: great-grandparents fled Nicholas's regime in
: terror, I get somewhat nauseated by the
: romanticization of the Romanovs that one
: sees a lot when one frequents the parts of
: the internet that we do. It's lovely that
: he loved his son, but his soldiers abducted
: my grandmother's young uncle, whose family
: loved him in the same way.
I agree regarding the Romanovs – the widespread desire to turn their story into some kind of tragic romance makes me feel queasy. Nicholas and Alexandra reaped what they sowed, albeit I feel that due process should have been followed and Nicholas placed on trial rather than being summarily executed. Of course the tragedy was that the children were punished for the actions of the parents but then you have to keep that in perspective given the way the Romanovs ruled for centuries as you yourself state your own family’s experience.
You often read apologists for Nicholas claiming he couldn't have known the extent of the crimes committed in his name, I don’t accept that for one second. You could make the same argument to absolve Hitler of responsibility for the Holocaust. Many monarchists feel uncomfortable putting Nicholas into the category of a Hitler, Lenin or Stalin but the reality is he belongs far more in that bracket than a constitutional monarch in Western Europe like Haakon VII or George V.
The Kishinev pogrom in 1903 resulted in mass condemnation of the Russian Empire, including by the United States Government. I do not accept that the Tsar would have not known about another major power condemning his government. Sadly the pogroms continued.
I am fascinated by the Romanovs, they were a grotesque dynasty much like the Tudors and I am looking forward to a new BBC TV documentary about them which is due to air in the UK in 2016, I think it will be more of a historical documentary about the dynasty rather than some rehashing of the Nicholas/Alexandra romance debacle.
: As for the Shah, you are spot on on both
: counts. I think Queen Rania in Jordan (a
: country which you know better than I) has a
: similar effect in bolstering western support
: for her husband's regime. I am not saying
: Abdullah II is by any means nearly as
: oppressive as Muhammad Reza Shah, but he has
: not made as much progress in democratization
: as one might have hoped a decade ago. But
: an affable, English-speaking chap with a
: relatable yet glamorous wife who tweets
: about micro-credit can't really be bad, can
: he?
History may judge Abdullah for failing to implement more democracy in Jordan, however it seems the international community is prepared to overlook Jordan’s failings in democracy because of its strategic importance and the Hashemite ability to control the country, which is invaluable.
Abdullah is in a pretty impossible position. His country is almost entirely reliant on foreign aid from the West, remittances and trade, predominantly with Israel, which was a key part of the peace process. Jordan’s once thriving tourism industry has collapsed.
More democracy in Jordan will inevitably result in the Muslim Brotherhood achieving power, who are unacceptable to the West (look at the complete silence from the West to the military deposing the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt). The Muslim Brotherhood have called to end trade and cooperation with Israel, which will destroy Jordan’s economy. American aid will stop if Jordan poses any threat to Israel. The prospect of a major war between Israel and Jordan and the Palestinian territories is massively increased.
Abdullah has allowed controlled elections but the Muslim Brotherhood have boycotted them, he’s stuck.
I wouldn’t swap places with Abdullah for anything! He rules a country which is arguably the most strategically important in the world yet he is virtually powerless to change it, his country’s survival is reliant on outside factors.
: But, of course, the big factor is that what
: came after the Pahlavi monarchy was even
: worse than it was. The late Italian
: journalist Oriana Fallaci, who embarrassed
: the Shah with a very hard-hitting,
: adversarial interview in 1973, wrote toward
: the end of her life that she wished she
: could apologize to the already overthrown
: and deceased monarch. I can't find the
: exact quote just off-hand, but it was
: something like, "You were a b***ard,
: Your Majesty, but not as much of a b***ards
: as the b***ards who replaced you."
That seems to be the general consensus when it comes to talking about the Shah’s regime.
1
Message Thread
« Back to index