Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,899
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bator
a note to peter: as far as i have read anywhere, there was no coronation for alfonso xiii as castillian coronations only took place in the middle age.

I was aware of it. The ceremony was really an installation, with the crown present but not worn. However it was commonly spoken of at the time as a coronation, and for brevity's sake I went with that.

Here is what seems a well-informed and balanced article on Chinese involvement in the Russian Far East, a region commonly considered part of Siberia although the official Russian view is that it is separate, and the main though not exclusive focus of Chinese investment in Russian territory. It is important to understand that the areas leased remain under Russian sovereignty and law, they are not like say the former lease of Hong Kong to Britain but are mere commercial leases to Chinese organisations.

The scale also needs to be considered; the example mentioned of a lease of 150,000 hectares equates to around 600 square miles. A lot, but then the area of Siberia as usually defined is over five million square miles. Then again land with potential for agriculture is only a fraction of that, so it is easy to sympathise with the concerns of Siberian residents such as Sir_Roman.
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #47 

Yes, sir, there is cause for concern. Siberia is a huge territory, but for a person's living, most of it is not suitable. The main population of Siberia is in large cities: the New Nikolaevsk (with the Bolsheviks "Novosibirsk"), Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Verkhneudinsk (with the Bolsheviks - "Ulan Ude"), Chita, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok. All these cities are located along the line of the Trans-Siberian Railway. This is the southern part of Siberia, which is close to the borders with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. The population of Siberia lives the most along the southern border: and the population of Canada mainly lives along the southern border of the United States.

When communists from the Kremlin quarreled with communists from Beijing, Chinese propaganda said that Siberia is a legitimate Chinese territory. The Chinese radio in Russian every day said: "For the last time we are making a warning to the Russians # 1458: leave Chinese territory in Siberia!" About these warnings, the inhabitants of Siberia laughed: then appeared the memorial "The Last Chinese Warning", which denotes empty optional threats.

Now everything has changed. The People's Republic of China (red China) will not make military conquest of Siberia. But this is not necessary at all: for China, it is enough to buy land here, rent farming. This is happening now.

I also want to say this. The Russian Federal Republic has provinces, and there are such "National Republic": Chechen, Ingush, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Bashkir, Karelia and others. Each such "National Republic" has its own Constitution, which says: "This republic is a sovereign state within Russia." In the territory of Siberia there are such "National Republics": Tuva, Altai, Buryat, Yakut-Sakha, others. The Republic of Tuva was a completely independent state from 1920 to 1943; The Republic of Yakutia is very large, mining diamonds; The Republic of Buryatia has the same population as Mongolia, has a large common border with Mongolia. In these regions there is a strong national movement. For example, in Buryatia there are supporters to unite with Mongolia in one state. All this can not be ignored, it is necessary to know.

Undoubtedly, China would have a great profit if there are several young and weak new states in the north. China will be able to subordinate them to its economy. If such states arise, then they will always vote in the UN in the way Beijing wants. There is such a danger.

But in Moscow they do not think that it can be so. They flirt with the National Republics, allow them to have their own Constitution, their flag, allow newspapers and television in their national language, allow religion and customs ... But at the same time, the standard of living remains very low, infrastructure (roads, houses for housing) very old and bad, medicine and education are not very good, there are a lot of problems. These problems are not solved, the dissatisfied population quietly suffers. In the provinces (the region) it is much worse: there are industrial enterprises, there is oil and gas, but taxes are all paid to Moscow. For the provinces, there is no money left to solve their problems at home. This situation may very badly end: separatism will have development.

A likely alternative may be like "United Kingdom Siberia" or "Siberian Commonwealth" with some kind of King or King. We think about it. But every national separatist is always a Republican, an opponent of the Monarchy.

