Plots to Rescue the Tsar and His Family

[Marengo]

In this thread we can discuss the various plots to rescue Tsar Nicholas II and his family from Russia. We can also discuss the roles that different monarchs played in this process.

[lexi4]

Interesting topic.
However, in my experience, I have found that discussions about plots to rescue the Imperial Family abound, it is difficult to find documentation. If this is a topic about discussions, that is one thing. But if it is about historical facts, that is another matter entirely. Authors have written about the topic and that could be part of this discussion. I think (and this is my opinion only) one of the reasons this is such a difficult topic to pin down is because so many of the documents are either classified or have been destroyed if anything was ever written at all
Here is an article written in 2006 about a plot. How factual it is, I don't know.

British spies in plot to save tsar - Times Online

I am not all to sure where the Imperial Family would have gone if they did escape. Initially they were given asylum in England, but that was later denied. I'd have to do some research to put the particulars together on that.
There have been things written, which make for fun discussion, but have mostly been discredited.

It will be interesting to see where this discussion goes.

[Marengo]

Well, I have a book at home called 'plots to rescue the tsar', haven't read it yet but I suppose it is documentated enough.

I agree that there might not be too much discussion coming from this but what I find even more interesting is the role the various monarchs/cousins of Nicholas and Alexandra played in this. Esp. George V's role was rather dubious; I believe in the end it was only Alfonso XIII of Spain who showed his hospitality, though too late.

[COUNTESS]

George V loved his crown more than his cousins. Now, George was a very decent man, and, in his defense, he may not have envisioned them being murdered, but it had to cross his mind. He was no scholar, but not an idiot, either. He knew that autocratic rulers, were not welcome in Britain. The decision was his. He was afraid. Willy, of course, could not help them and, yes, Alfonso XIII, did reach out, but it was too late.

Lexi, you are right, there are all kindsw of unsubstiated plots of rescue, but none with real authenticity.

[BeatrixFan]

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

Would have been interesting if that would have happened.
I'm still reading Fate of the Romanov's by Penny Wilson and Greg King and, gee what a co-inky-dinky, am at the part where plots to rescue abound. Just went through the one where the message was smuggled to the family through the fresh eggs and milk and ended up in the Cheka's hands.
I think the best method (and this is hindsight which, of course tends to run 20/20) would have been to set up a bunch of troops to storm the place when the guarding was weakest first by setting up a distraction, running in, taking them and running out with reliable transportation. This whole thing of people (like Helen of Serbia) walking up to the front door, demanding to speak to the Tsar and having all sorts of money and letters on their persons was dumb, Dumb, DUMB!

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

And of course, George feared for his position. I've no doubt that had he accepted Nicholas, Britain would be a republic and probably would have had a period of extremist rule.

We will never know, will we. It is just a guess. And, why extremist rule?

[lexi4]

Would that be Shay McNeal's book by chance? If it is, she disputes the DNA testing done on the remains of the Imperial Family. She also basis most of her book on another book that has a history all of its own.

Originally Posted by Marengo

Well, I have a book at home called 'plots to rescue the tsar', haven't read it yet but I suppose it is documentated enough.

I agree that there might not be too much discussion coming from this but what I find even more interesting is the role the various monarchs/cousins of Nicholas and Alexandra played in this. Esp. George V's role was rather dubious; I believe in the end it was only Alfonso XIII of Spain who showed his hospitality, though too late.

[Marengo]

Yes, that is the book! I haven't read a letter of it yet so I don't know about his views on the Imperial Family. But it sounds interesting...

--

About George V: I always find it curious that they usually present it either he invited the Romanovs and Britain would end up as a communist republic or he doesn't invite the Romanovs and it stays a monarchy. I think that is rather over simplifying the past, probably done to give Geoge's decision some credibility. I can understand that some parts of society wouldn't have liked the IF to start living in Kent for example, but I do not think it would fuel as much turmoil as they expected if they were to settle on Malta or South Africa for example.

Another thing is that in this people usually focus on George V and not on the other European monarchs. Of course Britain was Russia's main ally and George and Nicky were cousins, but there was an entire network of crowned cousins, I usually wonder what they did? Or what was tried by the Russians themselves?

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Marengo

Yes, that is the book! I haven't read a letter of it yet so I don't know about his views on the Imperial Family. But it sounds interesting...

