delincolon
Commoner
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 18
- City
- OCEAN SHORES
- Country
- United States
Read the book
Alexandra may have been tolerant, but the Tsar definitely wasn't. And it's not that he may have been an advocate, he was. And most historians agree about that, but gloss over it because it's not a concern for them. The Jews of Russia were oppressed and denied rights for centuries.
Many of his faults were exaggerated to discredit him, and were also faults of those pointing fingers. The people Rasputin tried to have appointed were people who would grant the Jews equal rights, or advocate for peace instead of war. Of course, if you want to discredit him and make it appear there was no logic behind this, you could say that he chose candidates for ridiculous reasons.
I think the Tsar brought the Tsar down more than anyone. He was weak willed and indecisive. I don't think you would have found too many common folk, Jews and peasants, who were unhappy about getting out from under the Tsar's oppressive thumb when he abdicated. The Jews left in droves, during the Romanov rule, to live in countries such as the U.S. and Canada where they could pursue a decent life without the threat of death hanging over them. Ironically, once the Tsar was gone, the Jews were given freedom, the land was dispersed to peasants to farm, and the government made sure that everyone had food, handing out ration cards. Under Nicholas II, if you were starving, you died. The Tsar was completely against modernizing and entering the industrial era. All these things that happened after the abdication, were recommendations Rasputin made to the Tsar. Had he listened, the 1917 Revolution might have been avoided.
I've read a couple of hundred books on the subject and authored one: "Rasputin and The Jews: A Reversal of History". One thing I've discovered is that the French historians (as well as some Russian ones) are much more interested in looking at Rasputin in a less sensationalist, gossipy way than American or English-speaking biographers are.
And, of course, if your ancestors didn't endure the horrors of living in the ghetto and suffering the raids, under Nicholas II's rule, it's alien territory and of little importance.
Alexandra may have been tolerant, but the Tsar definitely wasn't. And it's not that he may have been an advocate, he was. And most historians agree about that, but gloss over it because it's not a concern for them. The Jews of Russia were oppressed and denied rights for centuries.
Many of his faults were exaggerated to discredit him, and were also faults of those pointing fingers. The people Rasputin tried to have appointed were people who would grant the Jews equal rights, or advocate for peace instead of war. Of course, if you want to discredit him and make it appear there was no logic behind this, you could say that he chose candidates for ridiculous reasons.
I think the Tsar brought the Tsar down more than anyone. He was weak willed and indecisive. I don't think you would have found too many common folk, Jews and peasants, who were unhappy about getting out from under the Tsar's oppressive thumb when he abdicated. The Jews left in droves, during the Romanov rule, to live in countries such as the U.S. and Canada where they could pursue a decent life without the threat of death hanging over them. Ironically, once the Tsar was gone, the Jews were given freedom, the land was dispersed to peasants to farm, and the government made sure that everyone had food, handing out ration cards. Under Nicholas II, if you were starving, you died. The Tsar was completely against modernizing and entering the industrial era. All these things that happened after the abdication, were recommendations Rasputin made to the Tsar. Had he listened, the 1917 Revolution might have been avoided.
I've read a couple of hundred books on the subject and authored one: "Rasputin and The Jews: A Reversal of History". One thing I've discovered is that the French historians (as well as some Russian ones) are much more interested in looking at Rasputin in a less sensationalist, gossipy way than American or English-speaking biographers are.
And, of course, if your ancestors didn't endure the horrors of living in the ghetto and suffering the raids, under Nicholas II's rule, it's alien territory and of little importance.
Last edited by a moderator: