What do you think would have been the RIGHT end?

[gioia]

Thats a good fact. I often wondered why Alix and Nicky didn't try to send their children away to be safe till the situation became clear. Not abroad, it would have been enough to send them to crimea to the rest of the family. I would have done so even I am sure that the children did not want to leave their parents. But if I had been the mother the health of my children would be more important for me than anything else. Even if I don't know what will happen. But wasn't the situation not serious enough after abdication and arrest in Alexander Palace??? Could NA really not imagine what COULD happen? Did they ever try to send the children away at least a while? I know, that they did not want to be parted, but wasn't it more important to save than to stay together? Very sad

I don't know how much Nicholas could have suspected or guessed...didn't he think they would probably try to get rid of him, but he hoped they'd let Alix and the children go?

[Mexjames]

Reading your last post, I have thought of a question but I don't know if this has ever been asked/analyzed before.

Could it be that the Emperor had the "Stockholms Syndrome"? This is a condition under which specifically, kidnap victims sympathize with their captors.  The name comes from such a situation that took place in Stockholm, Sweden, about 50 years ago, when psychologists interviewed people that had been kidnapped, and who showed sympathy for their captors.  Patricia Hearst suffered the same.

It is known that if anything, the Emperor didn't quite have a strong character at all.  Perhaps at some point he had some sort of sympathy for his captors, which would have prevented him from making certain decisions.  He was a great believer in fate as well, so perhaps these two traits coincided at the wrong time in his life, with the known results.

Those of us who believe in God, always think that any circumstances, however bad they may be, are always the best. It is hard to justify how being killed before dawn in Siberia would have been the best possible outcome for the IF, but then, we can only guess. Some lines of thought would even venture to say, that even though the IF were killed by Godless communists, they were doing God's will. 

[mcdnab]

Immediately after his abdication when he met his mother for the last time before he returned to the capital he was advised (by his own staff as well as some of the allied staff present) to leave the country immediately. It was pointed out to him that no deposed monarch in history had been able to stay in his country with any kind of freedom.

At that point its highly likely that the provisional government still trying to fight the war and trying to establish a working government would have let him go (neither Lvov or Kerensky had any great desire for blood). The government dropped its investigation into Alexandra a few weeks later as it became apparent that despite her german birth the allegations of spying for the enemy that had found common currency in Petersburg were not true. Had Nicholas left immediately for Finland it is highly likely that Alexandra and the children would have been allowed to follow as soon as they were well enough to travel.

According to Sophie Buxhoeveden staff even offered to look after the children at the Alexander Palace if Nicholas and Alexandra left and then take them to Finland when they were well enough.

Foreign offers after the immediate aftermath of the abdication were pointless - firstly travel in wartime was dangerous no matter who you are but more importantly the Soviet were actively demanding assurances that the former Emperor and Empress would be kept under arrest and remain in Russia and the Soviet were also complaining that other Romanov's including the Dowager Empress and Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovitch were still at liberty. The provisional government nearly fell in July and was incredibly weak and divided when pressured (which is why the October revolution was won so easily).

The allied powers also had a problem with offering sanctuary on purely political grounds - it was in Britain and France's interest that the Provisional Government survived and continued the war.

Offering help and assistance to the Romanov's (at a time when restoration at some point was still considered by many monarchists) could have gone down badly with their Russian ally. The British decision to withdraw or not to press their initial offer was of course down to George V's increasingly difficult personal situation (concerns over how they would be supported financially because the Government wouldn't pay, concerns about the continuing anti german view that was slowly being directed towards the Royal family, the reaction of the British left to whom Nicholas was seen as a tyrant) but by the time the offer was discussed by the Petrograd government the Bolshevik's were already pressing for guarantees so even if the British had continued to press it is difficult to see how the government would have managed to get them out.

When Kerensky did move them to Tobolsk it is tragic he didn't smuggle them into Finland and risk the fall out - the decision to move them at all was because the situation was such a mess and the government was still struggling to maintain authority whatever he stated in later he should have taken a risk and given them a chance.

Given what had happened to previous monarch's who'd been overthrown and the visible hatred of many of the guards who were in place at the Alexander Palace during their initial captivity it would have occured to both of them that there was a real risk to certainly Nicholas' life at the least and I think I will always find it hard to understand how willingly they seem to have sleep walked to their eventual deaths. Almost like they embraced the idea of being martyrs whilst maintaining a hopeful facade for their loyal servants and the children who would die with them.

[Mexjames]

Very good point, all of them.  I found me an interesting bit of information http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=eseDgCQK9UkC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=nicholas+ii+use+of+cocaine&source=bl&ots=Z6iUmc77ew&sig=89Qtwh_w4gqE3C4Hkdipw7va5xE&hl=en&ei=ASGUSpyLIKqltgfSqt1G&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false that says that Kerensky used drugs to "sustain himself", and I read that the Emperor used them as well.  I don't know if these bits of information are facts or not, but if they're true, even not to a full extent, it may be explained why some decisions that look logical, simply didn't take place.  I very much doubt that at the time, there was full knowledge of the effects of using cocaine and other drugs.

Before that, in 1910, Mexican president Díaz (I live in Mexico) was deposed and went to exile in Europe.  Recent documents have come to light, demonstrating that the president was taking different sorts of opiates and possibly even cocaine, as prescriptions for a never-ending tooth ache.  This explains in part the decisions he made in 1909 and 1910 that eventually led the country to a major civil war, that lasted until 1921, with 1917 being a key year.  It is said by some historians that the Russian and Mexican revolutions, were the first social revolutions of the 20th century. 

I just add this not to hijack the thread, but to show that the use of drugs might have had an important role in the overthrow and eventual loss of the Empire. 

I hope that those of you who have far more knowledge about the life of the Emperor, will confirm or not what I just posted above.

[gioia]

Reading your last post, I have thought of a question but I don't know if this has ever been asked/analyzed before.

Could it be that the Emperor had the "Stockholms Syndrome"? This is a condition under which specifically, kidnap victims sympathize with their captors.  The name comes from such a situation that took place in Stockholm, Sweden, about 50 years ago, when psychologists interviewed people that had been kidnapped, and who showed sympathy for their captors.  Patricia Hearst suffered the same.

It is known that if anything, the Emperor didn't quite have a strong character at all.  Perhaps at some point he had some sort of sympathy for his captors, which would have prevented him from making certain decisions.  He was a great believer in fate as well, so perhaps these two traits coincided at the wrong time in his life, with the known results.

Those of us who believe in God, always think that any circumstances, however bad they may be, are always the best. It is hard to justify how being killed before dawn in Siberia would have been the best possible outcome for the IF, but then, we can only guess. Some lines of thought would even venture to say, that even though the IF were killed by Godless communists, they were doing God's will. 

I've suspected that myself.

[LisaDavidson]

I'll play.

I don't think there is any serious argument to be put forth about what should have happened to Nicholas' 5 children. They should have been allowed to leave the country in peace, period.

As to their money, I believe in private property. They should have been able to leave the country in peace with assets sufficient to live out their lives plus been able to take personal property such as gifts. The remainder should have been put into a trust for the Imperial (not royal) Family in exile. In no way should the victorious new government been able to steal items that were not theirs in the first place.

As to a location, they should have been made welcome in Great Britain, and also should have been able to live in Denmark, where they had relatives.

On Nicholas, I disagree with a trial unless all the deposed monarchs and leaders were to be tried in an international court. Nicholas should also have been permitted to leave the country in peace.

I'm just sayin'....

[Mexjames]

Miss Davidson, I agree on some of your points but not on others.