--

About George V: I always find it curious that they usually present it either he invited the Romanovs and Britain would end up as a communist republic or he doesn't invite the Romanovs and it stays a monarchy. I think that is rather over simplifying the past, probably done to give Geoge's decision some credibility. I can understand that some parts of society wouldn't have liked the IF to start living in Kent for example, but I do not think it would fuel as much turmoil as they expected if they were to settle on Malta or South Africa for example.

Another thing is that in this people usually focus on George V and not on the other European monarchs. Of course Britain was Russia's main ally and George and Nicky were cousins, but there was an entire network of crowned cousins, I usually wonder what they did? Or what was tried by the Russians themselves?

Shay is a woman. I am going to have to go through her book again to talk about it at all. I can't even remember whether she used primary, secondary or tertiary sources. I do remember that there is a lot of discussion about "plots" but that no conclusion is drawn by the author. I also remember that it was not taken seriously by legit historians and authors of Russian history. One of her sources is a little book called Rescuing the Csar and it is important to know the history behind that book before reading Shay's book, imo. I also think she gleans some of her information from Summers and Mangold, but I am not sure about this part. I would have to check.


The most common reason given for George's "change of heart" is that he was concerned there might be trouble in England if he allowed the Imperial Family to live there. After all, thrones were toppling all over the place.
The offer for asylum was extended to the Nicholas and his family on March 22, 1917. However that offer was withdrawn by April 13. Meanwhile, the family was waiting and pinning their hopes on going to England. Instead, they were transferred to Tobolsk.
I have also read the George again had a change of heart after the family was moved to Yekaterinburg this time via a British spy Stephen Alley who apparently reported back that any rescue attempts from the "House of Special Purpose" would be a suicide mission. I can't remember where I read this. It may have been Shay's book, maybe not.
There are lots of stories about plots and plans to save the tsar. And I am sure there were a lot of discussions about how to do that. What is usually lacking, in my limited experience, is primary source documentation.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

We will never know, will we. It is just a guess. And, why extremist rule?

Well, there was alot of extremist feeling rising up around that time and the Revolution in Russia simply encouraged British communists that it was achievable. I think the presence of Nicholas II could only have gone against George V and as fascism became more popular in Britain towards the end of his reign, I could just see the abdication of Edward VIII as a trigger to republic. Personally I'd say a fascist one. I think the presence of Nicholas would just be too big a propaganda move for the left. I think Marengo has it - if the Romanovs had settled in South Africa or another colony, it probably wouldn't have mattered much but to have them at home close to the King....just a bit dangerous IMO given the time.

[GlitteringTiaras]

The most common reason given for George's "change of heart" is that he was concerned there might be trouble in England if he allowed the Imperial Family to live there. After all, thrones were toppling all over the place.

If anyone should be blamed for the reversal of sanctuary all fingers point to Lord Stamfordham, the King's private secretary, which we all know now. He was the one who strongly encouraged George not to give asylum to the family whatsoever. We now know that George was slightly hesitant to do so, but after realizing that Stamfordham was right -- it is going to make you extremely unpopular if your give sanctuary to a deposed tyrant... add on top of that those who are wanting a republic will use this against you, etc, etc -- he went ahead and refused to help them.

In the end, taking Lord Stamfordham's strong advice, as we all know, he was protecting himself and the future of the British monarchy.

[BeatrixFan]

And of course the Prime Minister welcomed the revolution. Sent a congratulory note to Lenin.

[EmpressRouge]

The execution of the Russian Imperial family prompted a quick response from George to V to rescue his Greek cousins, Prince and Princess Andrew of Greece and their family in 1922.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Well, he was just being polite. In any event, looking at the context and situation prior to the end of the Tsar, Nicholas II was a weak, naïve, and ill prepared for the role he inherited. At the feasts for his coronation, a panic broke out and many people were trampled to death. Nicholas went on with the coronation festivities. The word swept around the country – "Papa Tsar" – did not protect and did not care about his children. The stage was set for the convulsions of the twentieth century.

Centuries of autocratic rule exacted a heavy toll on the Russian people. All government power was vested in the Tsar. Unlike other European countries, there were few stable institutions of government in Russia that functioned regardless of whom was in power. In response to political anger and instability, many Tsars initiated reforms, but could and did change their minds and reverse the reforms. The Russian people were uncommonly patient with their lack of personal liberty and with the dramatic gap between the elite and the peasant masses, but the increasingly liberal philosophy and international trends in the eighteenth and nineteenth century gave them a realization of their unusual oppression and gradually turned the Russian people toward active (but underground) resistance against the policies of their leaders.

