X-Envelope-to: History@ubvm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: @HISTORY
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 13:08:00 CST
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Response to Comments on Death of Romanov's post

Response to Comments on Death of Romanovs

First, I must answer one of Joe McLellan's statements, that I made
"spurious and unsubstantiated comments" about the Romanov's drug use.
I plead guilty to the latter, I should have offered documentation,
but I could not recall where I read it. I went and searched out the
reference I recalled reading. The comment I made I do not believe was
spurious. I cite a historian who I think is pretty accurate, W. Bruce
Lincoln, from his book, _The Romanovs (1981), p. 712-13, and who
qualifies his remarks, in part:

"Similar changes in Nicholas' appearance, personality and manner wre
noted by a number who saw him during the last year of his reign, and
they were dramatic enough to cause comment and considerable rumor
among Petrograd's high social and political circles. Although hardly
a reliable witness, the Princess Cantacuzene reported rumors that
Nicholas was being drugged at Aleksandra's command by Badmaev, the
notorious Tibetian herbalist and medical quack. Aleksandra's fiercely
proclaimed loyalty to Nicholas and her paranoid fears of plots
against them both hardly make it possible to give much credence to
such rumors. Yet there is some circumstantial evidence that Nicholas
may perhaps have developed a dependence on drugs, which hindered his
ability to function during the months before the revolution. The
constricted pupils that so struck Kokovtsev certainly could have been
a symptom of heavy morophine use, as was the constipation from which
Nicholas suffered. (citing Graf V. Kokovtsev, Graf V. N. _Iz moego
proshlago, Vospominaniia 1903-1919gg. 2 vols, Volume 2, p. 402-04).
... We know also that Nicholas and Aleksandra used opium and cocaine
quite casually to relieve minor ailmemts. `I woke up with a shocking
cold in the left nostril, so that I am thinking of spraying it with
cocaine,' Nicholas wrote in November 1915. (citing Letters of the
Tsar to the Tsarita, 1914-17, 13 November, 1915, p. 265). Alexandra
noted that she had told her maid to bring opium for stomach pains
that were keeping her awake one night. (citing Letters of the Tsarita
to the Tsar, 1914-16, 14 January, 1916, p. 265)

Lincoln goes on for two more paragraphs about things Rasputin
allegedly told people about what Badmaev gave the Tsar when "he was
upset." But, he also DOES qualify his remarks by saying, (p. 713)
"Hallucinogens from Badmaev, morphine from military hospitals, opium
from the family medicine chest, cocaine for colds--all of these,
singly or in combination, could produce the disorientation, dull
gaze, vacant smiles, inability to concentrate, and the apparent
unconcern with impending crises that people noted in late 1916 and
early 1917. Yet, tempting as it is to do so, the evidence is not
solid enough to reach a firm conclusion, and one must remember that
Nicholas simply may have become overwhelmed by the pressure of
events.  ..."  I note, for the record, that my comment about this was
that Nicholas was "...a reputed occasional user of cocaine,..."

I must gently take issue with Dmitri Leschiner's defense of Rasputin.
I believe the sources are many that would indicate that Rasputin was
a rake, a drunk, an abuser of privilege and power, a liar, a
manipulator, and generally a scoundrel. Fulop-Miller's 1920s
_Rasputin, The Holy Devil, is one,, the book cited above is another,
Massie's _Nicholas and Alexandra still another, Pares' _A History of
Russia another, Harrison Salisbury's _Black Night, White Snow,
Russia's Revolutions, 1905-1917 still another, Edward Crankshaw's
_The Shadow of the Winter Palace, Russia's Drift to Revolution,
1825-1917, and lastly (I could go on awhile),  Edward C. Thaden,
_Russia Since 1801, The Making of a New Society. Admittedly, I barely
graze the surface, and agree a more updated version of his role would
be a good addition to my library, which I agree is too devoid of
titles in this area. I also agree with Dmitri that Rasputin's role,
and what did he "REALLY" do would be a good topic for an energetic
graduate student.

Lastly, as I have put in over an hour writing this post at the
expense of more urgent tasks, Joseph McLellan says, "It is evident
you do not like Nicholas II." He then states, as I did, that he was a
devoted husband and father, and a "victim" of the Bolsheviks, plus
being a devoted follower of Russian Orthodoxy. Only the latter I do
not know for sure about, but will concede the point. Joseph is right,
I find little in the man to admire. I tend to look to Nevsky, Peter
I, the first two Alexanders, and Ivans III and IV as the great, and
also quite ferocious, rulers of Russia. I might include Boris Godunov
and the second Catherine in such a list. But, I will concede the
theological points about what constitutes "sainthood" in Orthodoxy,
agree with McLellan that my vision is primarily as historian and
social scientist, not as a religionist, and hope you can understand
that I can accept Nicholas as victim/martyr, but not as saint despite
some compelling evidence. If he chose to condemn his family to death
by not fleeing when he could have, I find his conduct somewhat
reprehensible. From my readings, I had believed his leaving was
blocked. If he could have sent his family away, and died alone for
the crime of being a Romanov, THEN you might have a case for his
sainthood in my estimation.

In closing, I do not mean to offend anyone. I judge Nicholas II
harshly, as I probably will be judged one day. But, I do less from a
"subjective" standard than the commentators on my last piece might
think. I've read a great deal about the last years of the dynasty,
and about Nicholas (though I have not seen the de Jonge book about
Rasputin that John Harlan mentions, and cannot commend any specific
bio of Nicholas). I'm always open to more sources, and study and
update my information often. But, I think many in my field would
agree with my general judgement, and not see it as that subjective,
just narrow in scope, not taking in the theological aspect to speak
of. We all have blinders, but I do try to make an objective case,
even about those whom I do not have the greatest respect. VMS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU