Was Tsar Nicholas II a good ruler?

[rfmcdonald]

Speaking of Poland...

Would a Polish kingdom have been better in the interwar years?

As i point out, The Second Polish Republic would have torn itself asunder eventually because of its clumsy repression of Jews and Ukrainians, the hamfisted attempts at forced Polonisation and the refusal to face the reality that Vilnius and Lviv were not their coins to spend.

In what context? Who would have won? What would the monarchy have been? What of this Poland's system of government?

Seeing as how clear(er) ethnographic frontiers were only given to Poland and its eastern neighbours after 1945, that requiring catastrophic war and ethnic cleansing, I think some conflict was bound to come about anyhow. A sufficiently small Poland might have been like OTL Lithuania, wanting border revisions but being too small and weak to achieve them, but that is all I can see.

 

[Catsmate]

<>

Sweet effing jeebus but what does the Septemberprogramm have to do with a Russo-German alliance?

 

[rfmcdonald]

Sweet effing jeebus but what does the Septemberprogramm have to do with a Russo-German alliance?

It has everything to do with that. Ignoring the points I made about the ambitions of the Second Reich, that program demonstrates that the people running even relatively traditionalist monarchist polities like Germany and Russia were perfectly willing to adopt the sorts of aims that would deeply destabilize their entire system. Would a Russia shorn of its western provinces, or a Germany shorn of its eastern provinces, really survive the losses unscathed? Would they be able to prosecute wars against third parties based on anything like a realistic understanding of how these polities work?

Monarchism was a blind alley. Russian monarchism was particularly foolish, its proponents from Nicholas II down seemingly doing everything they could to delegitimize the entire system, but its German and Austro-Hungarian variants were foolish enough to bring themselves down, too.

 

[Catsmate]

It has everything to do with that. Ignoring the points I made about the ambitions of the Second Reich, that program demonstrates that the people running even relatively traditionalist monarchist polities like Germany and Russia were perfectly willing to adopt the sorts of aims that would deeply destabilize their entire system. Would a Russia shorn of its western provinces, or a Germany shorn of its eastern provinces, really survive the losses unscathed? Would they be able to prosecute wars against third parties based on anything like a realistic understanding of how these polities work?

Monarchism was a blind alley. Russian monarchism was particularly foolish, its proponents from Nicholas II down seemingly doing everything they could to delegitimize the entire system, but its German and Austro-Hungarian variants were foolish enough to bring themselves down, too.

No it doesn't. It's a programme developed after the start of the Great War, two decades after the period we were discussing, and after both putative allies were tied into long-term alliances with other parties. .

 

[octoberman]

No it doesn't. It's a programme developed after the start of the Great War, two decades after the period we were discussing, and after both putative allies were tied into long-term alliances with other parties. .

Even if the SetemberProgramme wasn't written down until (Check's link) wow a whole 9 days after the declaration of war "after the war had begun and still going well for Germany".


1). do you seriously think the ideas in it were not in Bethmann-Hollweg's mind beforehand, what do you imagine happened it all came to him in a dream on the night of the 8th?

Frankly if that is some big reveal that destroys Fischer's entire argument it's a joke i.e. do you seriously think the Bethmann-Hollweg and Germany gave a blank cheque to AH, declared war on half of Europe, ignored Belgium neutrality etc and only then started think about what they would gain, seriously?!




2). it still does nothing to answer actions like:

Serbian reply​

....​

The German shipping tycoon Albert Ballin recalled that when the German government heard a misleading report that Serbia had accepted the ultimatum, there was "disappointment", but "tremendous joy" when it learned that the Serbs had not accepted all of the Austrian terms.[103] When Ballin suggested Wilhelm end his North Sea cruise to deal with the crisis, the German Foreign Ministry flatly stated the Emperor should continue his cruise because "everything must be done to ensure that he [Wilhelm] does not interfere in things with his pacifist ideas".[106] At the same time, a message was sent to Berchtold from his ambassador in Berlin reminding him "Here every delay in the beginning of war operations is regarded as signifying the danger that foreign powers might interfere. We are urgently advised to proceed without delay."[106]

Wilhelm has second thoughts (26 July)​

On 26 July, after reading Serbia's reply, Wilhelm commented, "But that eliminates any reason for war"[139] or "every cause for war falls to the ground".[140] Wilhelm noted that Serbia had made "a capitulation of the most humiliating kind",[140] that "the few reservations [that] Serbia has made with respect to certain points can in my opinion surely be cleared up by negotiation", and acting independently of Grey, made a similar "Stop in Belgrade" offer.[141] Wilhelm stated that because "the Serbs are Orientals, therefore liars, tricksters, and masters of evasion", a temporary Austrian occupation of Belgrade was required until Serbia kept its word.[140]

