Tsar's fault

[Okawoa]

Everyone knows the final story of the Romanovs. But why were they blamed for losing the war? I do know Nicolas took power in 1916 but was this even serious? Was this enough to tip the scales against their monarch. I am thinking that if they weren't killed they could've been a tourist monarchy to rival the Yamatos ... Winsors ...

 

[benice1234]

Everyone knows the final story of the Romanovs. But why were they blamed for losing the war? I do know Nicolas took power in 1916 but was this even serious? Was this enough to tip the scales against their monarch. I am thinking that if they weren't killed they could've been a tourist monarchy to rival the Yamatos ... Winsors ...

He didn't really do much when he assumed control of the army. But his whole reign was so horribly incompetent, it's really a miracle he lasted even that long. Between the war in Japan, the incredibly violent suppression of the unrest in 1905, and 3 years of almost constant losses against Germany. Who else did the peasants have to blame?

 

[BBBD316]

Well actually once he took control all the blame for losses fell on him and he couldn't blame anyone else.

Though by that time a lot of things were in motion, he would have been best off requesting an armistice with the Central Powers in 1916. That is the only way that he might of kept his throne, but it would have also meant giving a lot more power to the Duma and really working on improvements for the lower classes.

 

[Henry IX]

The flip side to absolute power (at least theoretically) is that you also have absolute responsibility/blame for the results. The Romanovs were truly appalling rulers and it is hardly surprising that they were hated and blamed for the disastrous failings of the war.

 

[Cavalry]

Everyone knows the final story of the Romanovs. But why were they blamed for losing the war?

No losing the war is not so serious than joining it. The Bolshevik promised "Peace, Land and Bread". And they give people just that.

 

[nerd]

No losing the war is not so serious than joining it. The Bolshevik promised "Peace, Land and Bread". And they give people just that.

Peace and land, yes....bread not so much


<The meek shall inherit the Earth........2 meters deep.>

 

[Semper Victor]

Everyone knows the final story of the Romanovs. But why were they blamed for losing the war? I do know Nicolas took power in 1916 but was this even serious? Was this enough to tip the scales against their monarch. I am thinking that if they weren't killed they could've been a tourist monarchy to rival the Yamatos ... Winsors ...

The fall of Nicholas II in February 1917 was not a direct consequence of military defeats; if anything Russian armies had been much more successful in 1916 than in 1915, and the front line had been stabilized and important advances had been made against Austria-Hungary, while the Russian army of the Caucasus had penetrated deeply into eastern Anatolia.

What caused the popular uprising was the disastrous state of Russian economy by then, with rampant inflation and the complete breakdown of food supply to the cities, not military defeats; what these defeats had done was to undermine the reliability of the army as a repressive force as many regiments sided with the rebelllious mobs instead of shooting them as they'd done in 1905. But even that was not a new phenomenon, even in 1905 the reliability of many army units had been put into doubt, and in order to crush the revolution in Moscow it was necessary to send there by rail several regiments of the Imperial Guard from Saint Petersburg. Alas, by February 1917 the Imperial Guard regiments had been squandered in fruitless attacks against German positions in Volhynia, and the survivors were not in the mood to act as the Tsar's firefighters anymore.

 

[chepaeff]

What caused the popular uprising was the disastrous state of Russian economy by then, with rampant inflation and the complete breakdown of food supply to the cities, not military defeats; what these defeats had done was to undermine the reliability of the army as a repressive force as many regiments sided with the rebelllious mobs instead of shooting them as they'd done in 1905. But even that was not a new phenomenon, even in 1905 the reliability of many army units had been put into doubt, and in order to crush the revolution in Moscow it was necessary to send there by rail several regiments of the Imperial Guard from Saint Petersburg. Alas, by February 1917 the Imperial Guard regiments had been squandered in fruitless attacks against German positions in Volhynia, and the survivors were not in the mood to act as the Tsar's firefighters anymore.

This. More to add - there was a coup in motion by February. After all, Nicholas abdication was approved by practically all front commanders and other generals in his HQ. Monarchist generals were actively purged from army after February revolution.

