OMG I killed Nicholas II !

[Alexor]

Ooops, I knew I shouldn't bombard the shit out of Ekaterinbourg...my bad

No seriously, slightly weird how the Reds defending are using the Tsar as commanding general...no ?

[Clovis]

We haven't found a better solution until now....

[J P Falcon]

It's too bad that the Czar could not be a random event which might allow him to be freed by the Whites (slight increase in National Morale and a boost in Money {Imperial Gold} or assasinated by Reds (greater increase in National Morale less of an increase in money). Would be a nice ahistorical option which may or may not occur in any given game...

[Alexor]

Ya it would be awesome, especially since in my game (see the pic) I took Ekaterinburg before the murder (happened on July 17th 18)

[caranorn]

Yes, but freeing the Czar would lead to a whole lot of pseudo-historical speculation. Really we don't know what would have happened had the whites not advanced on Ekaterina and the bolsheviks quickly executed the family. Maybe the whites would have used him as a figure head, maybe they'd have sent him into exile, maybe they'd have put his son on the throne (puppet), maybe they'd have executed the whole lot and have blamed it on the bolsheviks. Remember that this war was no really about restoring Nicholas to power ;-) ...

While it would be nice to have some Czar events, I understand why it was not done...

[J P Falcon]

Yes, but freeing the Czar would lead to a whole lot of pseudo-historical speculation. Really we don't know what would have happened had the whites not advanced on Ekaterina and the bolsheviks quickly executed the family. Maybe the whites would have used him as a figure head, maybe they'd have sent him into exile, maybe they'd have put his son on the throne (puppet), maybe they'd have executed the whole lot and have blamed it on the bolsheviks. Remember that this war was no really about restoring Nicholas to power ;-) ...

While it would be nice to have some Czar events, I understand why it was not done...

You are probably right that the WHITES would have propped him up as a figurehead to perhaps gain some populus support and so he would only have been a propoganda tool, regarding gameplay, saving him could also decrease the % number in some RED controlled areas...I have no problem with ahistorical options because afterall, this is a game where you want some uncertainty and not just have a cookie-cutter approach to historical events. If we lived by that rule, then the WHITES should never win!

[Andriko]

I don;'t think the Tsar as very popular at this time anyway, was he? The only thing I would suggest, which would be simple, is an alternative where he goes into exile, instead of being killed. But otherwise, it does pose a problem regarding ahistorical developments, mainly, the need for a new monarchist army.

[StephenT]

Bolshevik propaganda accusing the Whites of wanting to bring back the Tsar was a big advantage for them. I mean, it's right there in the soundtrack of this game:

Belaya Armiya, Chërnyĭ Baron
Snova gotovyat nam Tsarskiĭ tron

The White Army and the Black Baron
Are trying to restore the Tsar's throne

Not to mention the standard way of vilifying Kolchak in propaganda posters was to show him sitting on a throne wearing a crown.

So it seems to me that if the Whites really did rescue Nikolai and install him as their figurehead, in reality rather than in propaganda, it would provide a massive morale and recruitment boost for the Reds...

[J P Falcon]

Bolshevik propaganda accusing the Whites of wanting to bring back the Tsar was a big advantage for them. I mean, it's right there in the soundtrack of this game:

Belaya Armiya, Chërnyĭ Baron
Snova gotovyat nam Tsarskiĭ tron

The White Army and the Black Baron
Are trying to restore the Tsar's throne

Not to mention the standard way of vilifying Kolchak in propaganda posters was to show him sitting on a throne wearing a crown.

So it seems to me that if the Whites really did rescue Nikolai and install him as their figurehead, in reality rather than in propaganda, it would provide a massive morale and recruitment boost for the Reds...

Good points, but I think among the peasant class especially, the Tsar could have been a help...I do not believe anyone wanted to restore the Imperial family, but if Nicholas was a denouncer of Bolshevism, I can see where he could have some positive influence for the WHITE cause...

[TheDoctorKing]

I'd say it would provide a morale boost for both sides.

But probably make it more difficult for the whites to use the "reform" action.

[Baris]

I think Tzar was popular at that time, at least among peasants(form the majority of population; historical nostalgia or etc..) ,some cossacks or other political groups who were bodyguard of the Russian monarchy in favour reduced taxes and some federal freedom. Whites would use Tzar to get support from population and the future system they want to form but what system, monarchy or republic?. In game turns , it can create good propaganda or NM favour for whites.

