February Revolution

Quote:

---

The revolution centered on Petrograd (now known as St. Petersburg), then the Russian capital, on 8 March. Revolutionary activity was largely confined to the capital and its vicinity, and lasted about eight days. It involved mass demonstrations and armed clashes with police and gendarmes, the last loyal forces of the Russian monarchy. On 12 March mutinous Russian Army forces sided with the revolutionaries. Three days later the result was the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II, the end of the Romanov dynasty, and the end of the Russian Empire. Russian Council of Ministers was replaced by a Russian Provisional Government under Prince Georgy Lvov.

---

Anyone know any good books on the topic? [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution][/url]

Nicholas and Alexandria by Robert K. Massie (1967) is a good starting point. It's interesting to note that by 1918 Nicholas II was so unpopular that even other members of the Romanov family were demanding his abdication (not that any of them wanted to pick up the crown).

He and his wife (particularly his wife) had this really weird relationship with Rasputin, who by all accounts was the perfect blend of crazy/genius and train wreck, but they believed he had some supernatural ability to keep their hemophiliac son alive. From what I understand, that and the constant war put the monarchy at odds with the populace. Enter Lenin (thanks Germany!) and you've got a tinderbox ready to explode.

Definitely fascinating stuff.

BTW, interesting article at the NYT about the February 1917 Revolution passing with very little official notice ...

Quote:

---

MOSCOW The Kremlin plans to sit out the centenary of the Russian Revolution.

Never mind that the upheavals of 1917 transformed the country and the world, abruptly ending the long rule of the czars, ushering in the Communist era and spawning an ideological confrontation with the West that still resonates.

There will be no national holiday on Sunday, March 12, the date generally recognized as the start of the uprising. Nor will there even be a government-issued official interpretation, like the one mandating that World War II was a "Great Victory."

The official reason proffered for ignoring the event is that Russia remains too divided over the consequences of that fateful year.

The more likely explanation, some Kremlin officials, historians and other analysts say, is that President Vladimir V. Putin loathes the very idea of revolution, not to mention the thought of Russians dancing in the streets to celebrate the overthrow of any ruler. Moreover, 1917 smudges the Kremlin's version of Russian history as a long, unified march to greatness, meant to instill a sense of national pride and purpose.

-snip-

Despite the widespread perception that the czar was overthrown in what the Soviets called the Great October Socialist Revolution, there were two revolutions in 1917. The February Revolution (now falling in March, given a different calendar) deposed the czar and replaced him with a provisional government that introduced liberal reforms like universal suffrage. Eight months later, Lenin and his marginal Bolshevik faction engineered a remarkable coup that gave rise to the world's first communist state.

-snip-

The president shunted the anniversary off into the realm of academia, appointing a special committee to organize seminars and the like.

Previously, the official narrative was an essay written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in which he argued that deep distrust between the court and the educated elite along with German meddling brought about catastrophe.

The latter fits the Kremlin narrative that Russia has long been besieged by foreign aggressors and that the West strives to implant friendly regimes everywhere by sponsoring "color revolutions." Columnists have been lumping 1917 among more recent color revolutions in places like Georgia and Ukraine, naturally listing the United States among the suspected agitators.

There is also a damning lack of heroic figures in the revolution. Czar Nicholas II was deposed and thus weak. Alexander F. Kerensky, the central figure in the provisional government, proved ineffective. Lenin fomented appalling bloodshed and destroyed the Russian Orthodox Church, a pillar of Mr. Putin's support.

"Vladimir Putin cannot compare himself to Nicholas II, nor to Lenin nor to Kerensky, because that is not Russian history to be proud of," said Mikhail Zygar, a Russian journalist and the author of a best-selling book, "All the Kremlin's Men," which details the inner workings of the Putin regime. "In terms of 1917, nothing can be used as a propaganda tool."

