Since most of the other things that have niggled at me have been taken, I think I’ll stop Sharon Tate’s murder, I don’t care how, it’s just the whole idea of the cold blooded murder of a harmless young pregnant woman who wanted nothing but to have her baby that really gets to me.
Guinastasia- Well, okay, Lenin wasn’t perfect. But ANYBODY comes off smelling like a rose when compared to Stalin, except Hitler. My impression of Lenin was that he saw state terror as a means of reforming the state, not as a method to sustain his own power. He intended to end it. He was also not as scold-blooded or irrational as Stalin. he never killed off loyal Party members just because he feared their power.
How about my birth???
Sorry, Wanderer… I posted my previous reply without reading the whole thread (not a good idea). I’m sorry I stole your idea… I didn’t mean to!
Let’s just say great minds think alike.
And that’s what was so scary about Lenin-he was so cold.
He was a classic Machiavellian (I love that word!:), in that he used any way to get what he wanted.
Incidentally, did you know that his elder brother was hanged for an attempted assassination of Tsar Alexander III?
I guess I have sort of a thing against Lenin for his murder of the Romanovs…
Actually, if it hadn’t been Stalin, it would’ve been Trotsky, who wasn’t much better, either.
I would rather Kerensky have stayed in power.
But really, the only thing Stalin did that Lenin wouldn’t do was to kill fellow communists.
I’m curious as to why you think this: perhaps you know more about the period than I do.
I’ve done a bit of reading myself, and my take is that the Romanovs and the Monarchy were SO hated, I don’t see Alexei being named the Tsar as saving the country. I believe the Communists/Bolsheviks would still have risen up and destroyed the then Monarchist government. Remember how ruthless Trotsky, Lenin and all those other fun dudes were.
Historically, child kings have not done well as rulers. They’ve generally tended to be pawns of their advisors.
The day back in 5th grade when I wished for a boyfriend; someone to love me and I love him. What a mistake. Boys have given me almost nothing but heartbreak ever since then. But then again they say that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger…BAH!
cat-lady in the making…
(I was going to say what everyone else has been saying–except the birth of Jesus thing–, but I didn’t want to seem redundant)
DRY:
Good question. Yes, Alexei was a weak boy-he suffered from hemophilia. However…
When Nicholas was forced to abdicate, they were hoping he would do so in favor of his son, because the idea of Alexei becoming Tsar seemed to be popular among the Duma. Also, he was about 12, so he had four years as a minor, during which time, the Regent would be Grand Duke Mikhail. PLUS, he would’ve had the support of the Duma, which MAY have helped the Revolution. But I suppose we’ll never know.
However, I do wish that bastard, George V, had let the family come to England. Instead, he was too afraid he’d become unpopular if he did, and convinced Parliament to withdraw his offer of asylum. THEN, he blamed Parliament for not allowing his cousins to come to England, saying he wanted them to come. (He was a first cousin to BOTH Nicky and Alix-his mother and Nicky’s were sisters, his father and Alix’s mother were both children of Queen Victoria)
And so was Wilhelm II of Germany.
My choice for the whole thing: the fall of Rome and the 1000 year Dark Ages.
My compliments. It’s clear you are very well read in the fall of the last of the Romanov Tsars.
I confess that my take is a bit different: while the Duma might have disliked Alexei less than Nicholas (as a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure of this), I’m not at all confident that their attitude of Alexei as Tsar with Mikhail as Regent would have been all that different than one actually happened: Mikhail as Tsar until he refused to accept the office.
Consider that any enemy of Nicholas might not have looked so favorably upon his son succeeding as Tsar: when Alexei reached his age of majority, who would be to say that he would not seek vengeance on those responsible for the downfall of his father? (This, by the way, is cited as one reason why Richard III of England might have felt he had no choice but to claim the English crown: his nephew, Edward V, might have sought vengeance against him for past family feuds once Richard’s term as protector [regent] expired.)
There is also the more radical Communist party to consider. They were clearly looking for a way to end the autocracy.
But in the end you are right: we’ll never know.
