Messages

16

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: August 12, 2016, 04:00:10 PM »

mcdnab (Reply 97) pretty much wrapped things up in his excellent post.

I would merely add that according to Lloyd George, Britain's offer of asylum was never actually withdrawn and that according to the British Ambassador to Russia, Buchanan the Russian Government ‘were masters in their house.’ Perhaps other people might have evidence as whether this was so?

NicolasG. 
Yes, I am British.  "my country and my king, right or wrong" has nothing to do with it.
Both of my grandfathers were on the Western Front and both told me horror stories of events at that time.  One lost two out of three brothers and the other lost two out four brothers, all, all of them due to enemy action.  There are doubtless thousands upon thousands of families in Britain that endured worse than that. What was happening on the Western Front and the other theatres of war was far, far more important than the fate of the former Tsar. If any judgement was made that the Tsar's presence in Britain might in any way hinder the war effort then so be it.

If you can come on here with reliable evidence that George V acted unconstitutionally then let us see it. If you have any reliable evidence that George V blocked a British Government decision then let us see it.  If you have any reliable evidence that George V 'panicked' then let us see it.

All clear now?

17

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: August 07, 2016, 08:10:22 AM »

Britain had had to deal with civil disturbances in Ireland in 1916 and then 1917 saw unrestricted U-boat warfare, the beginnings of rationing, air raids on London, mutinies amongst troops in France and Britain’s armed forces were incurring an average 1,700 casualties per day. Abroad, French troops were mutinying and the Russian Revolution had taken place.  It seems that the general state of affairs in Britain and abroad led to King George V, a constitutional monarch to change the name of the Royal House to Windsor by proclamation on 17th July 1917. Hardly a decision to be taken lightly and it can really only be seen as a decision taken someone who was concerned about his own position.

Nicholas Romanov was a former head of state whose overthrow had seemed in Britain to have been welcomed in his home country. He would have brought little expertise to the British war effort and his presence in Britain would have had no bearing on Russia’s commitment to the war as the new government in Russia was pledged to continue the struggle.  I do not think that there was any indication that his life, or his family’s lives were in immediate danger – certainly not from enemy action. Where was an obligation to house the Romanovs in Britain?

There was no case for risking British lives to bring the Romanovs to Britain.  If the Romanovs had arrived at a point of entry into Great Britain then they could have applied for residency – as any other aliens could.  At that point, the fact that they had relatives in this country and that they were probably able to pay their way would probably have counted in their favour.  Surely, their case should have been assessed on same basis as any applicant. Or perhaps people think that the Romanovs should have been treated differently to Belgian and French orphans or anyone other Russian with relatives in this Britain?

No one knew then, or knows now, if the presence of the Romanov’s in Britain would have had a detrimental effect on the state the country. Given the situation in 1917, the King’s attitude was reasonable.  Whatever motives influenced government decisions at the time, with the benefit of hindsight the government’s decision not to bring the Romanovs to Britain was correct as the stability of the country was not put at risk and British lives were not endangered in such an undertaking.

18

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: August 04, 2016, 02:42:59 PM »

Britain incurred an average of 1,700 casualties per day during the First World War. Dealing with the war the British government's first priority.  Nicholas Romanov and his family were foreign nationals living in a country that was pledged to carry on with the war on the side of Britain and France.  His abdication made no difference to Russia's commitment to the war and seems to have been well received by most of the British Press with even the right-wing Daily Mail welcoming that event.  Where was the incentive for the British government risk bringing the Romanovs to Britain at that time?

Any request by the Romanov family for asylum in Britain should have been assessed alongside other requests for asylum by foreign nationals such as Belgian refugees and so on. Had they arrived in Britain then hopefully they would have been housed by their relatives and financed any costs that their time in Britain incurred from their personal financial assets or by paid employment.  There were plenty of jobs that needed doing at time. No British lives should have been risked in any rescue attempt.

The sad fate of the Romanovs was down to the Russian people, their government(s) and the former Tsar.  The British government was not to blame, nor was King George Fifth.

19

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: July 24, 2016, 02:03:43 PM »

Britain and Spain in 1917 did not compare. 

Britain was involved in a world war which cost it 1700 casualties per day. A war that was ruinous for its finances and which might have been lost.  The government had had to contend with an uprising in Ireland in the previous year and in 1917 had seen parts of the French Army mutiny and revolution in Russia.

Why should it have involved itself with the internal politics of Russia -whose government was committed to continuing the war?

20

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: April 17, 2016, 04:02:56 PM »

As far as honour is concerned, why was the Tsar and his family any more the responsibility of the British Government than any other Russian people who had British relatives? The British Government's loyalty and duty belonged first of all to the people of Britain and the British Empire including their armed forces - seven of my great uncles among them, four of whom were killed.  
  

