● Is Nothing Sacred?! To start, let me point out that there is nothing sacred about newspapers or their ownership. While I’m sure they want you to believe that somehow they are pure because some of them used to be owned by families who ran them at a loss blah blah, they’re just businesses and they don’t live by some special code. In fact, the history of newspapers is that most were “partisan rags” before they became “partisan rags pretending to be nonpartisan.” That’s why you get names like “The Arkansas Democrat”... because they were established to spread party propaganda.
● Recent Buyers: Several rich people have recently bought papers for different reasons. Most billionaire buyers of newspapers buy as a vanity project and end up losing their shirts and dumping them. Some buy them for other reasons, however. Warren Buffett bought up a bunch of newspapers. His purpose seems to have been to get them to pimp things he’s invested in. That shouldn’t work, except that Buffett bought small town papers, which don’t get scrutiny, and he fired and closed lots of them, which likely created a loyalty incentive.
The Koch Brothers are apparently attempting to buy various newspapers including the “Chicago Tribune” and the “L.A. Times.” Their purpose is ideological. They apparently aren’t planning to impose a new ideology on these papers, but instead intend that conservative/libertarian viewpoints finally be heard along with liberal ones.
I’m doubtful this will work. On the one hand, I’m glad they’re doing this as we need conservatism brought into the MSM and this might do it. On the other hand, I think this is destined to failed to reach the nonaligned public because the left will smear them. They will claim over and over that the Koch Brothers are trying to control the news and they will use the Koch Brother’s association with conservatives to make the claim – along with the claims that they want to add conservative view points. The better strategy would be to entirely disclaim ideological intent and then do it through other means. Even better would have been to set up a front owner who makes himself out as a leftist, and have him push conservatism. The left wouldn’t have a clue how to handle that and you would probably be able to get a solid reputation as unbiased.
● Amazon: So what about Bezos? Let’s start with the obvious. Amazon is an amazing company. They will dominate the world one day. I have watched as they have slowly, but sure taken over everything online and they’ve done so with incredible skill. This is a company that consumers, employees, sellers, and stockholders all love... every stakeholder in the mix. This is because they are more than fair in things like salaries and royalties, and they generate intense loyalty because of it.
Indeed, the only people who hate them are the people in the industries they invade, and that is because they come in and destroy things like monopoly margins and the need for middlemen. To give you an example, published authors earn 6% on books they sell... after expenses, which can drive profits down to around 2% in many cases. Publishers and retailers keep the rest. Agents get around 15% of what the author makes for acting as a middleman. Amazon gives 70% royalties directly to authors (or 35% depending on some things). It wipes out the need for publishers and agents. Thus, consumers benefit from way lower prices, authors benefit from massively higher profits, and Amazon benefits from a strong profit margin. Moreover, Amazon does a LOT to boost sales. They are constantly tinkering to improve marketing... there isn't a week where I don't see them test something. Amazon does the same things now with music, games, and videos, and it is expanding into every other area of retail as well. This is a company with huge long term plans and is willing to invest to make that happen. And each time it expands, it brings lower costs for consumers and higher margins for producers by wiping out the middlemen. It is WalMart circa 1985.
Anyway, back to the Washington Post. I think Bezos buying the paper will be a great thing. For one thing, Amazon is amazingly creative. They are super fast as making changes to see how consumers respond. I’ve seen them test different formats on different products and go with the one that improved sales. I’ve seen them test different forms of marketing, dumping those that failed and keeping those that worked. They play with their search algorithms constantly too. They are constantly tinkering.
Moreover, they are totally consumer oriented in their thinking, which is something no one in the media is. The entire media, from newspapers to television to magazines, sees themselves as the modern version of an ancient industry that does certain things rigidly. They see themselves as being above the market and telling the people what they need to know. Amazon isn’t like that. They embrace the public and they try to give the consumer what the consumer wants, not what Amazon thinks they should want... huge difference. They are also intensely nonpartisan. This means they don’t take sides and they happily cater to both sides.
