Romanov Rescue 1917-1919: Action and Inaction

[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]

/

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]

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]

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]

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]

/

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]

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.

 

[AristoCat]

The thing is, that a trial would have ended up with the girls and Alexei possibly being shipped off to another country, with relatives taking them in (in Denmark most likely) and being able to make sure they were safe while Alexandra and Nicholas go on trial. The kids would have been ransomed at least and then I am sure that the lineage would have continued, but the Romanovs removed as quickly as possible. I don't know about any of you, but I am of the personal view that the girls and Alexei would have been more than glad to step as far down as possible.

One other thing I am sure of, is that the Romanovs would have protected the girls from being hounded into marrying, while they healed and a new head of the family would surely have been decided upon a lot more easily.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The French didn't allow the children to leave so why do you think the Bolsheviks would have done so? I don't. They had to die to simply prevent a new challenge to a new system.

 

[AristoCat]

I don't know; all I do know is that by arbitrarily deciding that "The State" had the right ot kill without a trial, it set the stage for Nazi Germany. That alone is the reason I hope the Reds are rotting in Hell for all eternity.

 

[snowflower]

The French didn't allow the children to leave so why do you think the Bolsheviks would have done so? I don't. They had to die to simply prevent a new challenge to a new system.

The French did eventually allow Marie Therese to leave France and go to exile to Austria, whose succession rights btw were pretty much the same as those of the Grand Duchesses -Marie Therese had none , OTMA practically none unless every male Romanov dropped dead.

 

[vkrish]

A few thoughts..

1.Iluvbertie, I shall never ever believe the House of Windsor was, is or will face the risk of a rebellion..Maybe I am too blinded by my love for them.But dont you see they are the shrewdest royals..not too extravagant and become extinct like Russians..nor jump into cocoons and bicycles like Scandivanians..

2.NGlatizine, I agree that George V need not have worried too much about the family which had brought this fate to themselves with their own will and actions.But then he should never have let his consideration become public..He sought the Prime Minister's advice on rescuing them, PM agreed for that..things were going on in that direction, then he again changed his mind and made his secretary write to Foreign Secretary that HM thinks it will not be gud for our monarchy (Youtube:Secret plot to save the Romanovs)..And again he started a scheme with intelligence guys..Why all this wavering

3.My point really is, Had Nicolas II been offered asylum, would he be willing to live a retired life as a refugee quietly in a country house..for the rest of his life? I really dont think so..What if he starts talking about Russia and something like "government-in-exile"..Starts roaming with his full uniform,medals,regalia and all..It wud be a big headache for British..

4.And what exactly was the diplomatic position of the Bolsheviks on the world stage at that moment? I am sure that all the "powers-to-be" dont give a damn for a family and are just interested in their strategic and economic interests with Russia..So could the Bolsheviks make a huge issue if their royals were secretly rescued? And could they get them back to try for some crimes/charges..atleast the tsar?

5.And one more thing, no revolution/uprising will be happy with the deposed ruler/his heirs roaming free in their own country..Not that they always pose a danger..But its just like wat we call.."a little irritating pest"

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

I always thought that it was the government that offered asylum to the Romanovs and King George V pleaded with the PM to revoke the invitation? With militant socialism in Britain, the king didn't want to appear to be undermining the 'will' of the Russian people.
I'm probably way off the facts on this (as usual) lol but it is an interesting subject .

 

[EIIR]

I think you're right, Duke. From what I remember, it was George V himself who had his private secretary (I think) write to his ministers asking that the Romanovs not be offered asylum in the UK.

I think people are very hard on George V in this instance. Imagine being the current custodian of an almost 1,000 year old institution that your ancestors have fought and sacrificed and worked to build. Would you want to go down in history as the man whose failings led to the downfall of everything your family has lived for? Could you look your heir and his heir in the eye knowing that it was your mistakes that denied them the destiny which should rightfully have been theirs? All that history and duty pressing down on you to do all you can to ensure that your throne remains strong at a time when your relatives' thrones are falling like dominoes?

What a horrible position to be in.

