Romanov Rescue 1917-1919: Action and Inaction

[Tsaritsa]

Xenia was sister to Nicholas, their other sister was Olga who, having extricated herself from a loveless marriage with an Oldenberg which Minnie had pushed her into, remarried a non Imperial and went on to have children with him. I believe they initially found their way to Denmark but eventially ended up living in Canada where she lived until she died. I think that her grandchildren still live there.

[Erin9]

IA- it is just awful. IMO, he had a responsibility to his family. A moral responsibility to do something. The books I've read on the subject don't let him off the hook. Nor do I. Furthermore, his throne was not in any real danger, from what I've read.

He certainly had every reason to know their situation was, at best, precarious, given that they were on the losing side of a revolution under house arrest.

I'd like to think he felt remorse afterwards because from where I sit he royally screwed up.

[Tsaritsa]

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, if feel it was not quite as easy as we would be rescuers would like to believe. Few countries would have welcomed them, all being worried about the consequences, but it may have been possible for GeorgeV to get them to Malta with relatively
few problems........however, wanting to get them out and getting them to agree to go are entirely different things. During the war it was suggested that Elizabeth should send her daughters abroad for their safety. She famously replied "The children will never leave without me, I will never leave without the King and the King will NEVER leave". I suspect that this was exactly how it was for the Romanovs. They could have had no idea, at that point, and maybe they never did, what their fate would be and like the BRF, some 25years later, they wanted to stay together. GeorgeV probably did feel a secret responsibility for what happened but he might have consoled himself with the knowledge that the fate of the IF was never his to command.

[Erin9]

IA in that it was not easy to figure out what to do with the Tsar and his family, though I think George V had ample time to work on it and figure something out.

I THINK--at some point anyway-- they were all open minded to leaving as long as they could leave together. Personally, given the generally unstable state of things in 1917-1918 everywhere, I can't imagine where the Tsar and his family wound up would have dramatically impacted any country. People had larger, more serious, issues. Or course, it's easy for me to say now.

You are 100% correct here. Certainly, the only people ultimately responsible for the Tsar and his family's fate are their murderers--including those who sanctioned it.

[Iluvbertie]

It is easy in hingsight to say that the British throne was in no real danger but that wasn't the perception at the time - IF they had brought the Tsar to England. There was a fear that that could trigger an uprising against the Windsors and see them also overthrown as was happening to other monarchies - there was a growing warweariness and desire to build a better world in 1917 - 18 so there was a fear of what might happen. George took a decision to increase the probability that his own family would survive and that was the family to whom he owed his total loyalty - not to the family of cousins who had brought disaster upon themselves through their own determination to ignore the rights of their own people.

[NGalitzine]

Well things in post WWI England were not that rosy, high unemployment and falling production, ultimately culminating in the 1926 General Strike, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the arrival of Bloody Nicholas and his family in the UK would not have been warmly received. Not the kind of cousins a British monarch would have wanted to be closely associated with in the public mind.

[Benedict XVI]

That is true I just finished reading a book on Sweden and it shows that all the countries were going through these problems. No russia was more at risk for something like a revolution to exist. I read that he was some what brainwashed by his ministers that having them go there would be terrible for the monarchy. There where other ways the family could have been gotten out. Nicholas could have been welcomed into england quietly. Nicholas could have been sent to Denmark, Switzerland and possibly Berlin. Yes the UK had its problems but they could have saved the tsars from death but also it would depend on the willingness of the soviets to make a deal. Kerensky would have done that. When the soviets killed Nicholas and many of his family they did it out of weakness. The year of 1918 was a tough year for the soviets and killing him would prevent a return to the old style of government.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Someone earlier questioned whether George V had any qualms or regrets that he did not act to save his Russian relatives -- I am sure he did. How could one not have some genuine regret and sorrow? But that does not mean that he was responsible for the tragic outcome. Nor does it mean that their blood stained his hands.

I read in a book about Alexandra's sister, Victoria, Marchioness of Milford-Haven, that George wrote her a letter informing her about the death of Alexandra and the others. Although Victoria thought of appealing to Lenin's wife for mercy to be shown to her relatives and persuaded the King of Spain (a neutral country) to offer refuge to the family for the duration of the war if the Bolsheviks would release them, not once did it appear that she blamed George V. Instead, she expressed her anger at the politicians--the ones who forced her husband to resign as naval lord and now the ones she believed helped to cause the death of her relatives .

[snowflower]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

I was merely trying to point out that there were many factors involved and the political situation at that time, just like today when governments must consider the reaction to their policies, resulted in the British government reneging on the offer of exile. Don't be too harsh on George V--he had his own dynasty to worry about and he did not create the situation in Russia.

Besides, after the fate of the Romanovs, look how decisive George was in rescuing his Greek relatives (including Prince Philip) when they were in danger. In 1918, there was a serious concern that revolution might occur in England; 4 years later it was no longer a concern and the Greek royals were rescued. I guess you could say this was a lesson learned. But again, the politics at the time allowed the King to act freely without fear of losing his throne.

I personally don't blame George V for what happened to the family. He was bound by his government and honestly, I can see why the government acted this way - between protecting the status quo in their country from what they thought as dangerous and helping the King's relative,s they chose the first. And besides, although they had nothing in common with the Bolsheviks, I doubt that they held in high regard the political system of tsarist Russia. A constitutional King can only do as much in the end of the day.

VM, the situation with the Greek royal was fundamentally different. The military movement that took over after September 1922 had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks' ideology, methods or goals and had everything to do with the National Schism. They certainly had no wish to harm Philip, his mother and sisters they way Alexandra and OTMAA were by the revolutionaries - their worst possible fate was exile and poverty, not death. Again I have to stress that I doubt that George V had much influence on the matter, because it was once again a matter of politics decided by the British Government. The British government fought to save Andrew's life, sure - but it fought just as hard to save the other 6 people who were facing the same charges and the same penalty , even though they didn't succeed. It was politicians who pulled the strings once again. So I really fail to see how George V had more to do with saving Andrew from his fate than leaving the Romanovs on their own. To me he seem to deserve the same credit on both cases

[Benedict XVI]

Originally Posted by snowflower

I personally don't blame George V for what happened to the family. He was bound by his government and honestly, I can see why the government acted this way - between protecting the status quo in their country from what they thought as dangerous and helping the King's relative,s they chose the first. And besides, although they had nothing in common with the Bolsheviks, I doubt that they held in high regard the political system of tsarist Russia. A constitutional King can only do as much in the end of the day.

VM, the situation with the Greek royal was fundamentally different. The military movement that took over after September 1922 had nothing to do with the Bolsheviks' ideology, methods or goals and had everything to do with the National Schism. They certainly had no wish to harm Philip, his mother and sisters they way Alexandra and OTMAA were by the revolutionaries - their worst possible fate was exile and poverty, not death. Again I have to stress that I doubt that George V had much influence on the matter, because it was once again a matter of politics decided by the British Government. The British government fought to save Andrew's life, sure - but it fought just as hard to save the other 6 people who were facing the same charges and the same penalty , even though they didn't succeed. It was politicians who pulled the strings once again. So I really fail to see how George V had more to do with saving Andrew from his fate than leaving the Romanovs on their own. To me he seem to deserve the same credit on both cases

I agree although I don't necessarily agree with what George did it was no his fault. A few weeks ago I watched a very interesting BBC documentary which stated that although a great king (not to be mean but) was not the smartest man for the job. Now because of this I would say that he was more susceptible to believing what ever they wanted him to.
Secondly it was a year or so since the Irish revolt of 1916 and political unrest was still a big issue. The British people viewed the tsar as an absolute monarch who was a murderer. So by allowing the tsar to come there it would be playing right into the hands of the opposition.
Lastly I doubt that any allied leader or central for that matter would ever think that the new government would kill the old ruler and family.
In summary I say that George V although sad to hear of it was looking out for the future of his monarchy and not Nicholas's which was in ruin. I do not believe that it was his fault. George gets the blame to often for it when the possibility for another country to have saved them. Nicholas's mother was Danish why not have them help the tsar and his family. Maybe Nicholas's uncle the king of Denmark should be blamed more for it. My point being that any other world leader could just as well saved them, not just George.

Now just as a reminder I am for the Romanovs and condone all actions made by the Bolsheviks. For the longest time I looked as the Romanovs as a family were innocent after reading about all periods in Russian history (i recommend all people interested in the Romanovs to do so it will help you understand) that they made some mistakes and did a few bad things so they are not as innocent. But it was uncalled for the whole family to die.