I expect that all of this means we’re going to see a lot of innovation coming to the Post. I expect they will rethink the paper to try to provide more value to consumers, particularly online. I also expect they will broaden the ideology so they reach more people. I could be wrong, but that’s Amazon’s history... “Republicans buy sneaker too.” (Michael Jordan). If I'm right, this actually could lead to change in the entire industry, a change which may dramatically shift the ideology of the newspaper industry, away from radical liberalism to “non-aligned customer service.”
It’s going to be interesting to see if that happens. I think it will though. And if it does, this could do more to change the MSM that a dozen conservative billionaire buying news channels or newspapers. I guess we’ll see.
35 comments:
I don't think Bezos can reverse the fortunes of the Post because I don't think the atomization of the media is reversible. Being all things to all people is possible for a book seller (buyers of textbooks don't care that Amazon also sells romance novels) but its impossible for news sites (people don't want more than a token outside voice).
Speaking of voices, there's a lot more money in bloviating than newsgathering so if Bezos really wants to make the Washington Post profitable he'd get them out of the hard news business and focus more on news aggregation/analysis.
I suspect Bezos bought the Post because it could be had cheaply and he figures its worth keeping around. Time will tell.
Andrew....I believe the Post was sold because it was the big money loser for all the Washington Post companies, and first and foremost, the owners of that company could not afford to lose any more of their precious fortune and made the right, albeit, unpopular decision to sell the iconic property.
It's all about the benjamins. I'm not sure what other properties the Post company has....Kaplan Testing I think is one, but they sure as hell were not going to lose their family fortune just for a bird cage filler.
I think you are spot on with your thoughts on what Bezos will do with the paper. A non-partisan online property, ala Huffington Post, but without the lunatic fringe.
I thought I'd share an interesting article about Amazon's steps in display technology that includes a brief tie-in to the WaPo purchase. Yummy food for thought.
If I were ever to win a really big Lotto I might consider buying a small to medium paper and take it right to the middle of the idealogical argument. I would hope I have journalists with many different opinions, and stories that are written as news stories and not camoufalged partisanship. My own feelings are that print can survive but not as print only and not as aright or left only...
Anthony, I have no idea what Bezos has planned, but I do know it's something. He's had a plan for everything he's moved into and he's succeeded. What he does, which no one else does, is come at problems differently, rather than just trying to be better at what everyone else already does. He's also not afraid to spend to make money... something too many others aren't.
In fact, the first thing all the billionaires who bought papers did was lay people off and cut costs. I doubt you'll see that with him. I suspect he will (1) expand their efforts, (2) add new things we haven't considered (some new "value") beyond what is traditional, and (3) connect them very deeply with Kindle so that they can become a national paper.
I suspect his goal is to become the electronic version of the USAToday. He's got the reach to do it through Amazon. He could even become a source of coupons with the bar code reader apps that are now available for cell phones.
I'll be interested to see what he does.
Patriot, Ultimately, that's what this is always about. If the loses are small enough, then vanity can prevail so long as the prestige remains, but once the loses mount, then it's time to sell.
I suspect that's his goal, but we'll see. It makes sense with his prior actions.
There was an interesting article yesterday too that owning the Post might conflict with his lobbying efforts (i.e. he doesn't just lobby for liberal causes). So that may drive him to non-partisanship as well.
tryanmax, I'm super impressed with the way they light their devices. It makes them really easy on the eyes.
I'll tell you, the Kindle has absolutely increased how much I read, and I would definitely subscribe to the Post if they went non-partisan. They are a good paper, they're just too biased for my taste.
You have passed, Kit. :)
IT'S WORKING!!!
Critch, I agree. I think the key to survival is value. To maximize value, you need to reach for a bigger audience. Partisan magazines and the such only sell a few thousand copies, and the more partisan the papers have gotten over the past several decades, the more their readership has collapsed.
I think the best strategy is (1) embrace both sides, (2) keep the politics out of everything outside the politics section, (3) provide things that can't be gotten elsewhere -- local news, indepth stories, classifieds, coupons, (4) find new features that people will like -- more movie reviews, more product reviews, more recipes, how to, etc. And if you have national reach, look at going more national with things like a bigger classified section (like an ebay), partner with Zillo, partner with Groupon, partner with CarMax, etc.
