Romanov Rescue 1917-1919: Action and Inaction

[Iluvbertie]

The whites had a lot of different agendas - only some of whom wanted to restore the Tsar. They would probably have ended up fighting each other as some wanted democracy while others wanted absolutism and of course the Tsar wouldn't have accepted a position of constutional monarch as he had already rejected that in 1905.

 

[Benedict XVI]

I think that if they would have taken power they would be the French revolution of the 1900s

 

[Benedict XVI]

...Have any of you read the book "The Last Days of the Romanovs, Tragedy at Ekaterinberg" by Helen Rappaport.

I read this book last year and has to be the best book I have read on there lives after the abdication. You can tell she has been researching that book for many years. The recap on how they got shot was disturbing and interesting. What got me was that the white army was not to far from town.

 

[COUNTESS]

One, George had enough funds, as someone said, to get his cousins out to somehwere other than Britain. Now, there was a war and a revolution, because the Romanovs, didn't give much of a damn about anyone but themselves. Russia lived in a very difficult situation, because those on top, thought very little about those on bottom. And, thirdly, why do you, Russo, put Facism in the same breath as Communism, with a /? Facism and socialism were miles apart. And Communism and socialism were miles apart and still are. Restoring the Romanov's was no better than having Stalin.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I forgot what the book was called, but according the the author the decision not to help the Russian royal family was championed by George; but that history has tried to cover it up when the family ended up being slaughtered. Either way out of everyone who could have helped and didn't the British have the biggest bloodstain on their hands.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear XeniaCasaraghi,

But everything is not exactly black or white, is it? You are looking at history with the benefit of hindsight whereas the royal family's contemporaries were wrestling with the political reality of what was occurring around the world. Nicholas was his government until he abdicated; George V reigned but did not rule- that was the province of his majesty's government. So, you have a dictator brought down by his people--do you provide asylum or not? And if you do, what will your constituents, who saw millions of young men slaughtered, feel about granting asylum to a man many considered to be a brutal tyrant?

Did the royal family deserve to be massacred? Definitely not. Did people think the whole family would be slaughtered? Of course not. So, to say the British have blood stains on their hands is a little harsh. The fact that Nicholas was a cousin to the King would matter little in public opinion. And don't forget that the British knew the Tsarina was German by birth. Another reason not to grant asylum.

Think in today's terms--how would people feel about granting asylum to a Middle Eastern despot who killed many of his people? Would it be enough to allow asylum because that man was related to the country's ruler? I think not. In 1918 England the Romanovs were definitely not as romanticized as they are today. And the reason they are so romanticized today has to do, in large part, with their horrible fate.
.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

What Nicholas was doesn't change that the British government could have either brought him or just his children out of Russia without him and his wife. Whoever you believe was pulling the strings doesn't change that England first said yes then changed it's mind, leaving the entire family to die. Nicholas was a dictator but his kids were not; and if they hated Germans so much they could have left Alexandra as well. If George wasnt so anal about his freakin public image and being anti-German he would have lifted a finger. George V his family and his government are #1 to blame out of all the countries that could have helped. If you could have done something to help another person who you knew was in danger and you choose not to then that makes you morally responsible, though not legally.
I believe the US faced a similar situation in accepting Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany but instead the country sent them back to die.

 

[Alexey 1904]

Well, VM, if Nicholas hadn't been a tyrant to his subjects, making the Cheka want to kill him and take his innocent children and servants along with him, you are saying the family wouldn't have been romanticised in books about them? Do you think the Romanovs would be still the ruiling family in Russia, and that Lenin and Communism and, later, Stalin wouldn't have come to power if the Romanovs were still ruling? There have been books written about Vladimir and Josef and I don't think the authors romanticised them.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think VM is correct about the romanticism of the Romanovs being linked to their execution. There was the whole Anna Anderson/Anastasia story that has been told in books and film and television. Did Anastasia or others survive? Was Anna really the Grand Dcuhess? Claimants to the lost fortune came out of the woodwork in the 1920's. Without the execution, had the Romanovs been allowed to go into exile they would not have been much different than the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns or the other families that have been overthrown over the centuries, interesting only to a small minority of people.

 

[Tsaritsa]

...George V his family and his government are #1 to blame...

Many people have had to live with their consciences as a result of their past actions. In the case of his inaction concerning his Romanov cousins I feel that George V was damned if he did and damned if he didn't but I feel he could take some comfort in the knowledge that their fate was not his to command. The IF were too tightly enmeshed to have considered separation. We still refer to the "Children", and emotionally, I think they were, but the girls were young women and quite capable of making decisions. Only Alexei, partly because of the constraints of his health, remained truly a child. The "Children" would NEVER have agreed to leave their parents and the thought of Nicholas agreeing to go with them, leaving Alexandra to the mercy of their enemies!!!!! I can envisage no situation that would have split this family and in the end I believe they may have seen their situation as being Them united against all other adversity and the outcome would be as God willed it.

 

[Alexey 1904]

Does anyone think the Bolsheviks would have allowed the Tsar and his family to live in exile at their palace on the Crimea? They were unwanted in England and Germany, and would have probably been in Japan, too. I don't see any other place they could have gone to exile in, do you?