**
I absolutely agree with this: it isn’t like George V faced “removal from office” for doing an unpopular deed such as this. IIRC, Kaiser Wilhelm wanted to expatriate the Romanovs ** even though he was at war with Russia**.
Yeah, Willy was even offered asylum in England when Hitler and the Nazis came in! And it was HIS government that allowed Lenin back into the country. Nicky would never have gone to Germany, either, since he was at war with them, and would rather have died in Russia than be a traitor.
Well, see, the Duma thought that Mikhail would indeed become Regent, so they were more open to it.
Maybe he would’ve tried to strike a vengeance, but not likely, since one of the conditions was for a constitutional monarchy, I believe.
Actually, I think Misha would’ve made a great Tsar. He did not accept, as Kerensky did not believe he could vouch for Mikhail’s safety as Tsar, only as Regent.
BTW, ever see any photos of George and Nicky? They looked almost enough alike to be twins?
(I told you not to get me started on this! Hehehehe!)
Still having trouble editing, so I’ll just add, sorry!
I think that Lenin was in the minority, so he probably would’ve had less of a chance if all the Cossacks had stayed loyal to ONE GOVERNMENT, and if there had been more troops available to whoever was in charge. If I’m not mistaken, Kerensky’s biggest mistake was underestimating the Petrograd Soviet, instead of trusting Kornilov, whom he feared was going to make a counter-monarchist attack, which he wasn’t.
Guinastasia–what are your sources?
I’m not doubting your knowledge or questioning your veracity, I’m genuinely curious as to what you’ve read or seen. You obviously know more than I do about the end of the Romanovs and I might want to do some future reading at some point.
Thanks.
Here’s a few more to chew over:
-
Columbus makes a wrong turn at the Azores.
-
The Americans lose to the Brits in the Revolutionary War.
-
The French manage to finish the Panama Canal.
-
The Spanish Armada overruns the English Navy.
-
Caesar decides not to go the the Senate that Ides.
Adam and Eve defying God’s command to not eat the apple.
Dry:
The following books are pretty good:
Nicholas and Alexandra by Robert K. Massie
The Last Empress by Greg King
The Last Tsar by Edvard Radzinsky
And the following websites:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org
and my favorite:
http://homepages.go.com/~romanovhomepage
I know of others, but these are all the factual ones…others are more a remembrance and sentimental, which are beautiful!
The sinking of the Titanic.
Imagining what all those people went through that night still puts chills up my spine.
Jello:
I’m not sure the Romans were all that hot, and the Dark Ages allowed a lot of good changes along with the bad.
But the Greeks, on the other hand, were spectacular. Their intellectual, artistic, and cultural achievments were fantastic, and that’s why I suggest:
The death of Alexander the Great.
He had just turned back from expansion, but before he had a chance to consolidate his empire and establish a stable government, he died (at the age of 33). His generals immediately divided the territory into many smaller disparate kingdoms.
Imagine if Greek culture had continued to control the resources of such a large area; they could have resisted the advances of the Romans. There may never have BEEN a dark ages. What heights would western culture have reached under a more powerful Hellenic empire? If Al’s empire, stretching from Greece to Afghanistan had known political stability, think what phenomenal exchange could have taken place between European and Asian cultures. What heights would humanity have reached by now…
There are a few I can think of:
The Spanish ruler’s allowing the Moors to get through a narrow passage and overrun Spain.
Lenin’s secret train trip to Russia, during World War I, after which he plotted the Bolshevik revolution. 
The Beer Hall Putsch, Munich, 1925.
The Dred Scott decision.
The 1919 “Black Sox” scandal.
Watergate.
The assassinations of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy.
The sinking of the Lusitania.
The Holocaust.
The 1953 flood that inundated southern Holland.
The Rodney King riots.
The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.
The 1979 Iranian hostage crisis.
The invasion of the Achille Lauro, including the brutal death of Leon Klinghoffer.
The meltdowns at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
The Roswell incident, 1947.
The hunt-him-down murder of Leon Trotsky (apparently on orders from Stalin) in Mexico in the late 30s.
Kenneth Starr’s appointment as special prosecutor.
The overdone news-media coverage of the Simpson murder trial.
Jennifer Love Hewitt…