Hmmm... Possible news flags of the near future:
The Amazon Post?
The Apple Times?
The Google-Democrat Gazette?
Fun to ponder.
You know, what's interesting about Amazon is that they don't put their name on the companies they buy. They own a lot that you wouldn't know.
Apple can buy the NYT and become the Big Apple Times.
Andrew.....What makes the Post, or any other paper for that matter a "good paper?" I submit it is the quality of the writers they have, and many of them now are being beat by independent bloggers who work for themselves. We'll probably see many of the talent at the Post do the same thing. What seperates the Post from others right now, is it is the "paper of record" for Wash. DC. and is thus the go to source for political news....the areas 'industry' if you will.
It has survived on its reputation, underserved in my opinion, from Watergate. "We brought down a President!" Of course, it only goes one way for the most part.....Democrat. Similar to the Times 'cultural' industry, the Post is for all things Democrat.
Their partisanship and bias in supporting all things Democrat in this town has run its course. Personally, I read the Washington Times for my political news. I at least get a different perspective than from the house organ that the Post had become for generations.
Consider me one who would love to see The Post, the NY Times and every other biased rag go down in red ink and out of business. The talented writers will survive, but they will not be the gods they once thought they were when working at the Post or the Times.
BTW...The best one I've heard is the "ComPost"
Patriot, I read the Times when I lived in the area. I liked it a lot at the time, but then they downsized and I didn't like it as much. I read the Post on Sundays (for the coupons) and just to get the other side's perspective.
I think what makes a newspaper a good one is the writing. The Post has good writers. I don't like their ideology and I don't like that they slide it into everything, but they are good writers. The local paper here, by comparison, is crap and they couldn't write their order at McDonalds.
As for going down, you may get your wish. They're all dying at the moment.
Zerohedge had some interesting comments about Amazon just prior to their purchase of the WaPo. First, Amazon makes very little margin on their sales of tangible products, instead they rely upon the margins from their sale of digital media and digital services. Digital media sales have tanked for some reason over the last couple of quarters, hence Amazon's recent posting of losses.
Vox Day predicted that the next step for Amazon would be to become the next PayPal: a safe, effective payment processor/virtual bank that you could trust.
Instead, at least for the short term, they do appear to be purchasing content for digital media via the WaPo acquisition. There may also be a motivation to get in the good graces with government, considering Obama's visit to AMZN just 6 days prior to the acquisition.
I don't suspect any conspiracy (yet), but AMZN certainly has been fighting long and hard against many states regarding sales taxes, thus building up a bit of ill will at many levels of government. They did just this year reach an agreement with AZ to collect state sales tax on purchases, and I suspect they've done the same with other states.
Was someone at WaPo connected to the White House, and asked Obama to give a little subtle pressure to AMZN to purchase the paper at about 4 times what most analysts thought it was worth? Who knows? Maybe there's a connection there, and maybe not.
Regarding partisanship, I have to agree that if a paper evens out its ideology, its readership tends to improve. The HuffPost now has a selection articles that aren't complete leftist drivel, and I'll actually read it on occasion without becoming nauseous.
wahsatchmo, I've noticed falling sales this quarter. I actually see some interesting swings week by week and month by month in sales. And being able to compare that to other info I get about author rank and sales rank, I can see how Amazon is doing day by day. It's pretty fascinating. The difference between the beginning of the month and the end of the month is always huge (end of month sucks). Sun-Tuesday are best for sales, Wed-Thurs are death. Nice weather is a killer for sales. And when Amazon lists you in a promotion, they can make your sales skyrocket.
What Amazon is doing is I think both interesting and brilliant. They are not maximizing their profit, they are maximizing their potential. In other words, they could push a lot harder deal with their suppliers, employees, etc. but they don't. And the result is a serious incentive to keep providing. It feels like a partnership almost. They also keep making it easier and easier to be a provider. And they keep expanding what they do....