In general, it is very difficult to explain why the Monarchy has a good system. Those who support the republic say: "Monarchy is dictatorship, we do not want this"; there are others who want a dictatorship, they say: "Yes, the Monarchy is good! This is a strong state, a dictatorship! Hurray!" But it is very difficult to explain to people that the Monarchy is not a dictatorship, that the Monarchy is a defense against dictatorship. After 70 years of communist propaganda and education, people can not understand this.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #48 
In order to be able to imagine what Siberia is, I publish this map:

7gef6yqql4.gif 


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #49 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

Yes, sir, there is cause for concern. Siberia is a huge territory, but for a person's living, most of it is not suitable. The main population of Siberia is in large cities: the New Nikolaevsk (with the Bolsheviks "Novosibirsk"), Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Verkhneudinsk (with the Bolsheviks - "Ulan Ude"), Chita, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok. All these cities are located along the line of the Trans-Siberian Railway. This is the southern part of Siberia, which is close to the borders with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. The population of Siberia lives the most along the southern border: and the population of Canada mainly lives along the southern border of the United States.

When communists from the Kremlin quarreled with communists from Beijing, Chinese propaganda said that Siberia is a legitimate Chinese territory. The Chinese radio in Russian every day said: "For the last time we are making a warning to the Russians # 1458: leave Chinese territory in Siberia!" About these warnings, the inhabitants of Siberia laughed: then appeared the memorial "The Last Chinese Warning", which denotes empty optional threats.

Now everything has changed. The People's Republic of China (red China) will not make military conquest of Siberia. But this is not necessary at all: for China, it is enough to buy land here, rent farming. This is happening now.

I also want to say this. The Russian Federal Republic has provinces, and there are such "National Republic": Chechen, Ingush, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Bashkir, Karelia and others. Each such "National Republic" has its own Constitution, which says: "This republic is a sovereign state within Russia." In the territory of Siberia there are such "National Republics": Tuva, Altai, Buryat, Yakut-Sakha, others. The Republic of Tuva was a completely independent state from 1920 to 1943; The Republic of Yakutia is very large, mining diamonds; The Republic of Buryatia has the same population as Mongolia, has a large common border with Mongolia. In these regions there is a strong national movement. For example, in Buryatia there are supporters to unite with Mongolia in one state. All this can not be ignored, it is necessary to know.

Undoubtedly, China would have a great profit if there are several young and weak new states in the north. China will be able to subordinate them to its economy. If such states arise, then they will always vote in the UN in the way Beijing wants. There is such a danger.

But in Moscow they do not think that it can be so. They flirt with the National Republics, allow them to have their own Constitution, their flag, allow newspapers and television in their national language, allow religion and customs ... But at the same time, the standard of living remains very low, infrastructure (roads, houses for housing) very old and bad, medicine and education are not very good, there are a lot of problems. These problems are not solved, the dissatisfied population quietly suffers. In the provinces (the region) it is much worse: there are industrial enterprises, there is oil and gas, but taxes are all paid to Moscow. For the provinces, there is no money left to solve their problems at home. This situation may very badly end: separatism will have development.

A likely alternative may be like "United Kingdom Siberia" or "Siberian Commonwealth" with some kind of King or King. We think about it. But every national separatist is always a Republican, an opponent of the Monarchy.

In general, it is very difficult to explain why the Monarchy has a good system. Those who support the republic say: "Monarchy is dictatorship, we do not want this"; there are others who want a dictatorship, they say: "Yes, the Monarchy is good! This is a strong state, a dictatorship! Hurray!" But it is very difficult to explain to people that the Monarchy is not a dictatorship, that the Monarchy is a defense against dictatorship. After 70 years of communist propaganda and education, people can not understand this.

  The Russian Emperor was also Czar of Siberia. During the civil war, the White forces  in Siberia held a Zemsky Sobor and elected one of Nicholas II' relatives (uncle/cousin) as Emperor of All the Russias, but this came to nothing, Whites lost the civil war because Americans were funding and arming the Bolsheviks. United States was the first country to recognize the Soviet Regime. 
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #50 

I will say this: The United States of America was one of the first states to recognize the Bolsheviks - together with Great Britain, Uruguay, Afghanistan and Mongolia.

I can not agree that "America financed the Bolsheviks" because it is not entirely true. Both the United States, France, and Britain provided assistance to both the Bolsheviks and the White forces. So, in Siberia, as part of the Entente troops, there was an expeditionary corps of the United States, which helped Kolchak.