Anarchy became a real fear of the Tsars, and they responded with more oppressive measures. The situation came to a head in the cataclysm of World War I. The revolution finally burst upon the country, and the Tsar as well as the whole government was swept away. The succeeding Bolshevik government was the most radical of the European movements. The Communist government, ironically, had key tendencies in common with the government they overthrew; and although they had the power and the will to restore order, they were both authoritative and imperialistic. Also in common with the Tsars, the Soviet system tended to rely on personal power without establishing permanent institutions for efficient operation of the state, and moreover they gradually destroyed the economy by focusing too many resources on military might. By the end of the twentieth century, the Soviet system collapsed.

So which was better? The Tsars or Lenin and his pals? My answer: Neither, but then again Russia is unlike any other country on earth. They are not fully European nor are they Asian; they are unique unto themselves.

[lexi4]

The Dowager Empress Marie and her daughters were rescued by the British after the Germans who occupied the Crimea. The Germans occupation of the Cremea came after the signing of the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. I find it ironic that the very treaty Nicholas was opposed to was ultimately what led to sparing the lives of his mother and sisters.

[Avicenna]

Source „The fall of the Romanovs“ by Mark D. Steinberg and Vladimir M. Khrustalev
Russian documents translated by Elisabeth Tucker
The book uses correspondance between Nicholas and Alexandra during the 1917 revolution as well as parts of their diaries, government minutes, telegrams ...


From the minutes of the first session of the Council of Ministers of the Provisional Government, on evicting the Romanovs, 2 March 1917:
P.N. Miliukov (minister of foreign affairs) „... reported that the Soviet of Worker's Deputies asserted the necessity of evicting them beyond the borders of the Russian state, both for political reasons as well as for the safety of their future residence in Russia. ... Concerning the place of residence of these persons, there is no need to insist on eviction outside of Russia, and should they wish to remain in our state, it is necessary only to limit their place of residence within known boundaries, equally limiting the possiblity of their movement.“


Note from Nicholas to General Alekseev intended for the Provisional Government 4 March 1917:
„Request from the Provisional Government the foll. Guarantees:

1. That I and accompanying persons not be hindered as we travel to Tsarskoe Selo.
2. That the stay in Tsarskoe Selo will be safe and secure until the children accompanying the above persons are fully well.
3. That the trip to Romanov (Murmansk) on Murman with the same persons not be hindered.
4. That, at war's end, we come back to Russia for permanent residence in the Crimea – at Lividia.“

Aleksandr Kerensky's speech to the Moscow Soviet 7 March 1917:
„... But in the shortest time possible, under my personal supervision, Nicholas II will be taken to the harbor and will leave from there to England by ship.“


On March 6 Pavel Miliukov informed George Buchanan the British ambassador of Nicholas wish to go to Romanov and inquired, if the British government were prepared to carry out the next steps to take them out of the country.


Two days later the British Foreign Office uttered concern for the safety of Nicholas without an invitation being made. It was Buchanan's task to check if Denmark or Switzerland wouldn't be better suited. This following a conversation between Alexandra and the British military attaché. Alexandra obviously feared an extended travel by sea and preferred Denmark. However, the Provisional Government feared that both countries were too close to Germany and Nicholas might have fallen into the hands of the Germans.


Miliukov insisted – after being informed on the British response March 8 – that Nicholas stayed in England until the end of the war. March 9 Buchanan received the information that Nicholas as well as his family could come to England for the duration of the war provided the Russian government would bear the costs. Miliukov received the answer March 10. However, March 9 there was a storm of protest when the Petrograd Soviet heard of the plan to evacuate Nicholas and his family to England. Therefor Miliukov's hands were bound, in particular considering the stipulation on the expenses.


(For further information see George Buchanan „ My mission to Russia“ London 1923)


Buchanan was informed by telegram that the invitation was withdrawn 31 March following internal British political discussions as outlined in other posts. Not only because of the intervention of Arthur Stamfordham. Also the Liberal prime minister, David Lloyd George, obviously had little to none sympathy for the Ex-tsar.

[lexi4]

Thank you for posting that information and the source.

[Avicenna]

You very welcome, Lexi.

[lexi4]

I see you are new! (So am I actually.) Welcome to the forums. I hope you enjoy it. I know I certainly do.