Was Tsar Nicholas II a good ruler?

[Aghasverov]

An argument could be made that Antisemitism In Russia, was starting to, or would have, become more race based and pseudo scientific with the growth of right wing mass politics, including the Black Hundreds. Speaking of the Black Hundreds, Nicholas the II's failure to capitalize on the emergence of reactionary mass politics, despite his own approval for thm (including approval of pogroms) shows his political ineptitude.

The sad fact is that a pretty clear line can be drawn from Nicky II straight to the Holocaust... the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though not an original work, having been cobbled together from a variety of sources, was promulgated by Russian Intelligence officers... the 1st full Russian translation was issued in a journal that circulated widely among the Black Hundreds...
And though Nicky, somewhat to his credit I suppose, did try to suppress its publication due to its fraudulent origin, he didn't object to the purpose for which it was intended - to convince the world of a vast global conspiracy on the part of the Jews....
The Blessed Nicholas had blood accumulating on his hands even after his death....

 

[Catsmate]

I don't think it did, and there is every possibility the system could easily have limped along until Nicholas dies, which easily could have been another 20 years. Without the pressures of WWI, and the mass conscription and hardship at home which went along with that, which simultaneously turned the people, the nobility, the capitalists, and the army against the tsar. Nicholas II quite adeptly turned everyone except his good buddies (ie sycophants) against him that it truly is astounding. The real test will be who succeeds Nicholas. Because if they're as bad as he is things are going to get much worse. If one of his more reform-minded relatives took over (whih will require his son to die, not exactly unlikely) then the tsar's position can be maintained most likely. But with actual say given to people who are important to the regime and its modernization.

I disagree utterly; it took the onset of war in 1914 to prevent an inevitable revolution, or at least delay it a couple of years.

• Russia had, in the first half of 1914, one and one-third million people on strike, in approximately three-and-a-half-thousand labour disputes. After 1911 such disputes were greatly on the increase, ~500 in 1911, ~2,000 in 1912, ~3,000 in 1913 and ~3,500 in the first half of 1914.
• Without the Great War beginning more-or-less "on schedule" the the wave of strikes that began in April 1912 (with the massacre of >300 miners and other workers in the Lena goldfields) would not be damped down by the upsurge in patriotism and nationalism (and of course anti-semitism).
• The traditional Russian solutions, repression and blaming the Jews, weren't working. Historically the ability of the Okhrana (and the other forces such as the Special Corps) as a tool of repression was limited and were failing by 1914.
• Russia was blighted by Nicholas II. His incoherent and incompetent mix of liberalisation and repression was the worst option for the situation. The Russian system was inherently unstable with it's mix of Tsarist absolutism (for example Nicholas's violation of the 1906 constitution to alter the Duma election laws), vast administrative incompetence and corruption (look at the Lena affair), pan-Slavism (leaving it vulnerable to entanglements in the Balkans), historical problems with Britain (notwithstanding the Anglo-Russian Entente and the agreement around 'spheres of influence'), increasing industrialisation (creating a larger urban working class) and the consequent appalling working conditions, and ethnic and nationalistic tensions (e.g. Poland, Finland), is simply not tenable in the medium-to-long term.
• Sooner or later there will be a repeat of the factors that triggered the 1905 revolution (because the causes had never been addressed), and the second revolution (having learned from the Tsar's reneging on his earlier promises) will not be as easily stopped.
• Russia was more vulnerable to external economic factors, as demonstrated by the European mini-recession of 1899–1900 (which effected Russia worse than other countries and persisted far longer there) than other countries. The crash industrialisation programme launched by Witte in the 1890s was largely financed by external capital (mostly French and some British) and tied Russia into the European capital system, leaving it vulnerable to it's cycles.

Given the level of civil unrest in Russia in 1914, and the fact that it was accelerating, with literally millions of strikers, supported by the progressives, a revolution in 1916/17 is far more likely than the long term survival of the Tsarist state.
It would not necessarily (or even probably) be a communist revolution of the historical form, but a major (and rather violent) 'socio-political readjustment' is, IMO, inevitable.

 

[Catsmate]

It's hard to even say he tried, considering how painfully indecisive he was.

And how he attempted to roll-back the socio-political changes.

 

[Catsmate]

i knew about Jews What happened to the Catholics?

Mush the same as other non-Orthodox Christians, with some variations; restrictions on employment, access to education, taxation et cetera. Non-Orthodox churches were legally prohibited from accepting converts from Russian Orthodoxy, with frequent police agents provocateur.

The "Uniates", i.e. Eastern-Rite Catholics were suppressed several times, with priests imprisoned.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the Tsarist regime banned or restricted all expressions of Christianity other than Russian Orthodoxy. Various Protestant groups were labelled as "Stundists" (an odd group of Slavic Evangelicals, originally from Ukraine, and with a theology based on German Mennonites) and subject to harassment and arrest.
Most repressed were the Schismatics (the 'Old Believers') who still faced execution, imprisonment, and punitive taxation. Next were the Baptists (mainly in the Caucasus and Ukraine), Pashkovites, Methodists, and Seventh-Day Adventists.

Mainstream Catholics were legally recognised but subject to the usual state persecution, 'Russification' and harassment. Gnenerally the most tolerated were the German derived Lutherans, who were merely harassed, confined to certain regions, taxed and faced bureaucratic impediments.

Religious freedom had been guaranteed by via Nicholas II’s Edict of Toleration (of 1905). Of course once the the immediate threat to his rule Nicholas II reneged on that promise too.....

 

[Catsmate]

An argument could be made that Antisemitism In Russia, was starting to, or would have, become more race based and pseudo scientific with the growth of right wing mass politics, including the Black Hundreds. Speaking of the Black Hundreds, Nicholas the II's failure to capitalize on the emergence of reactionary mass politics, despite his own approval for thm (including approval of pogroms) shows his political ineptitude.

That's a good point, and one I included in my EDCverse background where the post-Tsarist Social Democrat state was replaced by a repressive, Orthodox, Pan-Slavic state with ambitions. It didn't end well.

 

[HelloThere]

That's a good point, and one I included in my EDCverse background where the post-Tsarist Social Democrat state was replaced by a repressive, Orthodox, Pan-Slavic state with ambitions. It didn't end well.

I actually think that if the Tsarist state (somehow) manages to survive, it will only survive as a (proto-)fascist totalitarian absolute monarchy. There was certainly the tendency towards this development until the revolution.

 

[Catsmate]

I actually think that if the Tsarist state (somehow) manages to survive, it will only survive as a (proto-)fascist totalitarian absolute monarchy. There was certainly the tendency towards this development until the revolution.

Agreed, with added (or revamped) Cult of Personality. Perhaps there is a mini-revolution, after a very short Great War, and the Tsarists win out? Though after the tragic death of Nicholas and his immediate heirs. Perhaps a competent Grand Duke is elevated?

 

[thezerech]

The phrase 'incompetence or treason' used to describe his conduct during the war is apt for his entire reign. Not the worst leader of the Russian Empire or later Soviet Union, partially because of his incompetence, but I'm not going to give him points for that.

He might have been good to his children, and that's something, but nothing worthy of building a statue, and certainly no saint or martyr.

 

[octoberman]

Well N2 said that he didn't wish to ally with France and if he did, there would bea Revolution in Russia.
Guess what happened.

no alliance with France would be suicide for him and Russia because Germany would subdue them one at a time with no chance of preventing it

 

[octoberman]

Russia had, in the first half of 1914, one and one-third million people on strike, in approximately three-and-a-half-thousand labour disputes. After 1911 such disputes were greatly on the increase, ~500 in 1911, ~2,000 in 1912, ~3,000 in 1913 and ~3,500 in the first half of 1914.

Given the level of civil unrest in Russia in 1914, and the fact that it was accelerating, with literally millions of strikers, supported by the progressives, a revolution in 1916/17 is far more likely than the long term survival of the Tsarist state.

Britan had similar conditions like Great Labour Unrest from 1911 to 1914 and didn't even have universal male voting but was from brink of revolution

 

[octoberman]

The sad fact is that a pretty clear line can be drawn from Nicky II straight to the Holocaust... the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, though not an original work, having been cobbled together from a variety of sources, was promulgated by Russian Intelligence officers... the 1st full Russian translation was issued in a journal that circulated widely among the Black Hundreds...
And though Nicky, somewhat to his credit I suppose, did try to suppress its publication due to its fraudulent origin, he didn't object to the purpose for which it was intended - to convince the world of a vast global conspiracy on the part of the Jews....
The Blessed Nicholas had blood accumulating on his hands even after his death....

but no Germany already had history of antisemitism like Rhineland massacres, On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. It didn't come out of nowhere in 20th century. Hitler's antisemitism was a radicalized version of the existing antisemitism in Germany most of it was fueled by stab in back myth not Protocols of the Elders of Zion which did create a new wave porogoms

 

[octoberman]