The so-called "Priamursky Zemsky Sobor", about which you spoke, did not "elect the Tsar", neither the uncle, nor the nephew of Emperor Nicholas II. General Dieterichs simply announced that the Amur Region now has a monarchical state. "Zemsky Sobor", which was assembled by General Dieterichs, confirmed this, and believed that there is the Tsar Emperor Michael II (this is the younger brother of Nicholas II, who also renounced). But the fact is that by this time Duke Michael was also killed by the Bolsheviks. But General Dieterichs and the participants of the "Zemsky Sobor" did not know about this: they thought that Duke Michael was alive. But this is not so.

Baron Roman Ungern-Sternberg, who liberated Mongolia from the Chinese revolutionaries, who returned Bogdo-Khan, he also thought about the duke Michael alive. On the banner of Baron Ungern was the imperial letter "M" and the figure "II":

ungern_flag1.jpg 

ungern_flag2.jpg 

Барон Унгерн. Картина кисти Дм. Шмарина.jpg 

But Duke Michael and his secretary Johnson were killed by the Bolsheviks back in 1918 in Perm. In 1921, many wanted the Monarchy to return, many thought that Duke Michael was alive. But he was no longer alive.



__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,899
Reply with quote  #51 
The United States was not even close to being the first country to recognize the Soviet Union. It did so in 1933, by which time the majority of European countries including Britain (1924) already had. So had several in Asia, including Japan (1925). Even in the Americas, Mexico (1924) and Uruguay (1926) beat the US to it. The very first country anywhere would appear to have been Estonia (1919), closely followed by the other Baltics.
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #52 
Was it in 1933? Is it not 1921? I will now clarify this ...
__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #53 
Yes, in fact, in 1933. This is my mistake ... I apologize.
__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,899
Reply with quote  #54 
I was actually replying to Dom's misleading if not downright untruthful statement #3,857 in a continuing series, not to your post; we cross-posted by a few minutes.
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #55 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

I will say this: The United States of America was one of the first states to recognize the Bolsheviks - together with Great Britain, Uruguay, Afghanistan and Mongolia.

I can not agree that "America financed the Bolsheviks" because it is not entirely true. Both the United States, France, and Britain provided assistance to both the Bolsheviks and the White forces. So, in Siberia, as part of the Entente troops, there was an expeditionary corps of the United States, which helped Kolchak.

The so-called "Priamursky Zemsky Sobor", about which you spoke, did not "elect the Tsar", neither the uncle, nor the nephew of Emperor Nicholas II. General Dieterichs simply announced that the Amur Region now has a monarchical state. "Zemsky Sobor", which was assembled by General Dieterichs, confirmed this, and believed that there is the Tsar Emperor Michael II (this is the younger brother of Nicholas II, who also renounced). But the fact is that by this time Duke Michael was also killed by the Bolsheviks. But General Dieterichs and the participants of the "Zemsky Sobor" did not know about this: they thought that Duke Michael was alive. But this is not so.

Baron Roman Ungern-Sternberg, who liberated Mongolia from the Chinese revolutionaries, who returned Bogdo-Khan, he also thought about the duke Michael alive. On the banner of Baron Ungern was the imperial letter "M" and the figure "II":

ungern_flag1.jpg 

ungern_flag2.jpg 

Барон Унгерн. Картина кисти Дм. Шмарина.jpg 

But Duke Michael and his secretary Johnson were killed by the Bolsheviks back in 1918 in Perm. In 1921, many wanted the Monarchy to return, many thought that Duke Michael was alive. But he was no longer alive.

My friend, you are clearly not well informed on the issue of American funding. Professor Anthony Sutton, while employed at the Hoover Institute discovered documents in the archive there which revealed that the Bolsheviks were funded by Americans. He wrote more than one book on the subject, and was extensively interviewed. He was highly respected during his lifetime. Some white Russians seem to have a misguided sense of loyalty to America. The Americans actually treated Admiral Alexander Kolchak very badly- and contributed to his fall and execution. The Revolution & civil war could not possibly have succeeded without American, German, and British funding. They wanted to gain control of Russia's vast resources, and destroy the Russian Empire as a global power - which it was before 1914. I don't know why some people have such difficulty understanding this. Communism, Marxism, Bolshevism was all Western funded. Lenin, Trotsky et al had no money of their own. Hitler was also well funded by Americans (Henry Ford, Harriman family, etc) and Jews (Warburg family) while American troops were being killed by Germans. War, revolution, is ALL about power and money. There are no "good guys" and "bad guys". But the Emperor Nicholas and his wife were true Christians- this revolution was a terrible attack on Christianity. 
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

I will say this: The United States of America was one of the first states to recognize the Bolsheviks - together with Great Britain, Uruguay, Afghanistan and Mongolia.