[AristoCat]

Either way, George should have worked to get the kids out at least and he could have secretly made arrangements. He had more than enough resources and I do wonder if whether or not George really wanted to rescue Nicholas; all it took was a quiet effort of heavily funded mercenaries and a show of strength and I am more than sure that the English monarchy was not as fragile as it was hyped to be. It was teh WINDSOR DYNASTY that was in trouble, not the institution.

[NGalitzine]

/

Originally Posted by AristoCat

all it took was a quiet effort of heavily funded mercenaries and a show of strength and I am more than sure that the English monarchy was not as fragile as it was hyped to be. It was teh WINDSOR DYNASTY that was in trouble, not the institution.

And who was supposed to pay for these heavily funded mercenaries?
In 1917/1918, as today, the Windsor dynasty was the institution. Overthrow the dynasty and you overthrow the institution. No one would have gone looking for another family to put on the throne.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Benedict XVI

Nicholas's mother was Danish why not have them help the tsar and his family. Maybe Nicholas's uncle the king of Denmark should be blamed more for it. My point being that any other world leader could just as well saved them, not just George.

I believe it was a cousin of Nicholas, not an uncle, who was the king of Denmark at the time. But that nitpicking aside, you have a point. They could (and should) have gotten help from some other country, if England wasn't able (or willing) to do anything. Well, at least Dagmar and Xenia got out of Russia and survived.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Either way, George should have worked to get the kids out at least and he could have secretly made arrangements. He had more than enough resources and I do wonder if whether or not George really wanted to rescue Nicholas; all it took was a quiet effort of heavily funded mercenaries and a show of strength and I am more than sure that the English monarchy was not as fragile as it was hyped to be. It was teh WINDSOR DYNASTY that was in trouble, not the institution.

That is true that ge should have but sadly he didn't. And secondly who is to say that the guards would not have shot the family when the mercenaries tried to
Take them. And if the George wanted to get the tsar why not have granted them asylum.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally Posted by Furienna

I believe it was a cousin of Nicholas, not an uncle, who was the king of Denmark at the time. But that nitpicking aside, you have a point. They could (and should) have gotten help from some other country, if England wasn't able (or willing) to do anything. Well, at least Dagmar and Xenia got out of Russia and survived.

I think if the provisional government had stayed in power they would have sent the family into exile is most likley if england didn't work out a neutral country such as Denmark or Switzerland. And quiet possibly Germany.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

/

And who was supposed to pay for these heavily funded mercenaries?
In 1917/1918, as today, the Windsor dynasty was the institution. Overthrow the dynasty and you overthrow the institution. No one would have gone looking for another family to put on the throne.

That is true. Generally a country will not go to the trouble to find a new one.

[AristoCat]

I simply think that the Romanovs were failed and failed badly by their family. The girls should never have died, or Alexei, but it's a pity that no one was able to work out something that would have worked and ended up stopping the madness that was unleashed at the execution of Nicholas and the Imperial Family. It set the precedent for 'the state' to decide who lives and who dies.

[Benedict XVI]

I do believe that it was terrible to kill the family. But I doubt that the Communists or for that matter the provisional government truly would let Nicholas leave the country and possibly his wife. Everyone must keep in the minds of the country and most of the world that he was known as "bloody Nicholas" and thought of him as a murderer, which was a big reason for not getting them out. Back on topic the new government most likely would have liked to put him and his wife on trial and have them executed.

This thread is tough for me to talk about simply because I love the Romanovs but at the same time I can not brush important facts under the rug. In another thread I was once told that I " painted a rosy picture for the Romanovs" which is because there policies in some places were good and others terrible.

[AristoCat]

I agree that Nicholas should have been tried; at least the world would have seen what many Russians saw and even Louis XVI had a trial to at least make statements and explain himself, even if the verdict was already chosen.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

I agree that Nicholas should have been tried; at least the world would have seen what many Russians saw and even Louis XVI had a trial to at least make statements and explain himself, even if the verdict was already chosen.

That is true. It is better because the whole family would probably not be killed and Nicholas would know that it was coming. I don like the idea of killing royals but it is much better than some half thought out plan to execute them at night in secret.