-snip-

"The authorities cannot celebrate 1917," said Nikita Sokolov, a historian. "Whatever might have happened, the impulse of the revolution was social justice. A country with such inequality can't celebrate this. Also, the authorities think that any revolution is a color revolution."

For the Communist Party an ever-weaker link in the loyal opposition the establishment of the Soviet Union was a singular achievement. It plans to celebrate not least with parades in Moscow and elsewhere on Nov. 7, which in Soviet times was the main national holiday.

Amid the mudslinging, there are efforts to bring the momentous events to life.

Mr. Zygar, a former editor in chief of the independent TV Rain news channel, established one of the more ambitious projects, called Project 1917.

Excavating a vast trove of historical archives, he and his young staff compiled a Facebook imitation, chronicling 1917, in Russian and English. It uses snippets from the diaries of hundreds of mostly prominent Russians of that epoch to create a snapshot of every single day, including the weather.

On March 8, for example, as the St. Petersburg bread riots gathered steam, there is Nicholas II lamenting that his children have the measles. Others focused on the mushrooming chaos. Mikhail Rodzianko, the head of the Duma, or Parliament, wrote, "Something was broken today, and the state machine derailed."

On March 15, the day of his abdication, the czar wrote, "All around there is treason, cowardice and deceit." The next day he mentioned reading a book about Julius Caesar, then avoided political references until April, Mr. Zygar noted.

-snip-

Many historians and others note that Russia lives with a certain ambivalence toward 1917. Although many perceive it as having wrecked the country, its symbols are still enmeshed in the fabric of daily life.

At a recent forum, Leonid Reshetnikov, a historian and retired lieutenant general in Russia's foreign intelligence service, described trying to explain to his granddaughter why the city of Yekaterinburg had a church dedicated to the czar and his family, who were canonized by the church, as well as a monument to Lenin, the man who ordered them shot there.

"We live in historical schizophrenia, with these monuments to Lenin, to all of them," he said, going on to denounce any street protesters as potential revolutionaries.

"How do we explain to young people that they must not be revolutionaries, that they must be loyal citizens yes, fight for Russia, wish it well, but under no circumstances plot, overthrow, march, kill?"

---

Link to article

Link to Project 1917 this is cool!

Old Jock 1997 said:

---

He and his wife (particularly his wife) had this really weird relationship with Rasputin, who by all accounts was the perfect blend of crazy/genius and train wreck, but they believed he had some supernatural ability to keep their hemophiliac son alive. From what I understand, that and the constant war put the monarchy at odds with the populace. Enter Lenin (thanks Germany!) and you've got a tinderbox ready to explode.

Definitely fascinating stuff.

---

this is pretty much it. most of the Rasputin stuff was more than likely "fake news" in today's parlance, but the fact that they were so secretive about him, and let the perception be that he was running the country, was enough to do them in, whether or not he actually had magical powers.

If the oft-quoted story of Rasputin -- over the telephone, wasn't it? -- stopping the Tsaravitch's bleeding when nothing else had been remotely successful, is actual historical fact, credence almost has to be given the unpalatable possibility of Mad Monk's possession of mysterious powers

It was supposedly this episode that cemented Rasputin's unassailable position with the Royal Family, especially Alexandra, but also sped the abdication and later murder of the Romanovs due to his agency in fostering additional suspicion and dislike of the Royals, which was the last thing they needd.

What I am trying to get at is that if the self-styled holy man's powers were verifiable, then the "twilight zone" had a part in the dynasty's downfall.

Agreed that this sounds a ridiculous flight of supposition, but, again, if it happened it happened. All sorts of questions flow from that. Has anyone ever treated this seriously?

Otherwise, the Rasputin long-distance consultation paralleling the boy's miraculous recovery was one of the most unlikely coincidences in history.

It would seem to have been one or the other.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Interesting to see the modern response. I believe the Russian Orthodox Church has made Nicolas II a saint. A very odd decision given his reign.

---

He got declared a "saint" for how he died, not for how he lived.