I can not agree that "America financed the Bolsheviks" because it is not entirely true. Both the United States, France, and Britain provided assistance to both the Bolsheviks and the White forces. So, in Siberia, as part of the Entente troops, there was an expeditionary corps of the United States, which helped Kolchak.

The so-called "Priamursky Zemsky Sobor", about which you spoke, did not "elect the Tsar", neither the uncle, nor the nephew of Emperor Nicholas II. General Dieterichs simply announced that the Amur Region now has a monarchical state. "Zemsky Sobor", which was assembled by General Dieterichs, confirmed this, and believed that there is the Tsar Emperor Michael II (this is the younger brother of Nicholas II, who also renounced). But the fact is that by this time Duke Michael was also killed by the Bolsheviks. But General Dieterichs and the participants of the "Zemsky Sobor" did not know about this: they thought that Duke Michael was alive. But this is not so.

Baron Roman Ungern-Sternberg, who liberated Mongolia from the Chinese revolutionaries, who returned Bogdo-Khan, he also thought about the duke Michael alive. On the banner of Baron Ungern was the imperial letter "M" and the figure "II":

ungern_flag1.jpg 

ungern_flag2.jpg 

Барон Унгерн. Картина кисти Дм. Шмарина.jpg 

But Duke Michael and his secretary Johnson were killed by the Bolsheviks back in 1918 in Perm. In 1921, many wanted the Monarchy to return, many thought that Duke Michael was alive. But he was no longer alive.

My friend, further to my previous post, the Bolsheviks only got 24% of the votes in the Constituent Assembly elections in November of 1917. They were distrusted by the peasants because the party was led by Jews. There was no way the Bolsheviks could have won the civil war in Russia without extensive foreign funding from the West. The Whites could easily have won the civil war if they received the proper support from Europe and America. A lot of people -especially Masons, but not only Masons- wanted to see the Revolution succeed in Russia, and exported to other countries. When the Czar was first toppled  in March 1917, the were cheers all around in the British parliament. It was a lone Irish M.P who later protested "How could we treat our allies in this manner". I rest my case. 
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #57 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D

Yes, sir, there is cause for concern. Siberia is a huge territory, but for a person's living, most of it is not suitable. The main population of Siberia is in large cities: the New Nikolaevsk (with the Bolsheviks "Novosibirsk"), Omsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Verkhneudinsk (with the Bolsheviks - "Ulan Ude"), Chita, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok. All these cities are located along the line of the Trans-Siberian Railway. This is the southern part of Siberia, which is close to the borders with Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China. The population of Siberia lives the most along the southern border: and the population of Canada mainly lives along the southern border of the United States.

When communists from the Kremlin quarreled with communists from Beijing, Chinese propaganda said that Siberia is a legitimate Chinese territory. The Chinese radio in Russian every day said: "For the last time we are making a warning to the Russians # 1458: leave Chinese territory in Siberia!" About these warnings, the inhabitants of Siberia laughed: then appeared the memorial "The Last Chinese Warning", which denotes empty optional threats.

Now everything has changed. The People's Republic of China (red China) will not make military conquest of Siberia. But this is not necessary at all: for China, it is enough to buy land here, rent farming. This is happening now.

I also want to say this. The Russian Federal Republic has provinces, and there are such "National Republic": Chechen, Ingush, Dagestan, Tatarstan, Bashkir, Karelia and others. Each such "National Republic" has its own Constitution, which says: "This republic is a sovereign state within Russia." In the territory of Siberia there are such "National Republics": Tuva, Altai, Buryat, Yakut-Sakha, others. The Republic of Tuva was a completely independent state from 1920 to 1943; The Republic of Yakutia is very large, mining diamonds; The Republic of Buryatia has the same population as Mongolia, has a large common border with Mongolia. In these regions there is a strong national movement. For example, in Buryatia there are supporters to unite with Mongolia in one state. All this can not be ignored, it is necessary to know.