First of all, because from the very same moment of the Tsar's abdication is was clear that his life was in danger if he stayed in Russia. The same can not be said about other Russian people with British relatives, at least till the bolshevist coup of November 1917.

Regarding the duty of the British government to their armed forces: Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, hailed the "February revolution", which was a military mutiny, as "the greatest service which they [the Russian people] have yet made to the cause for which the Allied people have been fighting since August 1914". In fact, the revolution meant the end of any effective contribution by Russia to the Allied war effort and it was the British Tommies who suffered the consequences of it.

"The temporary breakdown of the French fighting power was not the worst of the troubles which together crippled the Entente offensive in 1917. The collapse, first partial and then complete, of Russia was a loss which even the entry of America into the war could not possibly compensate for many months, and before the balance was restored the Western Allies were to be perilously near the brink of defeat". B. H. Liddell Hart, "History of the First World War".

It was the collapse of the Eastern Front what allowed the Germans to mass men and artillery for their offensive in March 1918, which smashed a British section of the front.

"At 4:30 AM, on March 21 1918, the sudden crash of some 4,000 German guns heralded the breaking of a storm which, in grandeur of scale, of awe, of destruction, surpassed any other in the World War. By nightfall a German flood had inundated forty miles of the British front; a week later it had reached the outskirsts of Amiens; and in the ensuing weeks the Allied cause itself was almost submerged." In two week the British army suffered 160,000 casualties: 22,000 killed, 75,000 prisoners and 65,000 wounded.

Whether the Tsar's life was in danger or not does not change the fact that he and his family were Russian and therefore Britain was not obligated to offer help.
However subsequent events turned out, given that the new Russian Government had pledged to continue the war against Germany, then Britain's recognition that the Provisional Government would be representing Russia was a reasonable decision on its part. 

21

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: April 17, 2016, 08:24:17 AM »

what would the British Government have gained by trying to take the Tsar and his family out of Russia?

Some intangible things, as honour and dignity, earned behaving like a gentleman rescuing a former ally instead of behaving like a scoundrel abandoning him to his fate.

In 1915 Nicholas II could have signed a separate peace with the Germans. In fact the Germans contacted the Russians with a proposal in May 1915.

"Milan, May 29 (1915) - Via Paris - Sergius Sazonoff, Russian foreign minister, interviewed by a correspondent of the Socola, is quoted as saying it was true Austria and Germany attempted to conclude a separate peace with Russia, but that such a thing was impossible.
"All the allies are entirely in accord," M. Sazonoff continued. "Consequently the war will continue until it is possible to conclude a really lasting peace. It will be a long, hard war, as the enemy is still strong."

With Russia out of the war in 1915 and the British without the new, Kitchener's army, without tanks and above all, without the Americans, it's easy to predict the result: Germany would have simply smashed France and won the war. Nicholas II kept his word and did his part of the deal. France and Britain didn't.
 

Britain's alliance was with Russia, not Nicholas ll and his family.  Russia continued to be an ally of Britain while it stayed in the war against Germany regardless of the whether Tsar was the Russian head of state. The fate of the former Tsar was no more the responsibility of Britain than was the Russian population as a whole.

Germany also contacted the Western Allies through France from late 1914 through 1916 with an offer of a separate peace. The consequences of a separate would have been as serious for Russia they would have been for France and Britain. The war was won by the sacrifices made British, French and Russian people. The USA had virtually nothing to do with it.


 

Britain's alliance was with the Head of the Russian Empire, the Tsar Nicholas II. Who is "Russia"? Was the Duma (that bunch of useful idiots, terrorists and revolutionaries) Russia? Was there a referendum, so that the peasants of Vinnytsia or Tambov could decide if they prefered an alliance with the French Republic or with the German Empire?

If you cannot see yourself that abandoning the tsar and his family to their tragic fate was a shameful, comtemptible, ignominious deed, I cannot explain it to you. Maybe someone imbued with the spirit of what Wilson called the "age of the common man" and Evelyn Waugh "the age of Hooper" cannot understand concepts such as honour, loyalty or duty.

As far as honour is concerned, why was the Tsar and his family any more the responsibility of the British Government than any other Russian people who had British relatives? The British Government's loyalty and duty belonged first of all to the people of Britain and the British Empire including their armed forces - seven of my great uncles among them, four of whom were killed.  

  

22

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: April 16, 2016, 02:53:40 PM »

what would the British Government have gained by trying to take the Tsar and his family out of Russia?

Some intangible things, as honour and dignity, earned behaving like a gentleman rescuing a former ally instead of behaving like a scoundrel abandoning him to his fate.