Wilhelm's sudden change of mind about war enraged Bethmann Hollweg, the military, and the diplomatic service, who proceeded to sabotage Wilhelm's offer.[142] A German general wrote: "unfortunately ... peaceful news. The Kaiser wants peace ... He even wants to influence Austria and to stop continuing further."[143] Bethmann Hollweg sabotaged Wilhelm's proposal by instructing von Tschirschky not to restrain Austria.[note 21] In passing on Wilhelm's message, Bethmann Hollweg excluded the parts wherein the Emperor told the Austrians not to go to war.[143] Jagow told his diplomats to disregard Wilhelm's peace offer, and continue to press for war. General Falkenhayn told Wilhelm he "no longer had control of the affair in his own hands". Falkenhayn went on to imply that the military would stage a coup d'état, and depose Wilhelm in favour of the hawkish Crown Prince Wilhelm if he continued to work for peace.[143]

Bethmann Hollweg mentioned two favourable conditions for war in his telegram to Vienna: that Russia be made to appear the aggressor forcing a reluctant Germany into war, and that Britain be kept neutral.[142] The necessity of making Russia appear the aggressor was the greater concern to Bethmann-Hollweg because the German Social Democratic Party had denounced Austria for declaring war on Serbia and ordered street demonstrations to protest Germany's actions in supporting Austria.[144] However, Bethmann Hollweg put great faith in the private promises he received from SPD leaders that they would support the government if Germany was faced with a Russian attack.[144]

On 27 July, Wilhelm ended his cruise in the North Sea and returned to Germany.[144] Wilhelm landed at Cuxhaven (Kiel) departing on 25 July at 6 p.m. despite the objections of his chancellor.[145] The next afternoon, the order to disperse the British Fleet and dismiss British reservists was rescinded, putting the British Navy on a war footing.[note 22]



3). France was committed to a path of revenge against Germany, this again, as per last my last post I'd like to see this established


4). on the similarly grandiose plans for post-war territorial gains. Since the entente actaully won and were therefore in a postion to put their 'grandiose plans' into effect and also in teh context of the war being far longer and costly than anyone in 1914 thought this should be pretty easy to check, so German plans include:

The Septemberprogramm was a list of goals for Germany to achieve in the war:[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemberprogramm

• France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.
• France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament for the next couple of decades, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.
• France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.
• Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a vassal state, which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.
• Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.
• Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty.[4]
• Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would be France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, the new buffer states, and possibly Italy, Sweden, and Norway.[6]
• The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged to create a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.
• The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.

​

oh and let's not forget Brest Litovsk

Russia lost 34% of its population, 54% of its industrial land, 89% of its coalfields, and 26% of its railways. Russia was also fined 300 million gold marks.

I'm not sure what they planned for Britain & Italy if they had won since the septemberprogramn was based around beating France?


ToV was what 13% of German territory and 10% of it population (approx)

 

[octoberman]

1. I responded to your (unsupported) assertion that Nicholas II supported reforms and pointed out that "his" reforms were not his, were purely designed to stave off unrest and were far below what the elected Duma supported, before Nicholas II reneged on his earlier promises.

you claimed

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

when i showed that he pushed those reforms against democratic duma and were opposed by it. you claiming the support for selfish reasons you were still mistaken that in claiming the above

2. You appear not to understand what the "moving the goalposts" fallacy actually means.

It means what you did by claiming

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

and then contradicting yourself by claiming

1. I responded to your (unsupported) assertion that Nicholas II supported reforms and pointed out that "his" reforms were not his, were purely designed to stave off unrest and were far below what the elected Duma supported, before Nicholas II reneged on his earlier promises.

and ignoring that elected Duma opposed reforms and development and they happened despite it

3. I have, earlier in this thread, listed a number of worlds on the social, political and economic history of Russia in the late-Tsarist period. I suggest you read them.

which were not unique to Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes#Chronological_list_of_general_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes#Twentieth_century

4. I have supported by belief that the eruption of the Great War staved off revolution in Russia for a while but evidence and citations. I accept that this belief is by no means universal. You have failed to support any of you assertions.

there absolutely no reason to believe that any armed insurrection against the government would have been any more successful than the July Days.

5. Russia has been a German ally in the Bismark period, via the Reinsurance Treaty (wiki) which was actually far more in Russia's interests than the alliances with France (which was purely aimed at Germany) or Britain (Are you familiar with the 'Great Game' in Asia at all?). A more capable Russian leader might have persuaded Wilhelm II to continue this treaty in 1890.

It has far less in Russia's interests than the alliances with France because it did not provide the crucial loans Russia needed. Nicholas II had no chance at convincing Wilhelm II to continue that treaty because Anglo German alliance was his wet dream he acted only by his will on it and was convinced he needed to ditch as had expansionist ambitions in the east

6. Your claims that a Russo-German alliance must be aimed at mutual conquest of Austria-Hungary is nonsensical; look at the historical example.

the example that was bound to fall apart and was of no use for Russia in diplomacy or war

 

[Catsmate]

????

ETA: this was a response to post #365 above which appears, to me, incomprehensible.

 

[Catsmate]

you claimed

when i showed that he pushed those reforms against democratic duma and were opposed by it. you claiming the support for selfish reasons you were still mistaken that in claiming the above

It means what you did by claiming

and then contradicting yourself by claiming


and ignoring that elected Duma opposed reforms and development and they happened despite it

which were not unique to Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes#Chronological_list_of_general_strikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes#Twentieth_century

there absolutely no reason to believe that any armed insurrection against the government would have been any more successful than the July Days.

It has far less in Russia's interests than the alliances with France because it did not provide the crucial loans Russia needed. Nicholas II had no chance at convincing Wilhelm II to continue that treaty because Anglo German alliance was his wet dream he acted only by his will on it and was convinced he needed to ditch as had expansionist ambitions in the east

the example that was bound to fall apart and was of no use for Russia in diplomacy or war

Your claim that Nicholas II was responsible for reforms, for some positive motivation, was (and is) nonsense as I stated. The reforms, suggested by his ministers, were limited and intended to stave off another revolution. They were opposed by the elected Duma, as not going nearly far enough, until Nicholas II renegaded on his committments and altered the election laws.

 

[Seandineen]

I may be mistaken, but was there any attempt to coopt Fins into Stolypin's reform from above, movement? My Spidey sense says they may have tried it.

 

[octoberman]

They were opposed by the elected Duma, as not going nearly far enough, until Nicholas II renegaded on his committments and altered the election laws.

Why did they oppose it then? If they were reformist then they would've supported it and attempt further reform later

 

[Catsmate]

Why did they oppose it then? If they were reformist then they would've supported it and attempt further reform later

If you cared to read either of my replies:

They were opposed by the elected Duma, as not going nearly far enough, until Nicholas II renegaded on his committments and altered the election laws.

 

[octoberman]

They were opposed by the elected Duma, as not going nearly far enough, until Nicholas II renegaded on his committments and altered the election laws.

election laws were are not about economic development but about increasing duma's power. My point still stands

 

[Catsmate]

election laws were are not about economic development but about increasing duma's power. My point still stands

No it doesn't "still stand", it collapsed into dust long ago.

And what is "election laws were are not about economic development but about increasing duma's power" supposed to actually mean?
Historically Nicholas II attempted to neuter the Duma, in breach of his promises, to stack it with his supporters and allow his (or rather his advisors' schemes) to be passed.

 

[octoberman]

And what is "election laws were are not about economic development but about increasing duma's power" supposed to actually mean?
Historically Nicholas II attempted to neuter the Duma, in breach of his promises, to stack it with his supporters and allow his (or rather his advisors' schemes) to be passed.

it does not relate to economic development in anyway it is you point that collapsed into dust long ago

 

[Catsmate]

it does not relate to economic development in anyway it is you point that collapsed into dust long ago

Again utter rubbish, and a continuing attempt to distract from your failure to support your claims regarding Nicholas II's supposed "reformist" agenda.

 

[Cryptic]

But they could tolerate FInnish Protestants?

Yes, as well as Estonian and a significant number of Latvian protestants as well. Like all powers, the laws and edicts of Imperial Russia could be modified to fit current Russian needs and interests.

Imperial Russia never directly banned the practice of any religion or in the case of Christianity, a religious denomination. They did, however, enforce regulations confining non Orthodox religions or any sort to their "historical areas". Needless to say, the Russians got to define "historical area".