Undoubtedly, China would have a great profit if there are several young and weak new states in the north. China will be able to subordinate them to its economy. If such states arise, then they will always vote in the UN in the way Beijing wants. There is such a danger.

But in Moscow they do not think that it can be so. They flirt with the National Republics, allow them to have their own Constitution, their flag, allow newspapers and television in their national language, allow religion and customs ... But at the same time, the standard of living remains very low, infrastructure (roads, houses for housing) very old and bad, medicine and education are not very good, there are a lot of problems. These problems are not solved, the dissatisfied population quietly suffers. In the provinces (the region) it is much worse: there are industrial enterprises, there is oil and gas, but taxes are all paid to Moscow. For the provinces, there is no money left to solve their problems at home. This situation may very badly end: separatism will have development.

A likely alternative may be like "United Kingdom Siberia" or "Siberian Commonwealth" with some kind of King or King. We think about it. But every national separatist is always a Republican, an opponent of the Monarchy.

In general, it is very difficult to explain why the Monarchy has a good system. Those who support the republic say: "Monarchy is dictatorship, we do not want this"; there are others who want a dictatorship, they say: "Yes, the Monarchy is good! This is a strong state, a dictatorship! Hurray!" But it is very difficult to explain to people that the Monarchy is not a dictatorship, that the Monarchy is a defense against dictatorship. After 70 years of communist propaganda and education, people can not understand this.

I looked up General Diterikhs on Wikipedia, Wikipedia has a nice photo of him (below), on the Zemsky Sobor issue, this article contains the following paragraph: 

Diterikhs founded the last Zemsky Sobor on Russian soil on July 23, 1922. On August 8, 1922, the sobor declared that the throne of Russia belonged to the House of Romanov in the person of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanov. It also named Diterikhs as the ruler of the Provisional Priamur Government and its armed forces. On October 25, 1922, the Bolsheviks defeated Diterikhs's army, forcing an evacuation from Vladivostok to China and Korea via Japanese ships.Ditrichs 1918 640.jpg
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #58 
My dear friend, I again want to tell you that everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance. For example, the Civil War in Russia was not a "White War against the Bolsheviks"; In this war there were many parties, it was a war of all against all. In Ukraine, the Bolsheviks first actively collaborated with anarchists (ataman "batko" Makhno), then fought against anarchists. Don Ataman Peter Krasnoff almost began to fight against General Denikin (both of whom fought against the Bolsheviks). Ukrainian left-wing nationalists (Simon Petliura) overthrew the Ukrainian right-wing nationalist, Hetman Peter Skoropadsky .... In Siberia, the same thing happened: Baron Roman Ungern-Sternberg in Mongolia ordered to shoot and hang on ropes not only the Bolsheviks, but also the officers of the Kolchak army; Kolchak himself ordered the arrest of officers-monarchists in his army. The White Cossack ataman George Semenoff almost started the war against the troops of Admiral Karl Kolchak. In the very army of Kolchak, the workers from Izhevsk and Votkinsk fought against the Bolsheviks-they fought for the Republic, for the Constituent Assembly, against Bolshevism and the Monarchy, and fought under the red flag. In the aramm of Admiral Kolchak (!), Under the red flag:


                                                                                        votkin4.gif 

I can tell you about the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia. When Admiral Kolchak lost and was arrested in Irkutsk, the white ataman George Semenoff sent an armored locomotive with artillery guns to Irkutsk to rescue Admiral Kolchak. This armored steam locomotive with artillery guns at the station of Port Baikal was stopped by the American military forces, in order not to pass to Irkutsk. There was a battle between the white Cossacks and the American military, about 100 people were killed from two sides. At the same time, neither these nor the others were red Bolsheviks. Everything is much more complicated than it seems at first ...

I know the name of Professor Anthony Sutton, but I do not know what specific research of this professor you are talking about. The phrase "the Americans helped the Bolsheviks" is not at all concrete, very vague ... Yes, we know that the banker Jack Schiff and others helped the Bolsheviks and gave them money. Banker Jack Schiff is an American citizen, yes. But the banker Jack Schiff is not yet the US President, not a member of the US Congress, not the entire US nation. This is a separate citizen of the United States, although very rich.