... this month they announced that they have negotiated certain fan fiction rights and anyone can now write in those categories for a 35% royalty. That's a huge market and it's brilliant of them to cut those deals.
I know some people hate the company because it doesn't "maximize profit," but that's really shortsighted. If they did that, it would just be a long-defunct book/cd seller like so many others who are long gone. Instead, it's a company with its hands in everything and it keeps growing and growing and improving all the time.
On Obama, I doubt Obama has any friends at the Washington Post -- that's Hillary country. And I doubt they would buy a paper if they didn't have a plan for it. I really see an easy connection to Kindle here. You can already get magazines on Kindle, so why not go straight to the source and get a paper they can control and tinker with. Keep in mind, they even got directly into publishing because they wanted to control a publisher to see if they couldn't create their own Rowlings/Kings. Content is key.
Partisanship is great if you want a small, loyal audience -- though I'm not sure that partisans actually spend money... I know conservatives don't. But if you want a bigger audience, then you need to offer something that attracts lots of people in a format that doesn't repel most of your audience. That's a nonpartisan format, with the partisanship isolated in its own section.
"I know some people hate the company because it doesn't "maximize profit," but that's really shortsighted."
Who says that?
I don't know if he hates Amazon, but the other day Limbaugh was expressing confusion over why anyone would invest in Amazon for that reason. I don't know if he was being facetious or not, but the point he was apparently driving is that maximizing profits is the only legitimate way to run a business.
Kit, Financial people mainly. I pay attention to the stock market and there are a lot of people who whine about "the company isn't fair to stockholders" because they aren't pushing as hard as they can on margins and profits. They miss the point though. What Amazon is doing is building an empire and they're doing it in a way that is sustainable... everybody's happy -- employees, suppliers, customers, stock owners.
tryanmax, I didn't hear that, but I heard someone talking about it. I'm honestly not sure he understands how business works. I get the sense a lot that Rush worship BIG and thinks that Robber Baron tactics are a sign of good management. He's not someone I listen to for advice on companies or economics.
Rush's point was that Amazon never makes money but is worshiped as the be all and the end all of business life; Apple makes billions and is hated.
Rush also runs a successful small business so I think he understands capitalism.
darski, The problem is that's wrong. Both have valuations that are proportionate to their revenues. Meaning, investors currently "love" them the same.
The difference between the two is in profit. Amazon reinvests their earnings in growth rather than paying them out to shareholders. That has resulted in revenue growth that far outpaces Apple's. Apply, on the other hand, doesn't know what to do with their cash at the moment, so they are paying it back as dividends and share buy backs.
(I own both stock from companies.)
The reason Apple is "hated" (which they aren't) is that they litigate for profit rather than earning it. The reason they are currently disfavored by hedge funds (which is questionable if they really are, as most hedge funds own them) is because there is a serious question about whether or not they can keep their earnings growth without a new super invention in the pipeline because Google is eating their lunch.
As for Rush "running a small business," that's true but inaccurate. Rush's "small business" was someone else's idea, using someone else's company, their distribution channels and their money. He was basically just the talent... in the same way an actor in a movie "runs a small business." He's done well for himself -- extremely well, and he's branched off from that into merchandising, but he's never run anything that acts like 99.99% of businesses out there, and his ignorance shows when he speaks economics.
Countdown to Catastrophe
Aftermath: Germany -Part 1 of 3
-For all intents and purposes, Germany dominates the war against the Allies. After the breakout of hostilities, German forces pound their way through Belgium and northern France. However, the Germans are forced to stop less than 80 miles from Paris- not because of Entente counterattacks (the so-called ‘Battle of the Marne'), as is popularly believed, but because the Germans were overextended, with supply lines running thin and the ever present danger of gaps forming at the front.
On the Eastern Front, German armies under Generals Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff (“The Duo”), successfully stop the initial Russian attack on East Prussia, routing and destroying an entire Russian army at the Battle of Tannenburg (September 1914). The war then enters a phase of mostly standstill operations in the west, and battles of maneuver in the east, with the Duo attempting to completely envelope the Russians (a plan inspired by Carthaginian general Hannibal’s surrounding and destruction of eight Roman legions at Cannae in 216 BC). Their attempts to envelope the Russian army aren’t successful, but the Russians are slowly pushed back.
