Romanov Rescue 1917-1919: Action and Inaction

[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]

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.

[AGRBear]

Setting aside the DNA controversial entries, Shay McNeal's book, THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR , reveals to us that she was engaged in a search to discover various plots to rescue Nicholas II. Along the way she came across RECUING THE CZAR, which you can read on the following online site.

Rescuing the Czar by James P. Smythe - Full Text Free Book

Of course, there are obvious points which tell us that the author/authors were not aware of Alexei's hemophilia, or, he/they would have ended the book, RESCUING THE CZAR, differently.

But McNeals hasn't directed you toward this book because she believes every word written in it really happen to the Romanovs. She discovered that some of the story might have been based on some truths, real plots to rescue Nicholas II...

I believe that McNeal's book is not a book for a novice who has little or some knowledge about the life of Nicholas II and his family. I believe, its a book for people like myself who are always looking for answers to questions most of you wouldn't even think of asking.

Sometimes I buy a book just because of one sentence or a particular source that carried me into the most interesting adventures about the Romanovs and sometimes just about people like the author/authors of this obsure book RESCUING THE CZAR, Shay McNeal and a woman whom I know as Elisabeth, who's father-in-law published RESCUING THE CZAR in San Francisco and who is one of the leaders of a group who do not like THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR.

I've heard pros and cons about McNeals book, and, you will no doubt see a flurry of posts that will follow mine. The majority will not want you to "waste your money".

When I have time, I'll post some of the rescue plots McNeal believes she had found in her search.

Gotta run.

AGRBear

[lexi4]

Hi Bear,
I agree, the book isn't for a novice. I'm glad you posted the link to Rescuing because I don't think you can grasp a lot of what Shay says without reading it and knowing the history behind it. I also know Elisabeth, she doesn't really like to talk about Rescuing or at least that is my experience with her. Shay's book is about plots and conspiracies and is a good read from that standpoint. My biggest problem was with her discussion of the DNA. She could have written the book without that. The discussion of the plots and conspiracies to save the Imperial Family could stand on its own.
I'll get my book and try to help in posting some of the alleged plots she discusses.
Lexi

[AGRBear]

Thank you Russophile and Lexi4.

All help will be greatly appreicated.

If you want to copy the book, it is easier if you use the following site which is Gutenberg Books that one can copy for free and legally:

Rescuing the Czar by James P. Smythe - Project Gutenberg

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

THE PLOTS TO RESCUE THE TSAR
by Shay McNeal

p. 22
>>...In addition to political circumstanes, Germany, the Allies and Japan, as well as several other nations, still had ties to the Tsar that influened their reaction to the revolution and shaped behind-the-scenes intrigues. As we shall see later, the manoeuvers, which grew from these considerations, generated a chain of actitivities in the various countries that have remained mysterious and virtually untraceable until now.<<

Chapter 2 then goes into detail about all the "Parties In Interest".

Apparently, Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg were swarming with all kinds of factions in 1918.

Tracking down the various Bolsheviki involved in preventing a rescue is just as complex as trying to discover all the different factions (personal, political, and men looking for adventure and glory, and, last but not least, there were the military leaders, who had their own agendas) who were plotting to rescue Nicholas II. Added to this mix were the double and triple agents.

It is my point of view that we pick a particular rescue plot and discuss it before moving to other plots.

Since we not just talking about Shay McNeal's book, only including her information, I believe one of the first plot was by Great Britian's King George V, who felt ex-Tsar Nicholas II should immediately be removed from Russia and out of the hands of the Provisional Govt., who had the ex-Tsar Nicholas II under a arrest after his abdication in March of 1917.

Since I'm not as familar with this plot / plots, perhaps someone who is, can give us more details.

AGRBear

[Picmajik]

Originally Posted by Marengo

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.

Wasn't part of the problem also that no one dreamed that the family would be executed? Exiled surely, held for ransom likely but no one could have really forseen that they would all be shot. I think that is what Edward VIII had said at one point and that his father later regretted his actions. Of course that could just be Edward's spin on things or not understanding what all may have been planned or not at the time.

[Russophile]

Of course nobody wants to believe that they'll be killed, but look at the position. Maybe it should have a disclaimer something along the lines in the job description: May include beheading if masses aren't happy.
If you're going to be king, you had best have a firm hold on your subjects, through entertainment (Rome-Colosseum), religion and structured rites (Egypt) , charisma (France-Louis 14) or fear (Transylvania, our old pal Vlad the Impaler), or "D": All of The Above.
Anybody who DIDN'T think they might be assassinated in a position of power is just plain naive.

[lexi4]

Once they left Tobolosk, I think most knew there would be no return.