 

[Alexey 1904]

Well, EIIR, George's heir's mistake almost cost the Empire to crash and burn, and Eddie the 8th didn't have an heir. Besides, it was Georgie's wifey,Mary, who told him 'no' when he was thinking of granting the Romanovs asylum. He couldn't have felt too bad about leaving his cousin in the lurch againt the Bolsheviks. I wonder how GD Maria V. feels about that part of her familie's history

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

First cousins or not, the Romanovs had a reputation in Britain for being a tad oppressive to the Russian people, and with militant socialism sweeping Europe and Britain, King George V did what he 'had to do' and petitioned the government to revoke the offer of asylum. The King's first duty was to the British people and the empire and IMO there would have been heck to pay if it looked like the King was protecting a tyrant. George V could not allow revolution in Britain and jeopardise the monarchy. He was in a tough spot and did the right thing IMO.

 

[Alexey 1904]

Did Nicholas' Uncle Wilhelm, later known as King George I of Greece, ever offer asylum to his nephew, does any one know?

 

[Iluvbertie]

George I of Greece was assassinatedin 1913 so was in no position to offer asylum.

Given the precarious state of the Greek throne there is no way they would have offered asylum to so a tyrant as Nicholas.

I do think people are ignoring the very real situations on the ground in 1917-18 across Europe due to war weariness and fear of the unknown that was the future with rebellions and revolts being threatened on many spheres - including in the various armies where there were states of mutiny occuring which could easily have been turned against their own nations given the right spark.

The main argument used in support of the war was a war to fight for 'freedom' and then for governments to turn around and offer asylum to a dictator who had for decades denied his people freedom would have been a slap in the face of those who had sacrificed so much for the war - if Wilhelm II was painted as a dictator and over the top there is no way they could have painted the even more despotic Nicholas as any more acceptable.

George V did the right thing at the time even though a number of his first cousins died as a result but it was the right thing for his family.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is exactly what I also believe about the events. It wasn't just the Windsors as a family who would be endangered by rescuing the Czar; it would have been the society as a whole. It is truly tragic that the whole family was murdered. However, let's put the blame for that where it belongs--with the revolutionaries in Russia.

First cousins or not, the Romanovs had a reputation in Britain for being a tad oppressive to the Russian people, and with militant socialism sweeping Europe and Britain, King George V did what he 'had to do' and petitioned the government to revoke the offer of asylum. The King's first duty was to the British people and the empire and IMO there would have been heck to pay if it looked like the King was protecting a tyrant.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Well said, Iluvbertie. I hadn't looked at the issue in quite that way before, and so I'm glad that you made the point.

The main argument used in support of the war was a war to fight for 'freedom' and then for governments to turn around and offer asylum to a dictator who had for decades denied his people freedom would have been a slap in the face of those who had sacrificed so much for the war -

 

[Arun]

The lives of Nicholas and the Imperial family could have been saved if the British had sent them to Australia or Canada for the duration of the war. They would have been safe and out of the public spotlight since the age of the internet was in the very distant future and those in the know wouldn't have been able to give the matter any publicity. After peace had been restored after the war, they could have been allowed to choose their place of exile or, with luck, they could have returned to Russia. At least, the world would have been spared the murders of Lenin and Stalin.

 

[Furienna]

I believe Malta was also an alternative for their exile? But it seemed like no one dared to butt in, and then it went down like it did...

 

[AristoCat]

To me a huge problem were the Romanov relatives themselves. They were chronically at war with each other and none of them put any sane plan of action into form, be it bribing the Bolsheviks (who were a bunch of corrupt pigs) or doing what they doing to negotiate or demand the kids at least. The biggest tragedy is how the relations were still bickering while the Imperial Family suffered and were butchered.

The White Army might have actually aggravated the problem and I wonder why something wasn't thought out before they were shipped off. If I were Alexandra or Nicky, I would have arranged with Gilliard to get at least one of the girls secretly shipped out with him or with the servants who were being evacuated. Something should have been forcibly arranged, like for instance, a switch with a lookalike or maybe moving at least one of them among a crowd of staff being removed.

Weren't there any loyal trustworthy guards out there who could have helped the girls escape while the Winter palace was being guarded? I mean, the minute it got real nasty, the girls should have been secretly shipped out. In some way.