After both sides suffer devastating losses in the months-long battles of Verdun and the Somme in, the Germans construct and later withdraw to the defensive structure known as the Hindenburg Line in February 1917, which the Allies are unable to penetrate. Victories over Serbia, Greece, Italy, and Russia (which surrenders after the Bolshevik Revolution), have German leaders thinking one more offensive will bring the Allies to their knees. However, a combination of unrestricted submarine warfare and the infamous Zimmerman Telegram (which makes an offer of U.S. territories to Mexico should that country fight the U/.S. alongside Germany; Mexico declines), soon result in bringing the United States into the war.
Trying to finish the war before America can make a difference, Germany launches one more offensive in the spring of 1918. The offensive gains ground, but not enough before manpower is exhausted. As millions of fresh American soldiers pour into Europe, Germany is pushed back close to its own borders. In November, with defeat looming and the navy in a full-scale mutiny, the Kaiser abdicates and Germany surrenders on November 11, 1918.
-After the war, Germany suffers a harsh reprisal at the Paris Peace Conference. Territory is taken away, all colonies are taken, parts of the country- including the Rhineland- are occupied, the military is reduced to 100,000 soldiers, and massive war reparations are inflicted. Germany has no say in the proceedings. It can only sign when the treaty is complete.
-The results are traumatic. The country barely survives an attempted communist takeover right after the war, and remains unstable until 1923 (surviving a rightist coup in the process). The ineffective Weimar Republic is declared, but dominated by old school politicians seeking to circumvent democracy and return to autocratic rule. Weimar Germany finally crumbles under the weight of the Great Depression. In order to placate the growing Nazi Party and prevent them from disrupting the Riechstag, Adolf Hitler is appointed chancellor in 1933.
Countdown to Catastrophe
Aftermath: Germany -Part 2 of 3
-Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg, Prime Minister of Germany: Despite his incompetent performance leading up to the start of the war, he remains prime minister until July 1917. The rest of his term is marked by pursuing post-war expansion plans and gradually ceding more and more power to Hindenburg and Ludendorff, leaving Germany mostly under military rule. After the war, he remained loyal to his sovereign, asking that he be tried for war crimes in 1919 instead of Kaiser Wilhelm. (His request is refused.) He retires to write his memoirs before dying of pneumonia in 1921.
-Erich von Falkenhayn, War Minister of Prussia: In September 1914, he replaces Moltke as German Chief of Staff. He attempts to break Allied morale through war of attrition at several key points along the front. (One battle in particular earns him the nickname, “the Blood-Miller of Verdun.”) That failure results in his ousting in August 1916. That same month, he and General August von Mackensen are given command of German forces in Transylvania and attack Romania, taking the capital of Bucharest within four months. The following year, however, he is unable to prevent the Allies from capturing Jerusalem. (Though he is credited with stopping numerous reprisals against Jews in then-Palestine.) He retires after the war and passes away in 1922 near Potsdam.
-Gottlieb von Jagow, Foreign Minister of Germany: Continues in his role as Foreign Minster until November 1916, when he retires. Some sources say he was the mastermind behind the plan to get the Mexicans to attack the United States, thus tying up the Americans. He dies in 1935.
-Prince Karl Max von Lichnowsky, Ambassador to Great Britain: Returns home devastated over the breakout of war between Germany and Great Britain. However, he is so highly admired in England that he is given a salute by a military honor guard as he leaves London. He 1916, he publishes a pamphlet blaming the German government for not supporting his efforts to maintain peace with Britain. He claims Germany’s blunders include: the “blank check” to Berchtold; failing to mediate with Serbia and Russia; and foolishly rushing into war against Russia. The pamphlet costs him his political career, but after the war, he is labeled a “Good German” by the former Allies because of it. He dies in 1928.
-Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, German Army Chief of Staff: After the failure to capture Paris, Moltke loses his position of Chief of Staff in September 1914. He is given the position of organizing reserves in Berlin until he dies of poor health in 1916.
Countdown to Catastrophe
Aftermath: Germany -Part 3 of 3
-Friedrich Pourtales, Ambassador to Russia: Serves as a councilor to the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs until the end of the war. He passes away in 1928.
-Baron Wilhelm von Schoen, Ambassador to France: Returned to Germany to work in the Foreign Ministry untiul the end of the war. Passes away in 1933. (Photo shows von Schoen on right side with French politicians.)
-Alfred von Tirpitz, Naval Minister of Germany: Clashes over naval policy continuously with Kaiser Wilhelm. (The Kaiser was afraid his beloved navy would be destroyed by the Royal Navy if he sent it out.) The failure of the Battle of Jutland (the war’s only naval clash between dreadnoughts), and his insistence on unrestricted submarine warfare (ignoring political consequences), forces his resignation in March, 1916. He later sets up the Fatherland Party, an attempt to organize all of the countries’ rightist parties behind Hindenburg and Ludendorff, in a possible military coup. None of these plans ever come about. Before he dies in 1930, he famously remarks, “the German people do not understand the sea. In the hour of its destiny, it did not use its fleet… Whether our grandsons will be able to take up the task again lies hidden in the darkness of the future.”
-Count Heinrich von Tschischky, Ambassador to Austria-Hungary: Continues to serve in his post until his death in 1916.
-Kaiser Wilhelm II: Loses nearly all of his authority to Hindenburg and Ludendorff during the war. He is forced to abdicate in November 1918 after being informed that the military will no longer support him. After the war, Wilhelm Hohenzollern lives the rest of his life in exile at Doorn House in the Netherlands, where is granted asylum. In the 1930’s, his opinions of the Nazis swing in different directions. At first, he hopes they will return Germany to prosperity, but as the extent of Nazi crimes becomes apparent, he declares them barbarians. He then changes his mind again following German victories in 1940, telling Hitler, “congratulations. You have won using my troops.” When he dies in 1941, his wish not to be brought back to Germany until the restoration of the monarchy is honored. (Hitler, despite hating Wilhelm, had wanted to bring his body back for propaganda purposes.) However, his request that Nazi regalia not be used at his funeral is ignored.
-Arthur Zimmermann, German Undersecretary of State: Spends the war trying to cause unrest. His attempts to aid Irish rebels ultimately fails, though it does contribute to more unrest in that country. In January 1917, he sends the infamous telegram that bears his name to Mexico, hoping to start a conflict between that country and the U.S. which, in theory, would keep the United States too busy to fight in Europe. The failure of that plan and its public revelation backfires, helping force the U.S. into the war. This, among other things, leads to his resignation in August 1917. (But not before he helps give passage to V.I. Lenin and other Russian revolutionaries in an attempt to de-stabilize Russia and knock it out of the war.) He dies in 1940.
Countdown to Catastrophe
Aftermath: Russia -Part 1 of 2
-The war starts with a humiliating defeat for Russia at the Battle of Tannenburg, in East Prussia, where the Fifth Army is destroyed. By the end of the year, however, Russia completely occupies Galicia (modern Poland and the Ukraine), after defeating the Austrians. In 1915, supply problems begin to plague the Russian Army. This, along with a unified Central Powers command, pushes the Russians back (abandoning Russian Poland) toward a line similar to the Western Front. Although supplies increase over the following year and more territory is taken, the effects aren’t as great as Russian had hoped for.
By 1917, the war effort leaves the Russian economy on the brink of collapse. In February (March on the Gregorian calendar), mass strikes occur in St. Petersburg, with huge numbers of desperate soldiers joining as mutineers. Czar Nicholas II is forced to abdicate, leading to the creation of the Provisional Government. Despite the promise of democracy, the Provisional Government makes the fatal mistake of continuing the war. The Germans, meanwhile, capture Riga and come within 500 kilometers of the capital.