In 1915 Nicholas II could have signed a separate peace with the Germans. In fact the Germans contacted the Russians with a proposal in May 1915.

"Milan, May 29 (1915) - Via Paris - Sergius Sazonoff, Russian foreign minister, interviewed by a correspondent of the Socola, is quoted as saying it was true Austria and Germany attempted to conclude a separate peace with Russia, but that such a thing was impossible.
"All the allies are entirely in accord," M. Sazonoff continued. "Consequently the war will continue until it is possible to conclude a really lasting peace. It will be a long, hard war, as the enemy is still strong."

With Russia out of the war in 1915 and the British without the new, Kitchener's army, without tanks and above all, without the Americans, it's easy to predict the result: Germany would have simply smashed France and won the war. Nicholas II kept his word and did his part of the deal. France and Britain didn't.
 

Britain's alliance was with Russia, not Nicholas ll and his family.  Russia continued to be an ally of Britain while it stayed in the war against Germany regardless of the whether Tsar was the Russian head of state. The fate of the former Tsar was no more the responsibility of Britain than was the Russian population as a whole.

Germany also contacted the Western Allies through France from late 1914 through 1916 with an offer of a separate peace. The consequences of a separate would have been as serious for Russia they would have been for France and Britain. The war was won by the sacrifices made British, French and Russian people. The USA had virtually nothing to do with it.


 

23

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: April 16, 2016, 05:49:18 AM »

The fate of the deposed Tsar and his family was not really anything do with the British government. The people involved were not British Nationals. 
About the only thing that Britain and Russia had in common was their opposition to Germany and its allies and as the Provisional Government of Russia had decided to continue the war with Germany what would the British Government have gained by trying to take the Tsar and his family out of Russia?

24

Films and TV shows about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: Edward The King

« on: June 17, 2014, 01:07:32 AM »

I recently rewatched EdwardVII on DVD.  I loved it as much as the first time around. I paid $A 69.95. Ouch! But it was worth it.  Knowing a lot more about royalty the 2nd time around I was particularly impressed by the historical accuracy, eg Vicky and Fritz's wedding was portrayed just like in paintings I have seen, down to where people were standing and the costumes.Robert Hardy was great as Albert. He also played Leicester I think in Elizabeth R.
 My Region 4 DVD of Edward VII has no extra features eg commentaries, not an uncommon problem with region 4 releases of TV series. Someone mentioned Annette Crosbie also played Katherine of Aragon in the Six Wives of Henry VIII. Watch for the cry she gives when Henry tells her he is going to divorce her. Although I havent seen this for over 30 years I swear it is the same cry Victoria gives when Albert dies in Edward VII.
I think the documentary series about Lord Mountbatten was called The Life and Times of Lord Louis Mountbatten. I think it was made in the early to mid 1970s. It was narrated by Mountbatten. I can still hum the credits music, can anyone tell me what the piece was.

 The Life and Times of Lord Louis Mountbatten credits music.  Was it the Preobrajensky March?

25

Films and TV shows about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: The World Wars - New History Channel mini-series

« on: May 27, 2014, 03:18:57 PM »

If this series is centred on Roosevelt, Hitler, Patton, Mussolini, Churchill, DeGaulle and MacArthur then it is clearly has a distinct US bias as three of these six persons were Americans.  Bias would seem to account for the inclusion of Patton and McArthur - particularly Patton as there are a number of more important people from other countries whose actions in the Second World War were far more closely related to their experiences in the Great War.

The lack of accuracy that has been highlighted is not unusual for American made documentaries that I have seen about the world wars and this lack of accuracy is almost never be found on BBC material.  I hope this series is not shown in Britain.

26

The Tudors / Re: The Tower of London

« on: January 31, 2014, 10:14:04 PM »

Rudolf Hess was briefly a prisoner in the Tower during war.  He was well have been the last person to be incarcerated there.

27

Imperial Russian History / Re: russian and american relations

« on: January 06, 2014, 02:44:58 PM »

The second world war was one year and nine months old before Russia was invaded and two years and three months old before the United States of America became involved.

28

The Tudors / Re: Anne Boleyn

« on: December 04, 2013, 05:46:44 AM »

The chapel shown in the photograph is actually St Peter's Church, Hever.

29

The Windsors / Re: Duke and Duchess of Windsor Part 2

« on: December 02, 2013, 09:01:59 AM »

From all I have read, seen and heard Edward was a sitting duck for a scheming gold-digger like Wallis Simpson.  Together they would have made an appalling King and consort.  Getting rid of Edward as King was best day’s work the government of the day ever did.  The accession of the Duke and Duchess of York gave the country far more suitable figureheads for ordeal to be endured a few years later. 

As for the film W.E., the costumes and the jewellery are quite nice. That is as good as it gets.