But that video doesn't give any citation he just says that he can't be taken at face value he said in another video he denied Japanese invaded Manchuria by staging false flag attacks and claimed Chinese attacked Japanese instead. So take him with a truck of salt

 

[octoberman]

1. No. Most of the reforms and development despite Nicholas II and were opposed by him.

No Most of the reforms and development despite the Duma and were opposed by them. For example Stolypin reform was opposed by Duma and Nicholas II had to pass it by decree. Democracy never ≠ Good economic planning. Economic planning is not necessarily effected by how the establishment came to power but by the establishment itself

2. Whom? The Russian system was going to collapse, regardless of the Great War. Quite possibly the war delayed matters.

but isn't that just Red propaganda made up by Trotsky. Bolsheviks coup only became possible because of the terrible mishandling of Kornilov affair and arming of Bolsheviks by Kerensky and Nicholas II wasn't a great leader but he was not Kerensky

 

[Catsmate]

No Most of the reforms and development despite the Duma and were opposed by them. For example Stolypin reform was opposed by Duma and Nicholas II had to pass it by decree. Democracy never ≠ Good economic planning. Economic planning is not necessarily effected by how the establishment came to power but by the establishment itself

Sigh.
Stolypin was extremely conservative and attempted to enact the absolute minimum reforms needed to maintain the aristocratic status quo and stave off another peasant's revolt. In addition he wished to improve the popularity of the Tsar, and the Tsarist system, and hence reduce support for the Social Democrats and revolutionaries. Then there was the financial motive, improved land productivity meant more money for the state coffers. Finally improved labour mobility could increate the urban, industrial, workforce and weaken unions and radicals in the cities.
These reforms did not address most of the other problems; lack of legal unions, lack of political influence et cetera. Look at the "Fundamental Laws" and how quickly any Duma that opposed the Tsarist system was dissolved (two and five months). It was only after gutting the electoral system, increased voting rights for landowners and disenfranchisement of many of the Kadets, that a suitably compliant "parliament" was created.

but isn't that just Red propaganda made up by Trotsky. Bolsheviks coup only became possible because of the terrible mishandling of Kornilov affair and arming of Bolsheviks by Kerensky and Nicholas II wasn't a great leader but he was not Kerensky

1. No it's not "just Red propaganda made up by Trotsky", goo look at the sources.
2. We;re discussing Nicholas II's incompetence, not Kerenskys.

 

[Catsmate]

Britan had similar conditions like Great Labour Unrest from 1911 to 1914 and didn't even have universal male voting but was from brink of revolution

I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
If it's supposed to be "far from the brink of revolution" then you need to study the period in more detail. Start with
1. Irish Home rule, wrt the Third Bill and the Home Rule Act. Specifically opposition and gun-running.
2. The Great Unrest, the violent suppression of assemblies in Wales (i.e. the 1910-11 Rhonda riots for example) et cetera.
Britain saw approximately three thousand strikes in 1913, far fewer than Russia, with vastly less repressive violence.

 

[HIM Dogson]

But that video doesn't give any citation he just says that he can't be taken at face value he said in another video he denied Japanese invaded Manchuria by staging false flag attacks and claimed Chinese attacked Japanese instead. So take him with a truck of salt

Yeah, as someone who actually rather likes monarchies this guy is a genuine lunatic, even in my absolutist phase I thought he was going way too far

 

[the Imperium of Canada]

Defending Nicholas II is kind of like saying the Klansman who was involved in dozens of lynchings was an all right person overall because he treated his own kids decently.

 

[marathag]

but no Germany already had history of antisemitism like Rhineland massacres, On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. It didn't come out of nowhere in 20th century. Hitler's antisemitism was a radicalized version of the existing antisemitism in Germany most of it was fueled by stab in back myth not Protocols of the Elders of Zion which did create a new wave porogoms

But when was the last actual German Pogrom until 1933?

 

[Maeglin]

but no Germany already had history of antisemitism like Rhineland massacres, On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. It didn't come out of nowhere in 20th century. Hitler's antisemitism was a radicalized version of the existing antisemitism in Germany most of it was fueled by stab in back myth not Protocols of the Elders of Zion which did create a new wave porogoms

Bizarre that you're citing examples from four or more centuries earlier as evidence of pre-Adolf twentieth century German anti-semitism. German anti-semitism (prior to Adolf) paled beside the French (Dreyfuss), much less Tsarist Russia.

 

[brooklyn99]

Defending Nicholas II is kind of like saying the Klansman who was involved in dozens of lynchings was an all right person overall because he treated his own kids decently.

Similar can be said of the Lenin stans.