 

[Tsaritsa]

Does anyone think the Bolsheviks would have allowed the Tsar and his family to live in exile at their palace on the Crimea? They were unwanted in England and Germany, and would have probably been in Japan, too. I don't see any other place they could have gone to exile in, do you?

I don't believe the Bolshevics would have allowed the IF to LIVE anywhere. The calamity that befell Russia had been years in the making and whilst, IMO, it was not directly Ns fault, he and A put the final nail in the coffin.
I wonder also, if Autocracy is linked with Divinity and can't be cast off, did N feel that God would seek some retribution for his abdication and might he have felt deserving of such. Could this be a part of what seemed to be his calm acceptance whilst in captivity?

 

[Russophile]

And, thirdly, why do you, Russo, put Facism in the same breath as Communism, with a /? .

I beg to differ, they are 2 sides of the same coin. Both opressive both socialistic.

 

[COUNTESS]

NO!!!. Facism has nothing to do with socialism, it is the opposite. And socialism may have some of the attributes of Communism, but they are far from the same. The Scandanavian countries, Great Britain, France, Germany all have governments that are founded on socialism, today. Not Communism.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I apologize for being such a "beezey" in my previous post. This topic really upsets me and I hate that George V essentially just let then die and then some of his family members took Romanov jewels; if there was one family who didn't deserve to touch them it would be them.
As for the children not agreeing to leave their parents, a parent could always force their child to get to a safer destination whether the child wants to or not.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear XeniaCasaraghi,

Don't apologize-- we are all entitled to our opinions and you obviously are sensitive to the slaughter of the family, especially the innocent children. Who could not be appalled at their fate? 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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does anyone think the Bolsheviks would have allowed the Tsar and his family to live in exile at their palace on the Crimea? They were unwanted in England and Germany, and would have probably been in Japan, too. I don't see any other place they could have gone to exile in, do you?

I doubt if any country would have accepted them - and that is a very important issue. If no one else was prepared to accept them then there was no one to blame unless you blame every country for their deaths.

I blame their deaths on Nicholas and Alexandra and those two alone. They could have done a lot to change the political situation in Russia - chose not to do so therefore they must take the responbility for their own deaths and that of their children.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I apologize for being such a "beezey" in my previous post. This topic really upsets me and I hate that George V essentially just let then die and then some of his family members took Romanov jewels; if there was one family who didn't deserve to touch them it would be them.
As for the children not agreeing to leave their parents, a parent could always force their child to get to a safer destination whether the child wants to or not.

I can hear how much this gets to you. I feel that, if you could turn the clock back, you would personally get them out. You would have company, because I would be with you.

Like you, it appalls me that George V could let his cousin down in such a way, but in fairness to him, even if he weighed up loyalty to cousin against loyalty to immediate family and country, he could never imagined what would be the outcome of his inaction. As for the Romanov jewellery finding its way into British royal coffers, on a purely emotional level, I'm inclined to think of even grubbier hand that handled everything from gold teeth and glasses to jewellery and objet d'art, all of which were stolen from the Jewish people. I believe the money raised from Romanov jewellery enabled those members of the family who escaped, to live here fairly comfortably and I so wish that Nicholas and his family had been of their number......so I decided to offer myself as a facilitator at a family discussion. My job would have been much easier had the "children" been toddlers and babes in arms because decisions could have been made on their behalf, but these are young adults who, whilst adhering more closely to the commandment to "honour thy father and mother" than is done today, they have something of their mother about them and prove to be quite feisty. Nicholas is making brave attempts to be what he has never been, a dictatotial father and is getting no support from Alexandra, who for the most part sits weeping, the thought of losing her children is too much for her. Occasionally, voices become raised but there is no sense of urgency-I feel intense frustration, I am the only person in that room who knows what the outcome will be-what I feel from them is a spark of hope, that the discussion is academic because they WILL be rescued. It wouldn't matter if life didn't go back to how it was, but they were certain it would be better than now and they would manage-with God's help, if God willed it. Emotionally, it seemed to me that they functioned best as a unit, that each relied heavily on the other for support and having spent so much of their lives with each other, I felt they could communicate by eye contact alone. I had a strong sense of a family that nothing could divide.

I don't share your view that N and A were alone responsible for what befell Russia, but I DO feel that they drove the last nail into a coffin which had been a long time in the making. IMO they wouldn't have survived had they been the greatest reformers in Russian history, because there were factions at work who welcomed the coming tsunami.

 

[NGalitzine]

George V did what a monarch is supposed to do......nation and dynasty before personal feelings. He did do rather well by Minnie (providing her with a pension) and by Xenia (pension and home for her lifetime).

 

[Furienna]

Maybe that was what was expected by a monarch back then, but it's still just awful. I know that at least Minnie survived (but who's Xenia?), but no matter how bad an emperor and empress Nicholaus and Alexandra had been, their fate is just gruesome, especially as their children and servants were executed as well. It's no wonder that the Russian church has beatified them. And I hope that George V felt remorse afterwards, that he couldn't do more for them.

 

[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]

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]

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.