Who Betrayed Nicholas II?

[AGRBear]

GENERAL WRANGELl by Alexis Wrangel p. 49

>>The Russian Grand Duchess Cyril, sister of the Queen of Rumania, invited Wrangel to tea. Although acquainted with her, Wrangel had never been a member of her intimate circle and was surprised when she kept him for over an hour, describing in detail all the court gossip and criticizing the Emperor and the Empress, going as far as to say that the whole Romanoff family was against them and that something must be done about it.  Embarrassed and confused, Wrangle listened in silence and was glad when the audience was over.

Although a monarchist and loyal to the Czar, Wrangle looked at Russia and the army with sober, and at times pessimistic, eyes as the 1916 winter came...<<

According to Wrangel,  Cyril and his wife were premeditated traitors to Nicholas II.  They didn't just become cowardly victims who struck their colors in red ribbons after Nicholas II abdicated as an act of survival in a revolution in which they feared for their lives.  They were trying to pull in Wrangel and who knows how many others into their ranks as early as late 1916.

AGRBear

[Alixz]

I know that Grand Duchess Cyrill (Ducky) and Grand Duke Cyrill had pretensions to the throne.  Cyrill's mother Grand Duchess Vladimir (Marie Pavlovna - the elder) thought that her husband and even her sons should have been on the throne not Alexander III or Nicholas II.

In reading about the life of Victoria Melita and Cyrill, I am never surprised that they were the first to put on the "Red Cockade" and swear loyalty to the Soviet.

I know that they must have been in fear for their lives, but so were a lot of other Romanovs who did not immediately change loyalties. Some never changed sides at all as we know and those who lived in terror in the Crimea or those who were murdered at the Fortress of Saints Peter and Paul along with the others who were murdered during this time, kept the faith with Nicholas and then left the country.

Only Cyrill, upon hearing of Nicholas's death, decided that he was the next logical claimant and he and Ducky lived in ruined splendor outside of Paris pretending that the monarchy was still alive and well and would be brought back in their lifetime.

There is now more proof that a circle of the highest ranking imperial family members were working behind the scenes to remove at least Alexandra from her position and put her where she could no longer "harm" the dynasty.

I often wonder what the motivation of these people was.  Was it for the "good of the dynasty" or for their own survival or even for their own benefit?  Certainly with Nicholas and Alexei out of the way the next logical claimant would be Michael and before Nicholas abdicated every one must have known that.  So if they were planning a palace coup what were they going to do about Michael? Remove him, too?

This becomes a very complicated mess and a very complicated plan.  Since Michael was never very interested in taking over, did this group know that he wouldn't stand in their way?  Or was their plan being formed while Michael was still in "morganatic" exile with Natasha and so they thought he was out of the country and in disgrace and therefore not a consideration.

Somehow, I doubt that the Dowager Empress would overlook her only remaining son.  I would bet that, if she were heavily involved, the only person she wanted removed was Alexandra.

[Alixz]

And I can't help it, but I always see Victoria Melita wanting to "hurt" Alexandra for two reasons.  One that Victoria had been married to Alexandra's brother and then divorced - which must not have gone over too well with Alexandra and two, that Victoria Melita was the granddaughter of Alexander II and married to a grandson of Alexander II and probably thought that she, not Alexandra was more suited to sit on the throne of Russia than her shy and ineffectual cousin.

[Elisabeth]

And I can't help it, but I always see Victoria Melita wanting to "hurt" Alexandra for two reasons.  One that Victoria had been married to Alexandra's brother and then divorced - which must not have gone over too well with Alexandra and two, that Victoria Melita was the granddaughter of Alexander II and married to a grandson of Alexander II and probably thought that she, not Alexandra was more suited to sit on the throne of Russia than her shy and ineffectual cousin.

I tend to agree, perhaps this is one of the reasons why I've always considered Victoria Melita and her second husband Kirill Vladimirovich such unpleasant people. Seriously, can anybody name a single honorable thing they ever did for the sake of tsar and country? They just seem like the worst example out there of selfish, self-absorbed, spoiled royals. Of course, both of them escaped the wrath of the Revolution... that also figures, since this type of person only looks out for Number One and that means, to hell with the rest of you while I save my own skin. Sorry, I know I'm being too judgmental, but IMHO this couple screams for some kind of judgment, they really do, especially when contrasted with N & A.