[ERISS]

I think Tzar was popular at that time, at least among peasants. Whites would use Tzar to get support from population and the future system they want to form but what system, monarchy or republic?.

Maybe the Tzar was popular, but the revolution, even in the country, tells the tzarism was no longer popular with peasants.
Whites can tell Tzar and tzarism was popular and revolted paesants were bandits, like the Reds told that revolted Green or Black were bandits.
Whites can tell themselves are not tzarists, but as they are often fan of the tzar, they are at least dubious for those who didn't want the tzarism come back. I think Whites were anti-tzarist like the Red were pro-soviet: That was a tactical trick (bolsheviks to destroy the soviets, Whites to bring tzar to power trough a fake democracy).

[Baris]

Maybe the Tzar was popular, but the revolution, even in the country, tells the tzarism was no longer popular with peasants.
Whites can tell Tzar and tzarism was popular and revolted paesants were bandits, like the Reds told that revolted Green or Black were bandits.
Whites can tell themselves are not tzarists, but as they are often fan of the tzar, they are at least dubious for those who didn't want the tzarism come back. I think Whites were anti-tzarist like the Red were pro-soviet: That was a tactical trick (bolsheviks to destroy the soviets, Whites to bring tzar to power trough a fake democracy).

Until 1900's or so I guess Romanov dynasty and the church was a very influencing factor for peasants. But the new worker class,ethnic nationalism and the left political groups show some discontent for Tzar rulering more then peasants. But if things stayed as in 1905, and with very few land reforms peasants wont be a problem. Government(Tzar) would reform to Constitutional monarchy(lesser power for ruler. Landlords will be more in parlament) and then "landlords" Democracy after a time. Then whole groups would become "bandits" altogether. But genereally for civil war to occur both sides must be financed well. There are rare examples for pure peasant revolutions. How did Lenin financed?

I agree with the old trick.History shows even secular(Empire to republic) revolutions got some help from religious leaders(for some support from population) and then hang them when their job is finished with them.

Edit: But Historically if Tzar was a unity figure, Then Whites could use to calm down the population or else it would be much seperation IMHO. population needs some figures especially at that time.

[Василеостровск]

Maybe the Tzar was popular, but the revolution, even in the country, tells the tzarism was no longer popular with peasants.

The peasants weren't the revolutionaries. With most people it wasn't the monarchy they were dissatisfied with as much as it was the monarch. Only small minority of white wanted return to monarchy, and much fewer of them wanted Nicholas II restored. Most wanting restoration of monarchy wanted new dynasty or Mikhail (Nicholas II brother who was chosen by Nicholas II to be emperor when he abdicated title but said he would wait for approval by Constituent Assembly to take throne, which never happened because of October Revolution) At this time legally Nicholas II had no standing to be restored, Mikhail had only legitimate claim to throne. But he was murdered by Bolsheviks one month beforehand of Nicholas II, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei. Mikhail killed first because he was legal monarch.

[Alexor]

The peasants weren't the revolutionaries. With most people it wasn't the monarchy they were dissatisfied with as much as it was the monarch. Only small minority of white wanted return to monarchy, and much fewer of them wanted Nicholas II restored. Most wanting restoration of monarchy wanted new dynasty or Mikhail (Nicholas II brother who was chosen by Nicholas II to be emperor when he abdicated title but said he would wait for approval by Constituent Assembly to take throne, which never happened because of October Revolution) At this time legally Nicholas II had no standing to be restored, Mikhail had only legitimate claim to throne. But he was murdered by Bolsheviks one month beforehand of Nicholas II, Alexandra, Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia, and Alexei. Mikhail killed first because he was legal monarch.

Right on.

Anyway that thread was about an in-game funny bug that showed Nicholas II commanding the Red army in Ekaterinburg and ending up being killed by the Russians coming to free him (see the pic).
We're sliding into a historico-political discussion now...

[ERISS]

Anyway that thread sliding into a historico-political discussion.

Yep, the thread should be cut between somewhere 3rd and 7th post, and copied to the History Club.
What title?: "Were the paesants mainly revolutionnaries?"

The peasants weren't the revolutionaries.

Many paesants were:
The 'koulaks' lost their big rich soils (by some poorests paesants in communes, or mainly by medium poor ones in soviet villages).
The Green and Black armies started against the german terror then against the White one. They were composed of peasants, many were back from the 1st WW and were accustomed fighters. The revolution was not only in some towns.
The Red terror comes after, and was far greater than White one. There would be some reason why the paesants went pushed in Red/Green/Black armies by the White terror, but were not pushed back in the White side despite the Red terror was greater. There were many deserters in Red Army, many joined the Green, some less joined the Blacks, but I don't think many happened joining the Whites.