The United States of America is a very large state, and there are different people there. As in Russia. As an everywhere. We know that many in the US welcomed the fall of the Monarchy in Russia, yes. But we know that this is not all. And we also know that the United States in the early twentieth century was a very Christian society. Not Catholic and not Eastern Christianity, but its Protestantism - but this Christian faith in the United States had a strong position.

And we also know that thanks to US policy, the "Empire of Evil" of the USSR was destroyed, communism in Eastern Europe was destroyed. Is it bad? Do we have to hate America for this?! ... You're lucky: you did not live in the USSR. I lived there the first part of my life. It was a total humiliation every day, every hour, in everything. It was poverty, humiliation and lack of freedom. If it were not for the policies of the US and other European countries, this Red Freak would still exist. When I was at school, with my friends, with all the students, they took a cross and threw it into the toilet. From the Jews shot the star of David and threw in the toilet. I saw it. In the USSR, even children were persecuted for religious Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or something else. I am grateful to America only for the fact that the USSR, this abomination, this muck is no more.

And there is one more minor clarification: in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks lost not because "there were many Jews." The reason is not in the Jews. The reason is different: in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party won. I already wrote a little about this party: they were engaged in terror, they killed the Duke Sergei Romanoff. The Socialist Revolutionary Party agitated the Russian peasants: "We will give land to every peasant!", So they won the most. The Socialist Revolutionary Party ("Esers") was like a peasant party, and in Russia the peasants were the largest majority. The Socialist-Democratic Party (the "Bolsheviks") was referring to industrial workers and lumpens, who were no more than 10% of the entire population of the former Empire. Therefore, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party had a majority, and the Bolsheviks had a minority. They could not win with the vote of the people, so they committed a coup in October 1917. Everyone understands that they received money from Germany and from other countries: in each country there were those who were interested in this. But you can not blame the whole state: it is not right.


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
sir_Roman_D

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 86
Reply with quote  #59 

Yes, that's it. Except for one detail: about Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich this is an inaccuracy, an erroneous reduction. Priamursky Zemsky Cathedral recognized Duke Michael Alexandrovich, the younger brother of Nicholas, who was already dead.

I assume that the author of the article in Wikipedia confused something. Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich, indeed, had ambition, but he never took the title of "Emperor", nor "Locum Tenens of the Throne", no other monarchical title. He had only a claim to the informal "seniority" in the Dynasty and an informal "emigre leader". Nothing more.

In 1924 the title "Emperor in Exile" was accepted by the Duke of Cyril. But that is another story...


__________________
Non Nobis, Domine, Non Nobis, Sed Nomini Tuo Da Gloriam!
Domhangairt

Registered:
Posts: 201
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir_Roman_D
My dear friend, I again want to tell you that everything is much more complicated than it seems at first glance. For example, the Civil War in Russia was not a "White War against the Bolsheviks"; In this war there were many parties, it was a war of all against all. In Ukraine, the Bolsheviks first actively collaborated with anarchists (ataman "batko" Makhno), then fought against anarchists. Don Ataman Peter Krasnoff almost began to fight against General Denikin (both of whom fought against the Bolsheviks). Ukrainian left-wing nationalists (Simon Petliura) overthrew the Ukrainian right-wing nationalist, Hetman Peter Skoropadsky .... In Siberia, the same thing happened: Baron Roman Ungern-Sternberg in Mongolia ordered to shoot and hang on ropes not only the Bolsheviks, but also the officers of the Kolchak army; Kolchak himself ordered the arrest of officers-monarchists in his army. The White Cossack ataman George Semenoff almost started the war against the troops of Admiral Karl Kolchak. In the very army of Kolchak, the workers from Izhevsk and Votkinsk fought against the Bolsheviks-they fought for the Republic, for the Constituent Assembly, against Bolshevism and the Monarchy, and fought under the red flag. In the aramm of Admiral Kolchak (!), Under the red flag:


                                                                                        votkin4.gif 

I can tell you about the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia. When Admiral Kolchak lost and was arrested in Irkutsk, the white ataman George Semenoff sent an armored locomotive with artillery guns to Irkutsk to rescue Admiral Kolchak. This armored steam locomotive with artillery guns at the station of Port Baikal was stopped by the American military forces, in order not to pass to Irkutsk. There was a battle between the white Cossacks and the American military, about 100 people were killed from two sides. At the same time, neither these nor the others were red Bolsheviks. Everything is much more complicated than it seems at first ...