I believe that Nicholas didn't want to leave Alexandra and Alexandra for some reason was content to sit down and die. Thus, the kids stayed with a father who didn't want to leave the mother and a mother who was actively (subconsciously) seeking out her own destruction.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Britain couldn't have sent them to Canada without Canada's permission. Would we at that time have wanted to host an autocrat? I'm not sure.

The lives of Nicholas and the Imperial family could have been saved if the British had sent them to Australia or Canada for the duration of the war.

 

[AristoCat]

Britain dominates Canada, as the monarch of Britain is the monarch of Canada. the Imperial family could have easily been saved and rescued, if not for the fact that the RF of Britain was more worried about their image. The BRF could have quietly paid mercenaries to smuggle/bribe/coerce their way out of Russia, but the BRF sat on their money and PR and left them to be butchered. At hte time the Russian bureaucrats would have leapt on the chance to get easy cash.

The BRF has always been frothy rich. They had mounds of money that could have been spent on getting them somewhere discreetly. but no, the BRF left them to die. Back then there was no internet and a luggage trunk full of cash and gold and some jewels would have gone a long way towards getting the Imperial family passage to a tiny teensy unwatched area of the Empire and then everything would have been fine. As far as I am concerned, the BRF can stay cursed for what they let happen.

 

[Mariel]

Too much cursing of people, tsk tsk. They did wrong, the BRF in not rescuing their cousins. But one of their problems is that they married cousins too much. Perhaps it limited their capacity to think and to love in harmonious balance. It made them think more about their idiotic "image" than about rescuing members of their own family. They were not nice people, I will agree with you AristoCat. EVery time one of them marries someone who is NOT of their inbred family, the stock improves. The brains improve. The concepts of love and harmony improve, not just self-aggrandizement.
But please no cursing of them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course we wouldn't be having this discussion if, as suspected on limited intelligence at the time, the BRF was also overthrown as a result of rescuing an evil man and his familly.

The BRF couldn't have sent them to Australia or Canada as we controlled out internal/migration policies by that time, even if we didn't control our external policy - in fact control of immigration was a major reason for Australia's federation in 1901 and having the Russian royal family in this country wouldn't have been acceptable to a fledgling democracy that prized itself on the fact that women had the right to vote (something which most of the rest of the world still didn't have in 1918) and the fact that they had said 'no' to introducing forcing young men to go an kill other young men on the other side of the world, even when pressed to do so from Britain.

Loyal guards - don't make me laugh - they were the first to turn on the family and with pleasure as they had been downtrodden for so long. They had heaps of jewels etc on their own persons - if they had wanted to bribe their way out they could have done so with the riches they had stolen from the Russian peasants if they could have found anyone around them to bribe. Why should the wealth of Britain have been used when they were carrying so much with them at the time anyway - more than enough to bribe their way out if they could have found someone to bribe - but the level of hatred for the family was extreme amongst their guards at that time.

I have some sympathy for the children but very little for Nicholas and Alexandra - two of the most ruthless rulers the world had at the time. They should have had a public trial and execution however.

There was no way the Bolsheviks were going to let any of them go - and give their enemies a figurehead around which to launch a campaign to overthrow the Bolsheviks.

As for the Whites - they weren't a united force as each unit had their own agenda - e.g. the British military forces there, including some Aussies (one won the VC) were there to get Russia to continue in the war, while others were trying to overthrow the Bolsheviks and others were trying to rescue the Romanovs.

Do I blame George V for wanting to preserve his own throne and family - definitely not - it is what a normal man would do - let more extended family die to preserve what he has for his own children and there was a feeling in Britain of war weariness and a perceived threat that if the Romanovs were to go to Britain there would have been an uprising there as well - afterall they millions who had died had died for freedom supposedly and to then have a tyrant thrust upon them would have said to the soldiers and the families of the dead that the war wasn't about freedom but about keeping the royal families alive and could easily have seen an violent uprising in Britain as well at that time - particularly early in 1918 when it appeared possible that Germany could win the war as they were taking control of so much of the battlefield and forcing the British/Canadian/Empire armies back at every point.

It wasn't until August that it was clear that the Allies were on the front foot in 1918 by which time the Tsar and family were dead.

It is easy with the benefit of hindsight to say that there was no threat - but there actually was - how credible that threat was wasn't known at the time.