[Baris]

What title?: "Were the paesants mainly revolutionnaries?"

Many paesants were:
The 'koulaks' lost their big rich soils (by some poorests paesants in communes, or mainly by medium poor ones in soviet villages).
The Green and Black armies started against the german terror then against the White one. They were composed of peasants, many were back from the 1st WW and were accustomed fighters. The revolution was not only in some towns.
There were many deserters in Red Army, many joined the Green, some less joined the Blacks, but I don't think many happened joining the Whites.

Revolutionary? maybe more like reaction . What was the goal of Green army?

[StephenT]

Revolutionary? maybe more like reaction . What was the goal of Green army?

A revolutionary land settlement, confiscating all the land from the nobility, State and Church and distributing it among the peasants? (And making sure the Whites or Bolsheviks didn't come along to reverse those changes). The Bolsheviks might have denounced them as reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries, but that doesn't mean they were.

[ERISS]

Revolutionary? maybe more like reaction . What was the goal of Green army?

You're right. But, I think the reaction was at first against the german army and the coming back of the big land-owners who used this foreign army to try owning back their past property.
Many russian officers helped the german army in this task.

[Alexor]

You're right. But, I think the reaction was at first against the german army and the coming back of the big land-owners who used this foreign army to try owning back their past property.
Many russian officers helped the german army in this task.

I don't know where you saw that Russian officers helped the German Army in this task. The White movement was created in big part in reaction to what was seen as the betrayal of the Allies by the bolsheviks at Brest-Litovsk. Their goal was to fight the Germans and the bolsheviks and that was the reason behind the (meager) help from France and the UK.
The only ones that helped the German-Austrian were the bolsheviks by taking Russia out of the war and it was a huge help ! (The German offensive against Paris in 1918 was very close to end the war for good).
As for the average people living in Ukraine occupied by the Germans they were very happy not to be left at the mercy of bands of Anarchist or Reds coming to confiscate your homes or shoot you...At least there was some order and law.
I remember talking in Paris with an old lady from Odessa who lived during that time and told me how there were relieved to see the German troops enter the city after a few weeks of bolshevik occupation in 1917 (and she had lost a brother in 1914 in the war against the Austrians...)

[ERISS]

I don't know where you saw that Russian officers helped the German Army in this task.

I generalized from a small event in end 1918, in Ukraine:
Some aristocrats (White grassroots?) had organized an evening party, and welcomed some auxiliaries of Mazoukhine (staff captain, Varta commandant of the Alexandrovsk district; Varta is national guard of Skoropadsky, hetman pupet of germans) with "Hurra for the russian officers!"
So, yes, sorry, I was just talking about the Varta's officers.
(At first I thought they were saying "Hurra for all russian officers", but now I think they might mean "Hurra for those russian officers")

[ERISS]

The White movement was created in big part in reaction to what was seen as the betrayal of the Allies by the bolsheviks at Brest-Litovsk. Their goal was to fight the Germans and the bolsheviks
The only ones that helped the German-Austrian were the bolsheviks by taking Russia out of the war and it was a huge help ! (The German offensive against Paris in 1917 was very close to end the war for good).

You mean there would have been no Whites if Lenin didn't succeed in voting the peace?!

As for the average people living in Ukraine occupied by the Germans they were very happy not to be left at the mercy of bands of Anarchist or Reds coming to confiscate your homes or shoot you...At least there was some order and law.
an old lady from Odessa told me how there were relieved to see the German troops enter the city after a few weeks of bolshevik occupation in 1917 (and she had lost a brother in 1914 in the war against the Austrians...)

For aristocrats, average people were the few aristocrats ones (others were inferior people).
You talk about before or after the 'peace': In Ukraine, during their peace, Reds didn't confiscate homes, they were allied with germans in keeping the order: In their fear of german army, Reds already shoot revolutionnaries in 1917!

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]It's getting repetitive cleaning up RUS threads that turn into history debates

I want you (and you know who "you" are ) to start asking yourselves the following before you post in the main forum: "Does this relate to the game in any way?" If the answer is "no", then you know that you should start a thread in the "history club"-forum to discuss the topic instead. Feel free to add a link to the new thread in the "old" thread that inspired you, though.

I'll leave this thread as-is so that you can test this new and revolutionary concept [/color]