 

[Furion Matsuya]

The flip side to absolute power (at least theoretically) is that you also have absolute responsibility/blame for the results. The Romanovs were truly appalling rulers and it is hardly surprising that they were hated and blamed for the disastrous failings of the war.

Quite a few of the Romanovs were decent or even good rulers to one degree or another it was really on Nicholas II and his father that were particularly bad, his grandfather was going to make reforms that would have greatly strengthen Russia when a bomb throwing anarchist killed him.

 

[Wagonlitz]

Quite a few of the Romanovs were decent or even good rulers to one degree or another it was really on Nicholas II and his father that were particularly bad, his grandfather was going to make reforms that would have greatly strengthen Russia when a bomb throwing anarchist killed him.

Wasn't there something about Alexander III only being so repressing because of that bomb? I.e. he became as bad as he did exactly due to that anarchist?

 

[Furion Matsuya]

Wasn't there something about Alexander III only being so repressing because of that bomb? I.e. he became as bad as he did exactly due to that anarchist?

I believe so although even before that he was somewhat more conservative if I recall.

 

[Wagonlitz]

I believe so although even before that he was somewhat more conservative if I recall.

He was more conservative, but as mentioned as far as I am aware that was due to his father getting assassinated and him thinking it was due to the reforms. Hence he repealed them all to prevent future assassinations.

 

[Konair0s]

Wasn't there something about Alexander III only being so repressing because of that bomb? I.e. he became as bad as he did exactly due to that anarchist?

There was.

It and perceived "too soft" politics of the previous emperor which resulted in it made him more reactionary.

You can't say that Alexander III was bad. On the contrary. The issue however, that he attempted to turn the country back on the old rails which was clearly not what was needed in that time.

 

[Henry IX]

Quite a few of the Romanovs were decent or even good rulers to one degree or another it was really on Nicholas II and his father that were particularly bad, his grandfather was going to make reforms that would have greatly strengthen Russia when a bomb throwing anarchist killed him.

Yes, I was referring to the last 30 years or so of the Romanovs rather than the whole dynasty. Alexander II was not a terrible Tsar.

 

[Wagonlitz]

You can't say that Alexander III was bad. On the contrary. The issue however, that he attempted to turn the country back on the old rails which was clearly not what was needed in that time.

Oh I am not saying he was bad; he did a really good job at being repressive and didn't really have much issues. His biggest fault was not educating his son properly for the throne. Although he did die quite early leaving Nicholas to take the throne at something like 25.

The tsar family had a violent train crash a few years before Alexander III died where Alexander III supposedly was seriously injured; I have read speculation on those injuries being what eventually got him. If so then the fall of the Romanovs might eventually come down to the idiocy of running two steam engines at full speed despite knowing that is way too fast for safe travel.

 

[pithorr]

Peace and land, yes....bread not so much


<The meek shall inherit the Earth........2 meters deep.>

Nor peace and land TBH...

 

[nerd]

Nor peace and land TBH...

<The meek shall inherit the Earth........2 meters deep.>

You missed this?

 

[pithorr]

<The meek shall inherit the Earth........2 meters deep.>

You missed this?

Oh...

 

[StephenT]

The Bolsheviks signed an armistice with Germany (peace); gave government approval to the peasants seizing land from the Church and nobility — which they'd been doing all year anyway, but now they had official approval (land); and sent out armed Red Guards to seize surplus food from the peasants and distribute it to hungry workers in the cities, dressing this up as 'War Communism' (bread). In other words they kept their promises, even if you might not approve of the way they did so.

 

[pithorr]

The Bolsheviks signed an armistice with Germany (peace); gave government approval to the peasants seizing land from the Church and nobility — which they'd been doing all year anyway, but now they had official approval (land); and sent out armed Red Guards to seize surplus food from the peasants and distribute it to hungry workers in the cities, dressing this up as 'War Communism' (bread). In other words they kept their promises, even if you might not approve of the way they did so.

The war in Russia actually continued few years longer than in other countries and was much more attricious for the common people. Land was eventually collectivized. And bread... well, the famine was only moved from cities to rural areas.