I know the name of Professor Anthony Sutton, but I do not know what specific research of this professor you are talking about. The phrase "the Americans helped the Bolsheviks" is not at all concrete, very vague ... Yes, we know that the banker Jack Schiff and others helped the Bolsheviks and gave them money. Banker Jack Schiff is an American citizen, yes. But the banker Jack Schiff is not yet the US President, not a member of the US Congress, not the entire US nation. This is a separate citizen of the United States, although very rich.

The United States of America is a very large state, and there are different people there. As in Russia. As an everywhere. We know that many in the US welcomed the fall of the Monarchy in Russia, yes. But we know that this is not all. And we also know that the United States in the early twentieth century was a very Christian society. Not Catholic and not Eastern Christianity, but its Protestantism - but this Christian faith in the United States had a strong position.

And we also know that thanks to US policy, the "Empire of Evil" of the USSR was destroyed, communism in Eastern Europe was destroyed. Is it bad? Do we have to hate America for this?! ... You're lucky: you did not live in the USSR. I lived there the first part of my life. It was a total humiliation every day, every hour, in everything. It was poverty, humiliation and lack of freedom. If it were not for the policies of the US and other European countries, this Red Freak would still exist. When I was at school, with my friends, with all the students, they took a cross and threw it into the toilet. From the Jews shot the star of David and threw in the toilet. I saw it. In the USSR, even children were persecuted for religious Christianity, or Judaism, or Buddhism, or something else. I am grateful to America only for the fact that the USSR, this abomination, this muck is no more.

And there is one more minor clarification: in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks lost not because "there were many Jews." The reason is not in the Jews. The reason is different: in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party won. I already wrote a little about this party: they were engaged in terror, they killed the Duke Sergei Romanoff. The Socialist Revolutionary Party agitated the Russian peasants: "We will give land to every peasant!", So they won the most. The Socialist Revolutionary Party ("Esers") was like a peasant party, and in Russia the peasants were the largest majority. The Socialist-Democratic Party (the "Bolsheviks") was referring to industrial workers and lumpens, who were no more than 10% of the entire population of the former Empire. Therefore, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party had a majority, and the Bolsheviks had a minority. They could not win with the vote of the people, so they committed a coup in October 1917. Everyone understands that they received money from Germany and from other countries: in each country there were those who were interested in this. But you can not blame the whole state: it is not right.
First of all, many thanks for this detailed information, it is much appreciated. I am well aware that many of the Whites were republicans. This is well known, and that the White forces were divided. But there is absolutely no way that the Bolsheviks could have won that civil war without huge assistance from outside. That assistance came from Americans, mainly, but also Germans and British. The American government formally recognized the Soviet regime- It was the FIRST to do so. The American general in Russia (I can't recall his name now) hated Kolchak, and refused to give him assistance on at least one occasion. Like I said before, Powerful people in America, Britain, and Germany wanted to bring down the Romanoffs- long before WW1, because of jealousy, and because they wanted thewealth and power of the Russian state. This is precisely why Russia was drawn into a war with Germany which the Czar never wanted.  I must agree with Nikolai Starikov on this subject- I don't agree with his admiration of Stalin, Stalin was the worst thing that ever happened to Russia, but on the conspiracy issue, I fully agree with Starikov. The Masonic links are to be found in the Soviet Archives which Yeltsin opened to the public in 1990s. It's all there, nothing is invented- you can check it out yourself. The Emperor Nikolay Alexandrovich, was portrayed in all the western media as a bloodthirsty tyrant - especially in America, and Britain. His father Aleksandr III made a big mistake in my opinion, when he switched sides, and got involved with the Triple Entente. Germany would have made a much better ally. The kaiser was deeply fond of "Nicky". The Germans supported Lenin because they were desperate to get Russia out of the war. You cannot fight a war on two fronts and win. I don't trust the Americans, sorry, they betrayed the Shah of Iran- the West's greatest ally in the Middle East- and look what regime they've got going there now. They installed Saddam Hussein in Irag, then removed him with great violence. Germany would have made a better ally for Russia, no doubt about it. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.