The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 10-04-2015, 04:43 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,872
Yes, he was very concerned. He made all kinds of offers. His first concern was the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, whom he wanted to marry. But her cared about Nicholas and Alexandra and their children and he tried very hard against many odds. The Kaiser had a good side that is often overlooked. But anyway, Alexandra loathed him and Germany at that point and refused. She said she would rather die than go to Germany.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-08-2015, 08:59 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,376
The British cousin would never have rescued his Russian cousin because the British government had its own goals and cared very little about family ties. Nicholas' II abdication helped the British Empire "to achieve one of its major war aims". Prime Minister Lloyd George stated so in his speech in the parliament in 1917. The above means that the downfall of the monarchy in Russia fitted the British plans to rule the world.

The Romanovs - Emperors & Empresses of Russia: Tsar Nicholas II: Myth and Reality
__________________

__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-08-2015, 10:24 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 2,509
As mentioned before, if Russia had not entered WWI, it would have been easier for Germany to achieve victory in the Western Front early in the conflict. Britain would never tolerate though a German hegemony in the continent and would eventually try to build a new anti-Germany coalition as it did for example several times against Napoleonic France over nearly two decades. Russia and probably even the US would be probably dragged into a war with Germany at some point anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-08-2015, 11:36 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
Lloyd George and the pre-war Liberal party were never admirers of the autocratic system in Russia, with its pograms, suppression of freedoms and Secret Police, all supported by the Tsars, Al_bina. Desiring a change in Russia as a war aim, however, is very far from wishing for the death of a royal family or conniving at it.

Whatever happened in the war, whether Russia was out of the conflict or in, the country was on the road to revolution, IMO, and the Romanovs were a doomed dynasty from the time of the Decembrists. The deaths of the royal family and their relatives had little to do with the First World War.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-09-2015, 07:37 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,376

When it comes to committing atrocities, no one can surpass the British - the royals and their governments.

It is hard for me to ascertain who (Mr George or King George V) took the responsibility for the final decision. We just look at various sources of information and make subjective conclusions. However, King George V's procrastination can be viewed as the most morally questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
As mentioned before, if Russia had not entered WWI, it would have been easier for Germany to achieve victory in the Western Front early in the conflict. Britain would never tolerate though a German ... [snipped]
I agree with your comment.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-09-2015, 11:06 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
So the British surpass the Germans in both World Wars, or the Soviet Communism regime in the 1930's and 1950's in committing atrocities, Al_bina? A surprising POV! And which particular modern British royals have committed atrocities, the Queen, Charles, King George VI? By the way, King George the V not VI was on the throne in World War One.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-09-2015, 11:11 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 7,376

You have a right to your point of view. Repeating the usual "Soviets... and Germans... " is trite in my personal opinion.

Thanks for catching my mistake! I have corrected my post.
__________________
"I never did mind about the little things"
Amanda, "Point of No Return"
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-10-2015, 12:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
But the point was that you said that the British and their royal family surpassed all others. There are plenty of other examples, mass murders in the Bosnian conflict, the actions of the Khmer Rouge, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks, for example. Plus I am still curious to know which members of the BRF were responsible for massacres which surpass those I've mentioned.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-28-2016, 06:13 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 189
The Forgotten Telegram of Nicholas II to Wilhelm II on July 29, 1914

Was First World War Inevitable?

Little-known facts and mysteries of the eve of WWI. 100 years after the begining of First World War, there is still exist some forgotten or mysterious facts. The brochure tells the story of a forgotten (by historians) telegram of Russian Emperor Nicholas II to German Emperor Wilhelm II on July 29, 1914 - two days before the start of WWI. Documentary sources found by the author convincingly shows that the telegram could prevent the war - would if the Kaiser Wilhelm agreed with the proposal of the Russian Emperor. In addition, the author criticizes the version of "equal responsibility" of the great European powers for starting WWI, and tells the story of the little-known (or the forgotten) facts of peacekeeping efforts of Nicholas II for the convening of the Hague Conference in 1899, and during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. The last part of the brochure is devoted to the analysis of the state of Russia by 1917, on the eve of Russian catastrophe. The brochure contains the reference of sources (36 references), and this may be of interest as to the general reader so and for professional historians.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-28-2016, 06:55 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
The Kaiser, though autocratic by nature, wasn't fully in charge of his country's foreign policy, however. Moreover, there is some evidence that he was largely in the hands of his generals, who wanted war, (or at least wanted to grind France into the dust again for the second time in 45 years.) They wanted a Europe under German domination and there's no evidence that William would have been able to stop that inexorable drive towards war.

No Nicholas didn't want war, nor did King George V, nor did William really. Whether anyone would have been able to stop the preparations at that late stage is debatable though. It would be like trying to stop an avalanche.

I don't think Russia could have avoided a revolution either. In a way that had been building up bit by bit since the Decembrists revolt early in the 19th century.

Nicholas was a weak man and, with the stubbornness of the weak, lit the final fuse when he had decided to follow his father in the path of autocracy at the beginning of his reign. He set his face against almost every democratic reform.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08-25-2016, 10:18 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,802
Was it wise that Tsar Nicholas II of Russia attempted to take command of his armed forces by making himself Commander-in-Chief?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08-26-2016, 12:05 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
No, I don't think it was wise, but then, a lot of things Nicholas II attempted were neither wise at the time or in retrospect.

Would it have saved his dynasty if he had succeeded as C-in-C.? No, not in my opinion. The army was under-supplied with what was needed anyway, and the Russian people had no food. The Home Front was collapsing. Too much was systemic, things had gone too far.

If, by some miracle, Nicholas had pulled a couple of tremendous victories against the Germans from nowhere, he would still have faced revolution at home, IMO. However, the allies, including Britain might have been scrambling for excuses in those circumstances for not offering immediate sanctuary to him and his family in another country like Spain or Canada.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08-26-2016, 12:19 AM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 433
Last year a book called towards the flame *was published - it's all about Russia's entry into Wwi and its consequences. Long story cut very short (read the book) Russia was screwed in most regards but Ns refusal to share responsibility for the outcome of the war w the Duma and the fact that unlike ww2 and 1812 Russia was not facing a direct threat were the final nails in the coffin. The army that was mostly peasants had no real reason to fight. The PG of kerensky was weak and dithering. Lenins rise to power was an accident (the social revolutionaries should have won as they had the support of the peasants - the bol's did not) but the downfall of the romanovs and imperial Russia wasn't. A lot of modern Russia's problems are the same ones N faced and ones the USSR only put on ice for 70 years rather than find solutions for along with making new ones

*its by Dominic Lieven
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08-26-2016, 01:25 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The Kaiser, though autocratic by nature, wasn't fully in charge of his country's foreign policy, however. Moreover, there is some evidence that he was largely in the hands of his generals, who wanted war, (or at least wanted to grind France into the dust again for the second time in 45 years.) They wanted a Europe under German domination and there's no evidence that William would have been able to stop that inexorable drive towards war.

N

reform.
William was autocratic and his government was set up so that the Monarchy had most of the power, but all the saem Germany was developed politcally in a way that Russia simply wasnt at the time. Russia was still "in the Dark Ages" politicaly...and Nicholas stymied virutaly all attempts at refrom.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08-26-2016, 01:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
But the point was that you said that the British and their royal family surpassed all others. There are plenty of other examples, mass murders in the Bosnian conflict, the actions of the Khmer Rouge, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks, for example. Plus I am still curious to know which members of the BRF were responsible for massacres which surpass those I've mentioned.
Not to mention the actions of Stalin and Hitler...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08-26-2016, 01:38 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Lloyd George and the pre-war Liberal party were never admirers of the autocratic system in Russia, with its pograms, suppression of freedoms and Secret Police, all supported by the Tsars, Al_bina. Desiring a change in Russia as a war aim, however, is very far from wishing for the death of a royal family or conniving at it.

r.
I think it helped to create conditions of chaos and desperate poverty and so on, which drove the people to support the Revolution. If the war had not happened, perhaps the system would have bumbled on another 20 years and the Tsar would have been driven into exile rather than assassinated.
George V didn't want to welcome Nicholas to England, because in the increasingly revolutionary times, he feared to be seen as taking in an autocrat who had been driven out by his own people... Had Nicholas been sent into exile at a later stage in a calmer situation, I think that he would have been taken in by the UK and George if not exaclty welcoming him would have taken him in on humanitarian grounds.. Of course he didn't believe I am sure that by not taking his cousin in that he was leaving him in a situation where he migiht be killed...
And Lloyd George like most British liberals did want a change in the Tsarist autocracy either ot a republic or a constutional monarchy..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-13-2017, 10:27 AM
Feologild's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Agder, Norway
Posts: 23
A revolution would still have happened. But at a later date and the communist would probably never get to power.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-22-2017, 02:24 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,868
The Revolution would have happened but perhaps the Romanovs would have survived. I do wonder if they would have gotten rid of the whole monarchy or make an attempt with Alexei; also wonder if he could have even survived long enough to produce children and reign for awhile.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-22-2017, 02:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,308
Alexei, poor boy, seems to have suffered a very severe form of haemophilia. In my opinion (and its just that) it's doubtful that he would have survived his twenties. Of course there is the example of haemophilic great uncle Leopold, who did marry and sired two children before he died. Also Heinrich of Prussia's eldest son who suffered that condition, married. Nevertheless, Alexei's life would have been hanging by a thread.

In my view Revolution was inevitable in Russia by the early 20th century. If the Kerensky government had been in power in say Revolutionary Year 1925, then I believe the Imperial family (including presumably spouses/children of OTMA if any) may well have been allowed to live in exile somewhere, perhaps Scandinavia. If a revolutionary group had seized power possibly not.

Either way the monarchy was finished, IMO. And, considering how Nicholas and his eldest daughter loved Russia with all their hearts and souls, exile away from it may well have been regarded by them as a living death anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-22-2017, 02:54 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,865
A lot of it was downto Nicholas and ALexandra.. IF they had not stymied all attempts at reforming the system, they might have ended up as constitutional monarchs.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
russia world war one monarchy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Monarchs & Royals During WWI & WWII? KikkiB Royalty Past, Present, and Future 49 08-08-2017 10:48 AM
what would have happened if the emperor was dethroned after WWII? KathyMoore Japanese Royal History 30 11-17-2009 05:30 AM
What Has Happened To The Mathilde And Jeweler karolinabraganza King Philippe, Queen Mathilde and Family 2 12-12-2003 12:05 PM




Popular Tags
albania belgian state visit to japan best gown september 2016 best outfit birthday carl gustaf countess of snowdon crown princess mary crown princess mary cocktail dresses crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion denmark duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge dutch state visit elia zaharia fashion poll hereditary grand duchess stéphanie's fashion & style jewels king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king willem-alexander lists monarchy november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week picture of the week november 2016 pierre casiraghi prince charles prince harken in canada princess diana lady spencer princess mary princess mary fashion princess sofia princess sofias hats princess sofia style queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia eveningwear queen letizia fashion queen letizia gala dresses queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania australia november 2016 queen rania dresses queen rania fashion romania royal wedding september 2016 state visit successes succession sweden the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats tiara


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises