Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

[TimM]

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.

And thing would have been much better off in the long run.  Had Germany won the war, there would have been no war reparations, and no "stabbed in the back" feelings. 

Adolf Hitler would never come to power, as the conditions that permitted his rise to power would not exist.  No Hitler, no Nazi Party, no Holocaust.  Millions of people would not have died, Anne Frank would have lived to a ripe old age.

This would mean that there would be no World War II, not in Europe at least  (Japan is another matter, though).

Had the war ended in 1915, with Russia at peace again, the wind would have been taken out of Lenin's sail.  The horror story called the Soviet Union would not have happened, and millions of people would not have perished in that horror story.  No USSR, no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no invasion of Afghanistan, which led the U.S. to arm the rebels, which would lead to the rise of Al Quaida. 

One has to wonder what our world would be like if the scenario I laid out had happened.

[Horock]

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.


 

[NicolasG]

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.

[NicolasG]

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.

And thing would have been much better off in the long run.  Had Germany won the war, there would have been no war reparations, and no "stabbed in the back" feelings. 

Adolf Hitler would never come to power, as the conditions that permitted his rise to power would not exist.  No Hitler, no Nazi Party, no Holocaust.  Millions of people would not have died, Anne Frank would have lived to a ripe old age.

This would mean that there would be no World War II, not in Europe at least  (Japan is another matter, though).

Had the war ended in 1915, with Russia at peace again, the wind would have been taken out of Lenin's sail.  The horror story called the Soviet Union would not have happened, and millions of people would not have perished in that horror story.  No USSR, no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no invasion of Afghanistan, which led the U.S. to arm the rebels, which would lead to the rise of Al Quaida. 

One has to wonder what our world would be like if the scenario I laid out had happened.

I have a much better alternative: WWI does not take place. The Russians let Serbia "get the punishment they deserve" (Witte's words. He was not the nicest man, but this time he was right). Austria occupies Serbia in a short campaign (the third war in the Balkans in three years). Apis, the man who was at the same time the terrorist leader of the Black Hand who organized the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife (and in 1903 had organized the murder of the King and Queen of Serbia) and Chief of Intellenge of the Serbian army, is hanged. Other members of the Black Hand are shot.

No WWI, no Hitler, Lenin dies in Zürich completely forgotten, no Russian Civil War, no Cheka, no Volga famine, no Stalin, no Holodomor, no GULAG, no WWII, no Holocaust, no Korea war, no Mao, no killing fields in Cambodia, no North Korea, no wars in Yugoslavia....

Thinking about it does not make me feel much sympathy for the Serbians.

[DNAgenie]

Britain's alliance was with the Head of the Russian Empire, the Tsar Nicholas II. Who is "Russia"?

Not so. Alliances and treaties are made between countries, as sovereign states, not between heads of state. Alliances might be negotiated by heads of state, but they are specifically designed to ensure continuity of the alliance or treaty if the head of state dies, or a government changes. International law requires that treaty obligations be fulfilled by later governments. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, but that is how and why states enter into agreements.

[Kalafrana]

Mage 29

How reliable is Kerensky on this point? Obviously, he had reason to blame someone else for the failure to protect Nicholas and family. My understanding, from elsewhere, is that the Germans offered safe conduct to a warship but the British refused.

Ann

[TimM]

he Russians let Serbia "get the punishment they deserve" (Witte's words. He was not the nicest man, but this time he was right). Austria occupies Serbia in a short campaign (the third war in the Balkans in three years). Apis, the man who was at the same time the terrorist leader of the Black Hand who organized the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife (and in 1903 had organized the murder of the King and Queen of Serbia) and Chief of Intellenge of the Serbian army, is hanged. Other members of the Black Hand are shot.

No WWI, no Hitler, Lenin dies in Zürich completely forgotten, no Russian Civil War, no Cheka, no Volga famine, no Stalin, no Holodomor, no GULAG, no WWII, no Holocaust, no Korea war, no Mao, no killing fields in Cambodia, no North Korea, no wars in Yugoslavia....

Thinking about it does not make me feel much sympathy for the Serbians.

Who would have thought that a pipsqueak country like Serbia could have caused so much trouble that would rack up a butcher's bill that, a century later, the world is still paying.

Many of the problems were having now can be traced back to the world that emerged in 1918.

[Horock]

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.  

  

[NicolasG]

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.

[NicolasG]

Britain's alliance was with the Head of the Russian Empire, the Tsar Nicholas II. Who is "Russia"?

Not so. Alliances and treaties are made between countries, as sovereign states, not between heads of state. Alliances might be negotiated by heads of state, but they are specifically designed to ensure continuity of the alliance or treaty if the head of state dies, or a government changes. International law requires that treaty obligations be fulfilled by later governments. It doesn't always work out that way in practice, but that is how and why states enter into agreements.

That may be perfectly true if we were talking about a normal succession. For example: Nicholas II dies of a heart attack, Alexei is crowned Tsar and a Great Duke is appointed regent. That was not what happened. In 1917 there was a Imperial government with whom Britain had concluded an alliance. Let's call it "Russia 1". It was followed by a Provisional Government (Russia 2) who took power after a military mutiny. And then this Provisional Government was replaced after an armed coup by Lenin and his acolytes (Russia 3).

Was the alliance with Russia 1 still in force with Russia 3? That is, if the bolshevists had kept the trenches manned and had fired sporadically some shells towards the Germans while they butchered their own population (peasants, monarchists, bourgeois, priests), should the Western Allies have kept their part of the agreement?

And what about "Russia 2"?  Was everything in order from the legal point of view with it, had it proper credentials? The members of the Provisional Government were not so sure. They called themselves at the beginning "Provisional Committee of Duma Members for the Restoration of Order in the Capital and the Establishment of Relations with Individuals and Institutions". A very long name, but no "government" in it. Because its members knew that they lacked legitimacy for that (besides control over the situation and capacity to withstand the revolutionary wave). The Provisional Government came in the wake of a military mutiny. The abdication of Grand Duke Michael was obtained almost at gunpoint.   

[NicolasG]

Mage 29

How reliable is Kerensky on this point? Obviously, he had reason to blame someone else for the failure to protect Nicholas and family. My understanding, from elsewhere, is that the Germans offered safe conduct to a warship but the British refused.

Ann

I will post again what Kerensky wrote, for the benefit of other readers:


"(We) enquired of Sir George Buchanan [British ambassador] as to when a cruiser could be sent to take on board the deposed ruler and his family," said Kerensky. "Simultaneously, a promise was obtained from the German government through the medium of the Danish minister, Skavenius, that German submarines would not attack the particular warships which carried the Royal exiles. Sir George Buchananan and ourselves were impatiently awaiting a reply from London. I do not remember whether it was late in June or early in July (1917) when the British ambassador called, greatly distressed... With tears in his eyes, scarcely able to control his emotions, Sir George informed... (us) of the British government's final refusal to give refuge to the former Emperor of Russia. I cannot quote the exact text of the letter... But I can say definitely that this refusal was due exclusively to considerations of internal British politics."

[NicolasG]

I believe that Kerensky told the truth on this point.

1. It fits with what we know from other sources.

Lord Stamfordham (George V's secretary) wrote on the 9th of March 1917: "I saw the Prime Minister (Lloyd George) this morning. He had not seen Sir George Buchanan's (British ambassador in Russia) telegram received last evening reporting his conversation with Mr Miliukov (new Foreign Minister), in which the latter urged the earliest possible departure of the Emperor from Russia, and suggested that the King and the British government should offer His Imperial Majesty an asylum in this country (...) No doubt the present Russian Government are anxious as to the safety of the Emperor and the Empress, and for that reason wish to expedite their departure."

King George V, Diary - 11 March : "Michael (Grand Duke, Miche-Miche) came to see me and we discussed the idea of poor Nicky coming to England."

Lord Stamfordham to A.J. Balfour (Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) - 17 March: "The King has been thinking much about the Government's proposal that the Emperor Nicholas and his Family should come to England. As you are doubtless aware the King has a strong personal friendship for the Emperor, and therefore would be glad to do anything to help him in this crisis. But his Majesty cannot help doubting, not only on account of the dangers of the voyage, but on general grounds of expediency, whether it is advisable that the Imperial Family should take up their residence in this country."

A. J. Balfour to Lord Stamfordham - 20 March- Foreign Office, London: "His Majesty's Ministers quite realize the difficulties to which you refer in your letter, but they do not think, unless the position changes, that it is now possible to withdraw the invitation which has been sent, and they therefore trust that the King will consent to adhere to the original invitation, which was sent on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers."

Lord Stamfordham to A.J. Balfour - 24 March - Windsor Castle: "Every day the King is becoming more concerned about the question of the Emperor and the Empress of Russia coming to this country. His Majesty receives letters from people in all classes of life, saying how much the matter is being discussed, not only in Clubs but by working men, and that Labour Members in the House of Commons are expressing adverse opinions to the proposal (...) The King desires me to ask you whether after consulting the Prime Minister, Sir George Buchanan should not be communicated with a view to approaching the Russian Government to make some other plan for the future residence of Their Imperial Majesties?"

Same day - "The King wishes me to write again on the subject of my letter of this morning. He must beg you to represent to the Prime Minister that from all he hears and reads in the Press, the residence in this country of the Ex-Emperor and Empress would be strongly resented by the public, and would undoubtedly compromise the position of the King and Queen from whom it is already generally supposed the invitation has emanated.
Buchanan ought tio be instructed to tell Milyukov that the opposition to the Emperor and the Empress coming here is so strong that we must be allowed to withdraw from the consent previously given to the Russian Government's proposal."