As a result, Protestantism was tolerated by the Imperial government, but not exactly affirmed in Finland, Estonia etc. Likewise, Roman Catholicism was tolerated in Poland, Lithuania, and in parts of Latvia and Belarus. The Russians never considered eastern rite Catholicism to be historical anywhere. Thus, it was exempt form any toleration practices.

Even in this period, their were exceptions given to facilitate Russian interests. France was allowed to sponsor one Catholic church in both Moscow and Saint Petersburg. Ditto for Sweden? and Lutheran churches. Likewise, Volga Germans were allowed to immigrate as Catholics and Lutherans and to construct churches- under certain limiting regulations. Italian merchants were also allowed to establish a Franciscan monastery and a parish Astrakhan.

After say., 1880, religious reforms allowed for the establishment of Catholic and Protestant churches outside their historical area so long as Orthodoxy was already sufficiently well established there to be clearly dominate. This led to the establishment of Catholic churches in the far eastern areas of Siberia and in Kursk.

Following revolts or xenophobic fears, the Imperial Russians dialed down what they deemed to be "disproportionate" Roman Catholicism in Ukraine and Belarus. They also fantasized about gradually phasing out Catholicism in Poland via natural attrition (no new parishes, schools, seminaries monasteries etc). I dont think the regulations to carry this out were ever actually enforced though.

 

[Karelian]

I may be mistaken, but was there any attempt to coopt Fins into Stolypin's reform from above, movement? My Spidey sense says they may have tried it.

No.
Nicholas II specifically appointed the arch-reactionary Bobrikoff as the Governor-General, and consistently approved the Russification efforts all the way to 1917.

The worst part of this is the fact that the Dowager Empress strongly promoted the Finnish cause. So of course Nicky had to oppose her just to show what a big boy and Supreme Autocrat he really was.

 

[Seandineen]

No.
Nicholas II specifically appointed the arch-reactionary Bobrikoff as the Governor-General, and consistently approved the Russification efforts all the way to 1917.

The worst part of this is the fact that the Dowager Empress strongly promoted the Finnish cause. So of course Nicky had to oppose her just to show what a big boy and Supreme Autocrat he really was.

Grandma Empress had a lot more brains than she got credit for. Nicholas constantly vacillates between autocrat, What I say goes!, and the Batusha, longing to be loved by his people. Witte had the right idea, "Give your people a little of what they want, not everything" If he had followed through before Bloody Sunday, with a constitution, and stood up to Alexandra, Rasputin was far from the only kook, she kept around her, He might have survived.

 

[Karelian]

Grandma Empress had a lot more brains than she got credit for.

Foreign-born women have historically been among the best rulers Russia has ever had.

Nicholas constantly vacillates between autocrat, What I say goes!, and the Batusha, longing to be loved by his people.

With his upbringing and personality one could hardly expect a different result.

Witte had the right idea, "Give your people a little of what they want, not everything" If he had followed through before Bloody Sunday, with a constitution, and stood up to Alexandra, Rasputin was far from the only kook, she kept around her, He might have survived.

But then he would not have been OTL Nicholas II at all.

 

[CHKeeley]

It has everything to do with that. Ignoring the points I made about the ambitions of the Second Reich, that program demonstrates that the people running even relatively traditionalist monarchist polities like Germany and Russia were perfectly willing to adopt the sorts of aims that would deeply destabilize their entire system. Would a Russia shorn of its western provinces, or a Germany shorn of its eastern provinces, really survive the losses unscathed? Would they be able to prosecute wars against third parties based on anything like a realistic understanding of how these polities work?

I must raise an issue here. The Septemberprogramm and the associated foreign-policy aims of its producers cannot be waved about as *the* definitive war aims and worldview of German policy makers during the war. I recently read a paper about the formulation of the Brest-Litovsk treaty in 1918 and I was struck by the bizarre leniency and Vienna-style thinking in terms of concessions to demand at the Conference*. The strongest voices in the Foreign Office were concerned about balancing what to extract for Germany’s benefit without destroying relations with Russia forever. Opposing maximalist tendencies existed in the Army leadership, but it was far from universal Of course, it all fell apart due to the strange behavior of the Bolshevik delegations and the Germans were essentially pushed by events to occupy Ukraine and Belarussia, but that was not the intention. The idea that “the German elite” were bent on these sort of modern punitive treaties discounts the fact that there were factions that produced different war aims and as we know very well Wilhelm II was not nearly decisive enough to give any one faction primacy. So they all existed in uneasy tension.

* Article in question