[TimM]

Sounds to me that Judas, Benedict Arnold, and Vidkun Quisling would love these two!

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

Sounds to me that Judas, Benedict Arnold, and Vidkun Quisling would love these two!

Vidkun Quisling was a man who was totally devoted to Norway (he was even shot for it in the end), but not a democratic Norway. He was an idealist with totally wrong ideals.

It strikes me that you, TimM, would have just as much in common with Quisling, as he was a vocal anti-Communist who worked with Nansen in Rusisa helping the famine victims of the Bolshevikhs in the 1920s.

[Petr]

Vidkun Quisling was a man who was totally devoted to Norway (he was even shot for it in the end), but not a democratic Norway. He was an idealist with totally wrong ideals.

I must say I find this comment surprising for a man whose name is now used to describe opportunistic government turncoats collaborating with occupying forces. Certainly his fellow Norwegians were not as understanding. But I must confess I don't know enough about the man to be able to judge his motivations.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

I must say I find this comment surprising for a man whose name is now used to describe opportunistic government turncoats collaborating with occupying forces. Certainly his fellow Norwegians were not as understanding. But I must confess I don't know enough about the man to be able to judge his motivations.

Just like Adolf and Josif, Vidkun was a brilliant man and a study in contradictions. Yes, he was a collaborator, but he would probably say the same about us with regard to NATO. Plus he thought Adolf was the only bullwark against Josif. I wouldn't call him overtly opportunistic, as he was a dedicated Nazi, although from a Norwegian perspective. Really, what he did was not at all different from what Christian X and the Danish politicians did.

BTW Norway was the Nazi-occupied country where the highest percentage of the population were members of the local Nazi party! Just as opportunistic were all the people who profitted economically from working for the Germans. A lot of local suppliers and workers helped build Festung Norwegen! And BTW a few Jews were escorted over to Sweden, but most of the Norwegian Jews were dutifully rounded up by the Norwegian police and handed over to the Germans. Nothing like the massive rescue operation that happened in Denmark took place in Norway. After the liberation, this very embarassing state of affairs led to a witch hunt where lots of people were sentenced rather arbitrarily and three sentenced to death, one of them Quisling.

It's always a matter of angle and degrees, isn't it? Mannerheim is a hero and Quisling has become a term for traitors. It's interesting to compare them, not only because they both knew Russia and the Russians intimately. BTW I had never realized untill now that both of them were married to Russians!

[Constantinople]

Well I certainly don't regard Stalin as briiliant or a genius more a psychopath who had ultimate survival skills.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

Well I certainly don't regard Stalin as briiliant or a genius more a psychopath who had ultimate survival skills.

"Evil genius", perhaps?

[Constantinople]

Yes I have but Stalin doesnt fall into that category.  When I think of Stalin the term evil thug comes to mind.

[Elisabeth]

I think Stalin, like Hitler, was far more than a mere "psychopath." As F.P. put it, he was an evil genius. To denigrate such leaders, to label them as "merely" psychopaths and thugs, i.e. pathological monsters, is to deny the actual power they wielded over millions, with the willing and happy consent of many of those millions.

Most psychopaths can't organize their day, much less an entire empire. Putting Stalin and Hitler on the level of a Ted Bundy or a John Wayne Gacy seems to me an inherently flawed procedure.

[Constantinople]

Well Ted Bundy was a successful law school student so that must entail some degree of organization.

[TimM]

It strikes me that you, TimM, would have just as much in common with Quisling, as he was a vocal anti-Communist who worked with Nansen in Rusisa helping the famine victims of the Bolshevikhs in the 1920s

Yeah, but one big difference is that I would never partner up with the Nazis.  That's why Quisling was shot, and why his name is now regarded as a term for a traitor.

Now, I know your from Norway, so maybe you have some insights to the man that I don't. 

[LisaDavidson]

I must request that we return to topic. Quisling, Hilter, Stalin may still be topics worthy on their own. But, Nicholas II was defintely betrayed, and that's the topic at hand.

Thanks!