In October (November in the West), the situation becomes dire with workers and soldiers in full revolt on the side of the Bolsheviks. Lenin and his followers (recently allowed to return to Russia from Switzerland), form a new government and establish the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. By February of next year, Soviet takeover of Russia is nearly complete. In March 1918, the Soviets sign the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk with the Germans, ending Russian participation in the war.
-However, in late 1917, anti-Bolshevik forces began fighting the Soviet Red Army- igniting the Russian Civil War. Some historians believe- between fighting, disease, and mass executions- almost as many Russians die in this conflict as in World War I. Fear of the spread of communism leads British forces to take Murmansk, and American forces to occupy Archangel (Churchill said the plan was “to strangle at birth the Bolshevik state.”); however, both are forced to flee because of the Russian winter and waning public support for the campaign. By 1922, the White Russians (anti-communist forces), along with several fledgling independence movements, have been defeated. Lenin continues to run the USSR until his death in 1924. (Five years later, after consolidating power and eliminating his rivals, Joseph Stalin takes complete control.)
Countdown to Catastrophe
Aftermath: Russia -Part 2 of 2
-Count Alexander Benckendorff, Ambassador to Great Britain: Remains in his post for the duration of the war until his death in January, 1917. He is buried in Westminster Cathedral in London.
-Alexander Izvolsky, Ambassador to France: Remains at his post, but resigns after the February Revolution and abdication of Czar Nicholas. He stays in Paris and heavily supports Allied efforts to fight the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War. He dies suddenly in 1919 while writing his memoirs.
-Czar Nicholas II: Attempted several times to rally the troops during the war, but he proved to be a poor military commander. The strain of the wartime economy, strikes, and mutinies convinced him that he should step aside as czar. In the February Revolution, he abdicated for both himself and his son, Alexei. Denied asylum in Great Britain by his cousin, George V, Nicholas Romaov and his family were sent to the Urals for their safety by the Provisional Government. In April 1918, they were moved to Yekaterinberg, and held at Ipatiev House (which became known infamously as the “house of special purpose”). On July 17, 1918, Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, their five children, and three loyal servants were executed by firing squad in the home on orders of the Soviet government.
In 1979, their remains (except for two of the children) were found and later (after DNA testing) buried at Saint Peter and Paul Cathedral in St. Petersburg in 1998. (Remains of the other two children were discovered and identified in 2007.) In 2000, Nicholas and his family were canonized as saints (“passion bearers”) of the Russian Orthodox Church.
-Sergei Sazonov, Foreign Minister of Russia: In 1915, Sazonov managed to get Romania to join the Entente by offering the Austro-Hungarian territory of Transylvania (and its large Romanian population) in return. However, he was later ousted from power by his enemies (among them, the Czarina Alexandra). In early 1917, he became Ambassador to Great Britain (following Benckendorff’s death). He stayed in Russia, where he later supported anti-Bolshevik forces and even served as a representative of the White Russian forces at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. He spent the rest of his life in France, dying in 1927 in Nice, where is buried.
-V.A. Sukhomlinov, Chief of Russian General Army Staff: Removed from power in 1915 because of national supply problems plaguing the Russian Army, and for which he was blamed. In March 1916, he was tried for treason and abuse of power for not preparing the Russian Army properly for the coming war. Found guilty, he was sentenced to an indefinite term at a “katorga” in Siberia (a pre-gulag gulag). He was eventually allowed to serve his sentence in a fortress, but was released in May 1918 when he turned 70. After emigrating to Finland and, later, Germany, his self-serving memoirs that condemned the war (and were dedicated to ex-Kaiser Wilhelm) were published in 1924. He died in 1926 in Berlin.
So everybody died?
To quote Dr. Egon Spengler, "New people die every day, Ray."
Well, grand finale tomorrow. Can't come soon enough. Vacation next week. (I originally thought it was this week, but I was off slightly. Better late than never.)
True! Enjoy your vacation when it comes. :)
Thanks, Andrew! I'm sure I will!
Oh, and in a sneak preview for tomorrow, more people die.
Oh don't give it away! LOL! :P
See ya tomorrow.
Tomorrow, my friend! Good night.
Post a Comment