany's loss was our loss.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand very well that Nicholas had some close relatives in England-- the Royal Family. They didn't lift a finger to help him, so I guess some relatives are just that way.

 

When the French people executed Marie-Antoinette her mother, Maria Theresa, the Empress of Austria organized most of Europe to attack France.

 

But Napoleon took care of all that. There are always people like Napoleon who take advantage of revolutionary situations. In Russia it was Lenin.

 

Once a Revolution starts, no one has any control over it and no one knows what the ending will be.

 

That's the nature of the Beast.

 

 

Maria Theresa was long dead when Marie Antoinette was executed. It was Marie's brother. (I forget which one, there were two or three that ruled during Marie's short lifetime, doing little to help her).

 

 

Nicholas and George (V?) were cousins. They looked so much alike, they could've been brothers! George was afraid that public opinion would be very much against offering the royal family asylum and decided against it. From what I've read he was haunted by that the rest of his life after the entire family were murdered...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I just read it in a magazine. Despite the deeply

obsequious tone of the letter that Friedrich wrote, he was

not allowed to stay in Bavaria, so it was back to the U.S. 

Germany's loss was our loss.

 

 

LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us