1. The children should have been allowed to leave unharmed, I agree with that.
2. I also agree that they should have had the chance to take their personal property with them, along with the money that would be theirs.  This poses a very tough question because I think it would have been very hard to determine what assets belonged to the IF and what belonged to the State, that is, to Russia.  In another part of this forum, someone said that Nicholas II had filled out a census forum saying that Russia was his or something like that (perhaps someone could find the right quote for me - thanks).
3. At the time I think an international court was out of question.  I don't think there was an international legal framework to make this trial happen.  The League of Nations wasn't even in the making, let alone the UN or other international tribunals.  Since the vast majority of the activities of the Emperor took place inside Russia, he might have well insisted to be judged under Russian laws, which in turn, gave him the chance to do what he did, as he was the Autocrat and had the last word.  He would have predated Richard Nixon in saying "if the Tsar does it, it's not illegal".  An international court of law at the time wouldn't have been impartial either, as pro- and anti-monarchist sentiments were reeling at the time.  Some wanted to restore the monarchies of Europe, and others wouldn't even think about it.  Having Americans and Frenchmen judge not only Nicholas II, but Wilhelm II as well, would have brought up a problem of impartiality because both the American and French mentalities excluded the monarchy as a form of government, so there would have been bias against the Emperor(s).
4. Who knows what pressures mounted on King George, as he didn't stick out his head for his cousin and look-alike.  Perhaps he didn't want to undermine his own position as King of England, perhaps he felt that this would further alienate the Kaiser, who would probably get back to him with revenge once the war with Russia would be over, who knows.  From our point of view he was wrong, and it is sad to see how those who were close to Nicholas II in his best moments, wouldn't achieve anything to at least, save his children from a certain death. 
5. In politics there are no friends, just interests.  I doubt that even with a fair trial, Nicholas II would have been allowed to leave Russia, as the stakes for a restoration of the monarchy were high at the time.  That is why the short, bald man with his ridiculous beard had the IF shot.

[Romanov_fan]

But the Kaiser wanted to save them, and had King George done it, not the Kaiser, I think the Kaiser would have been okay with that. I think King George didn't do it because he was afraid for his own throne.

[Grand Duchess Jennifer]

I often wondered why Alix and Nicky didn't try to send their children away to be safe till the situation became clear.

The children were given the chance to, but decided to stay with their parents. So you are right when you guessed that they wouldn't want to leave.

I think King George didn't do it because he was afraid for his own throne.

He was afraid for his throne. If England's people had an ex-Tsar in their country, they might start thinking about getting rid of their King. George didn't want to take that risk.

I think the right ending would be if all of NAOTMAA were sent to some other country where other family members were. I suppose I'm just agreeing with Lisa.

[Gabriella]

I think a good end for them would have been when they all were allowed to leave Russia and settle as private persons wherever they wanted and were welcomed. I could think of the south of France as it would have remind them on Livadia or Denmark were they had relatives.

I do think if Kerensky and the provisiorial government were not dispossed by the bolshewiks in the October Revolution this could have been a component part of a peace treaty with imperial Germany for I do not think Kerensky and his fellow-men were interested in murdering the Imperial Family.

Please correct me if I am wrong for I am not quite sure but I do think I read in Greg King's biography of Alix that they had the chance to leave Russia after the March Revolution of 1917. As far as I remember the children suffered of the measles at that time. Nicholas and Alix had the chance to leave Russia first. It was planned that the children should follow together with Sophie Buxhoeveden when they were recovered. Nicholas and Alix diid not want to go because they were afraid of leaving the children behind. Later when the children had recovered it was too late and they had to leave for Tobolsk because Kerensky could not guarante for their security in Tsarskoe Selo any longer.

[Mexjames]

In my opinion, any end other than the fate they met, would have been desirable. Because of what my own family went through in Russia, much of it courtesy of the Emperor (willingly or not, with or without knowledge), I don't really hold him or his ancestors in high esteem, but even so I, and many like me, would have preferred to avoid the revolution and all its bloodshed. 

I think that in this forum, and with all the books that the scholars have published over the years, the Romanovs have been judged, and now that the only pending issue to close this chapter of history for good, is the burial of the Heir and one of the Grand Princesses.

The subject of the Romanovs will never go away.  They played an important role in shaping what became a world-class power. We must not forget the good and the bad things they did, that is what History is there for. 

Soon, it will be the turn of the communists. Someone will examine all of what they did, and then, comparisons between their totalitarian dictatorship and the autocratic Romanov rule in Russia, will take place.  It's not because I'm a staunch anti-communist that I can already say, without a shred of a doubt, that the Romanov period would come out smelling like roses compared to the communist period in Russia, and not because the Romanov period gives us all the reasons in the world to be proud about.

I can tell you that as bad as the Romanov period was for some, the sympathy that still exists for the Emperor and his family will not be extended to the short bald man with his ridiculous beard, and his successors in the Kremlin.

[gioia]

I'll play.

I don't think there is any serious argument to be put forth about what should have happened to Nicholas' 5 children. They should have been allowed to leave the country in peace, period.

As to their money, I believe in private property. They should have been able to leave the country in peace with assets sufficient to live out their lives plus been able to take personal property such as gifts. The remainder should have been put into a trust for the Imperial (not royal) Family in exile. In no way should the victorious new government been able to steal items that were not theirs in the first place.

As to a location, they should have been made welcome in Great Britain, and also should have been able to live in Denmark, where they had relatives.

On Nicholas, I disagree with a trial unless all the deposed monarchs and leaders were to be tried in an international court. Nicholas should also have been permitted to leave the country in peace.

I'm just sayin'....

Exactly. The children should have been let free. It was really unreasonalbe that they weren't allowed. They were obviously innocent of any crime.

And I also agree with the private property idea...anything that wasn't *directly* theirs, like very expansive wealth from past generations should have been spread around to ease the effects of the war. And they should definitely have been able to take personal belongings with them.

I think Denmark would have been the best option, but I'm not sure how war-torn England or Denmark were at the time, so they would probably both be good choices.

Here's my general question, though...was Nicholas ever officially found guilty of a crime, not by trial but by observation or some other means? Did he commit an actual *crime*? Because if he did, then he should have been tried, but if not then he probably should have been allowed to leave the country. I'm not really sure though.

So, was he ever previously found of a crime, officially, not by trial?

[Mexjames]

I think that the best answer to your question, Gioia, came not too long ago, when the Russian court finally determined that the Imperial Family were the victims of political persecution, and died as such.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3115053/Russia-exonerates-Tsar-Nicholas-II.html

This is a big triumph mostly for Russia, as a nation, and not only for the Romanov family. 

[Mimì]

The "right" end I imagine may seem quite utopia, but after all, it's not in our power to change history, so... why not thinking even strange things? Here is its tale...

"During the reclusion at Ipatiev house, Lenin died for a stroke and all Russia fell into chaos. The guards escaped because the people of Ekaterinburg were rebelling against the reds and wanted to kill all of them. The imperial family managed to escape too without documents, and for a while the women earnt their living as nurses while Nicholas and Alexei hid in a monastery. While wandering trough the villages, they realized in what conditions people lived because of their obtusity, and the Emperor swore to himself that if he managed to have back his throne, he would do something to resolve the situation and prevent other revolutions. Finally, the White Army won the civil war and they came back to St.Petersburg.
Under the kingdom of Nicholas the Good, Russia became the real Christian empire in what entire generations had believed: agriculture and industry were modernized and during the excavation of a mine one day was found some petrol, which turned that desolated countryside in a huge productive area. In the 30s Alexandra was informed on time by her relatives of what was happening in Germany, which was a tremendous shock for their usual anti-semitism, and many Jews with all their wealth came to refuge in Russia wich had become neutral like Switzerland, and became Russian citizens. When Nicholas died in 1942, he indicated his brother Michael as his heir, well knowing that such a huge land couldn't surely rely on an ill head of State as his son was.
Meanwhile, the frightened children of Ekaterinburg had grown up: Olga never married, but was the most inclined to politics and became the major advisor of her uncle about school and education. Tatiana became a doctor and with her brother opened an institute of research for genetic illnesses. Maria married an official and had nine children: she always refused to take part to politics and public life. Anastasia, the former tomboy, was an excellent photographer in her youth and travelled around the world writing and publishing her memories, then was appointed at 50 Minister of Foreign Affairs. Her life was to be the longest, dying at 95 years."

[Romanov_Fan19]

Sent to the USA  Maine or Boston maybe   or Denmark or France.