Lord Stamfordham, note of meeting - 28 March - Windsor Castle: "I saw the Prime Minister (Lloyd George) at 10 Downing Street, and tried to impress upon him the King's strong opinion that the Emperor and Empress of Russia should not come to this country, and that the Government ought to inform Monsieur Miliukov that since they had agreed to his proposal that Their Imperial Majesties should take up their residence in this country public opinion here had become so stoutly opposed to the idea that His Majesty's Government must withdraw the consent previously given.
(...) I afterwards saw Mr Balfour and called attention to a telegram which I had just seen from Sir George Buchanan, who in his conversation with Monsieur Miliukov evidently took it for granted that the Emperor and Empress were coming to England, and that it was only question of delay with regard to certain matters that had not been cleared up, which prevented an early start.
I told Mr Balfour that after what the King had written to him His Majesty expected that Sir George Buchanan would by now have been informed that the whole question was being reconsidered, and that our previous Agreement could no longer be held as binding. Mr Balfour said that he would draft a telegram to Sir George Buchanan this afternoon and send it to the Prime Minister for his approval."

[NicolasG]

This correspondence shows that:

1. The Russian Provisional government asked Britain to give asylum to the Tsar and his family.
2. The British government initially accepted and passed this information to their Ambassador, Mr Buchanan.
3. The King, George V, got nervous about a couple of articles and some angry letters, and decided to go back on his word.

Nothing of that contradicts what Kerenky wrote. The problem are the dates. The letters are dated March 1917 and Kerensky wrote that he knew about the British refusal to give asylum to the Imperial Family in late June-early July. But I will return to that later.

2. Kerensky had no reason to shift the blame from the German Government to the British one. When he says that the German government agreed to give safe passage to the ship carrying the Imperial Family, I cannot think why he would lie to shield the Kaiser.

3. Kerensky mentions people who could refute his version, if it were a fabrication Scavenius, the Danish Minister, died in 1962. Kerensky published his book in 1935.

4. It makes sense from the logical point of view The Imperial Family were kept in Tsarkoe Selo waiting for the chance to take them to Murmansk to embark towards Britain. In order to do that, an agreement for safe passage to make sure that no German U-Boot sank the ship had to be obtained through the mediation of a neutral government. Once that Kerensky knew about the withdrawal of the asylum offer in Britain, he decided to send the Imperial family to a more secluded place where they would be safer, further from Petrogado, a revolutionary hotspot.

Count Benckendorff, Memoirs: "On Sunday, the 11th July, at 11 o'clock in the morning, Kerensky came to the Emperor that the situation in town had become alarming and he thought it would be more prudent for His Majetu and his family to leave, and to settle in the interior of the country."


The problem of the dates: Kerensky mention that Buchanan, the British ambassador, had "tears in his eyes" and was "scarcely able to control his emotions", when he informed him in late June- early July of the British government's final refusal to give refuge to the former Emperor of Russia. But we know that Balfour, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, must have sent him a telegram to let him know about it at the end of March, almost three months before.

A possible explanation is that the telegram that Buchanan received was worded vaguely, in order not to close completely the possibility. The Provisional Government must have continued to believed that it was possible to send the Imperial Family to Britain after all (and Alfonso XIII of Spain continued to believe that Britain was doing something to save the Tsar and His family). Buchanan and Kerensky's reaction would prove that the refusal was unexpected.  

[Horock]

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. 

[JamesAPrattIII]

I have some comments on this subject:

KGV the Feb/mar 1917 probably shocked him somewhat. There was trouble on the English home front . He was being even accused of disloyalty. There friends of his that did warn him letting Nicholas and Alexandra England was a bad idea. Note he changed his family name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor later this year.

If Alfonso XIII wanted to get the IF out of Russia one wonders why he didn't send a message to the Provisional government saying he would take them?

As for Kerensky if he really wanted to get the IF out of Russia why didn't he start asking around?

Looking at the situation in Russia in the summer of 1917 I don't think it was possible for anyone to get the IF out of Russia. here's why:

The Provisional goverment's hold on power was  very weak. Kerensky and I would say more than a few others were extremely paranoid the military would seize power in a coup. The main reason Kerensky sent the IF to Tobolsk was he knew there any attempt to rescue the IF would be extremely difficult if not impossible. It should be also pointed out Kerensky in 1917 was still looking for evidence to discredit the IF that they were selling out Russia to the Germans. He never found any.
Then there is the Petrograd Soviet they want to jail Nicholas and Alexandra and don't want them to leave the country fearing it will make it easier for them to make a comeback.
Then there are the Military men and Intelligence men who don't want Nicholas to leave because he knows state secrets.
Adding to the problem are the hyper alert guards around the Alexander Palace. Getting them out is going to be very difficult to put it mildly even with the help of the Provisional government. Then you have to get them out of Russia which may be impossible even again with the help of the Provisional government.

It looks like everyone is caught between a rock and a hard place. to put it mildly.