четверг, 22 января 2009 г.

Bloody Sunday- 9 January 1905


Gapon

On January, 8, 1905 in Aleksandrovsky palace the meeting has taken place in connection with intention of Gapon to head a demonstration to the Winter palace. Two main problems were considered:
1. All last year and till last days Gapon was loyal to Tsar also polices. He was successor of Zubatov and headed loyal «the All-Russia working assembly». It was the most numerous in Russia the organization of workers. Representatives of socialist parties could not be accepted in this organization. There were no problems prior to the beginning of January, 1905.
However, on January, 3-5 the police has found out, that some socialists-revolutionaries have appeared in the nearest environment of Gapon. They were known polices as potential terrorists.
2. Nicholas II has received on January, 7 a copy of "Petition" (from Gapon) which they were going to hand over Nicholas II on January, 9 on the Palace square. This was very big petition and it contained absolutely unacceptable requirements also. All requirements were offered to be executed immediately. Obviously, it was influence of revolutionary( of Rutenberg). Gapon has got under their influence unexpectedly for police.

Under these conditions Nicholas II could not accept Gapon in the Winter palace and meet people (with demonstrators) on the Palace square. Later (during the stay in Europe) Gapon has answered the question that would be if Nicholas II has left to people on the Palace square. Gapon has told: «Rutenberg and his friends would kill tsar instantly». Gapon himself in the beginning of January, 1905 wanted to become «a minister from people» in the government of Nicholas II.
Now some historians consider, that on January, 9 the first shots have been made of crowd by revolutionaries provokers.

At meeting on January, 8 (in Alexander palace in Tsarskoe selo) the decision was accepted, that Nicholas II should not leave Alexander palace on January, 9. He had no other variant of the decision.The Military Commander was Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, who was not there that day, and had left General Prince Vasil Chikov in charge. However,Nicholas II certainly,bears the responsibility for tragedy of Bloody Sunday as the authoritarian ruler of Russia.

According to official statistics on January, 9 there has been killed 76 person, wounded - 233. More likely, victims was more as their relatives have soon buried some killed, and separate wounded men, being afraid of reprisals, did not address for medical aid. Revolutionaries have taken advantage of a situation and have distributed hearsays, that actually was lost and is wounded about five thousand person...

The term «Bloody Sunday» was entered by English journalist Dilan.
All victims have been buried due to the state, widows have received pensions.
Certainly, Nicholas and Alexandra experienced this tragedy very much.

Sources:theroyalforums.com
alexanderpalace.com

3 комментария:

Chernevog комментирует...

This is something I have never read of heard. That is the statement in the last line, that Nicholas II attempted to abdicate in March, 1905.

The closest things I have heard are that when it was recommended that he form a consultative assembly, in February, 2005, he responded to the Prime Minister with a veiled sort of suggestion that the creation of such an assembly would be to abdicate his own authority as absolute monarch,something which was not acceptable to him.

Do you have another source for this. I would be very interested in reading it.

lastochka комментирует...

I don't have.I just heard about it.I was going to delete the last phrase about his abdication.
The other facts from this article are confirmed by the historians and archvists.
This period (1905-1917)is one of the most belied in our history...
"Cixi and the ruin of Chinese empire"- was the theme of my diploma at the University.
These kinds of "tectonic processes" are very interesting for me.

Chernevog комментирует...

I know. I grew up during the early cold war, and the various pictures we were given of this period 1905-1917, and later periods were either highly romanticized, or highly politicized, so it was difficult to know what was real, and what was made up, and what was a mix of the two.

Most of the movies we saw, like "Nicholas and Alexandra" or David Lean's version of Dr Zhivago were like this, and while they were artistically well produced, they left out much, or had an unusual focus to say the least.

Some of the presentations of characters were a bit...flat to me, and even as a child I had a hard time beleiving that people could be so different on the other side of the world as they were being presented to us back then.

But at least this got me interested in reading the books later.


It was difficult for me when I decided I wanted to study such things at university, because there were virtually no courses taught about Russian history or Chinese history. No language courses offered at all back then.

Everytime I enrolled in a class offered to start learning Russian, the class was cancelled because they could not get six people to register for it. It annoyed me to no end. I must have enrolled in the course every semester for six semesters and then gave up when I no longer saw it being offered.


Later, when I decided I wanted to major in Chinese studies, I had to take most of my classes as "Independent Studies".

I was fortunate to have had a very good and very, very old Chinese professor, who lived through the period of Sun Yat Sen and the struggles between the Nationalists and Communists for control over China. He did not speak Mandarin dialect, so he had to teach me from the books we could get. I had to order my language books and cassette tapes(giving away my age) directly from Zhonggua Shudian and we worked through them together.

When I wanted to try to study the language he offered to do so as an independent set of classes, and then we had to go through a very long process of getting this approved.

Of course while he could read the characters,he didnt know the Mandarin pronounciations for them and it was harder for him than me because he kept trying to prounounce the words in his own dialect rather than the Mandarin.

On the other hand, learning in this environment had its advantages as well.

I did a comparison between the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny in India and the Taiping rebellion for my major paper.

That is to say I did a very bad attempt to compare the religious roots of both rebellions as they related to the presence of westerners in both places. The only thing that resulted in a decent grade on the paper is that my professor was not as aware of the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny as he was of the Taiping rebellion.

But I did enjoy studying things that were not being offered in other classes.

That last phrase in the article confused me a bit, that is all.

Thanks for answering. I would have spent days trying to find out the answer in other places.