Nic II's Plans to go abroad April 1917

[RealAnastasia]

Thanks Alexei. 

I was wondering if the line in the movie was in the book since the poster originally said it was from N&A by Massie and then the movie was brought up. I was curious if the movie took the line from the book or if it was just artistic license for the film.

I'll check out the threads on the movie to see if the answer is there.

I didn't read those lines in "Nicholas and Alexandra" Robert K. Massie's book. I have it at hand and I read it quite often. But I also watchs "Nicholas and Alexandra" movie  (loosely based on this book) quite often too, and those lines could be heard when Nicholas, Alix and the children were leaving Tsarkoe Selo to Tobolsk. Kerensky said them to the family in a very brutal manner...But these lines are NOT historical, as far as I know.  The movie is BASED on Massie's book, but it's entire spirit is different from Massie's writings: so, be carefull. If you are quoting the movie you are not always quoting the book. :F

RealAnastasia.

[Alixz]

There is an extensive thread on the movie Nicholas & Alexandra in the Films Sub Forum.

Let's try to keep this thread to the question of whether or not Nicholas had any intention of going abroad in 1917.  If I remember correctly, this thread began with the idea that the family was going to leave the country before the March abdication.

That Nicholas had ordered some travelling clothes for the family or for himself.  I don't think there is any proof that Nicholas would leave Russia before the unintended abdication in March of 1917 and after his abdication, he had no choice in the matter as his fate and his family's was no longer in his own hands.

[RealAnastasia]

I was only answering the question that one person from this board had asked before. In fact, I was trying to be gentle with her. Sometimes, when we are discussing a fact, other little secondary issues could come out, only to clear the main one. And I was not speaking about the movie, but only trying to state that this movie ("Nicholas and Alexandra") couldn't be taken as a source, even if it is based in an history book.

RealAnastasia.

[Constantinople]

I have been watching a Russian production that seems to be well researched and in it in thi clip at about the 3:45 point Alexandra says that the British will not accept us  and the cruiser will not come. I am sure that the Imperial family intended to go overseas but that circumstances prevented them.  This was also one of the reasons why the Imperial family wanted to go to Livadia, so that it would be on a sea so that freign help could reach them if necessary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMBsJfkD4J8&NR=1

in this clip at about 9:45 Alexandra asks what will happen to her and is told a British cruiser is waiting at Murmansk to take them away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMBsJfkD4J8&feature=related

[Kalafrana]

Was there any serious consideration of the family going to Sweden or Denmark? Geographically, they would be easy to get to - short sea voyage, and, in the case of Sweden, an overland route as well. Both were neutral in the war and there were close family ties, particularly with Denmark. I can quite see why Nicholas would refuse to go to Germany, and going to most other European destinations would involve crossing German territory or a sea voyage through U-boat waters.

Ann

[Robert_Hall]

 I guess  it would have depended on  getting to wherever they went.  The seas were war zones, so they would have needed a neutral flag to take them  I read somewhere  that Spain was an option for a while. I am not clear on this,  but Finland  may not have been an option to get to Sweden,  as there was unrest for independence from Russia. Not quite sure  when that started though. I   am away from my library  to find the reference.  So many mistakes were made, opprotunities  missed,  inaction on Nicholas' part. The outcome seems inevitable once the Bolsheviks took over.

[Alixz]

I was only answering the question that one person from this board had asked before. In fact, I was trying to be gentle with her. Sometimes, when we are discussing a fact, other little secondary issues could come out, only to clear the main one. And I was not speaking about the movie, but only trying to state that this movie ("Nicholas and Alexandra") couldn't be taken as a source, even if it is based in an history book.

RealAnastasia.

No problem.  I just know that in the thread on the movie, we have posted over and over that the producers take "artistic license" to get a point across.  They know that they are dealing with an audience in which some will know the background and some will not.  Therefore they put in lines like Kerensky to Alexandra and Nicholas's answer to let those who don't know the story just what is going on.  That is also why there is a scene in the movie where Tatiana "exposes" herself to a solder.  We know that didn't happen, but the producer needed that scene to say "these girls were sheltered and had no life and now will have none in the future".

These added scenes outrage some, but others know that it is for the sake of telling a 24 year (or in the case of the movie which begins and ends with Alexei's birth and death) a 14 year story in about 2 1/2 hours.

I have said often that I took a friend to see this move and she had no idea at all of the story line or historical background and I had to keep answering questions for her through out the whole thing.  In fact, we were almost thrown out of the theater for talking too much as those around us thought we were just "kids" making noise.

I also wanted anyone who is interested to know that there is an extensive thread about the movie in the "Films about the Romanovs" section and that many questions about the movie can be answered there.

[Constantinople]

If the Russian television series is correct (and it seems to be meticulously researched) the Imperial family thought they were going to Britain,   They assumed a British cruiser would be sent for them, that they would board it and go to Britain.  If they assumed that and were not informed of the failure of that plan until they were on their way to Tobolsk, then there would be no reason to make other plans.  Nicholas' first cousin was King of England, Russia had made huge sacrifices to keep the Germans from using their full army against Britain and France and he had been warmly welcomed during his previous visits.  He was even an honorary admiral in the navy and Colonel of at least one Briitish regiment.  When they were being moved to Tobolsk, it becomes apparrent that there is no British cruiser.  If I had been Nicholas, I might have got my family out of Russia before the revolution demanded his abdication as well as a few milllion dollars.

[Naslednik Norvezhskiy]

I am not clear on this,  but Finland  may not have been an option to get to Sweden,  as there was unrest for independence from Russia. Not quite sure  when that started though.

Unlike his grandfather, father and mother NII was not very popular in Finland for the following reasons:
- The pointless war, of course.
- The policies of Russification, attempts at limitation of Finnish autonomy and dissolutions of the Finnish parliament during his reign.
- His many summer cruises to Finland were of a very private nature and security was very tight, so there was not much publicity of the "Emperor-Grand Duke" enjoying the charms of his Grand Duchy and interacting with his Finnish subjects. This in stark contrast to his parents' cruises in Finland, where their generous interaction with the locals made them quite popular. MF was of course particularly popular in Finland, because she as a Dane could speak with Swedish-speaking Finlanders and she always adviced her husband to uphold Finland's autonomy and respect Finnish symbols. (E.g. baring his head while the Finnish anthem was played and allowing the originally anti-Russian military March of Björneborg/Pori's Regiment.) Hence her triumphant return journey to Russia through Finland in 1914.

NII's last visit to Finland was an official inspection visit to Helsinki in 1915. He was met with indifference. And the Finns greeted the Germans as liberators at the end of WW1. But that does not mean that they wouldn't have treated their deposed sovereign better than the Russians did. At least untill the Finnish Civil War broke out in 1918 and made the climate more aggressive. But I think the neutral governments of Sweden, Denmark and Norway would have been rather likely to view "the bloody Tsar" as a liability they could not risk taking on.  

A key figure of the Finnish independence movement in 1917 and onwards, speaker of parliament, regent and later president Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, an ally of Mannerheim, was for example a right-wing monarchist, but had been exiled to Siberia in 1914 for opposing Russification. When NII abdicated and was arrested, Svinhufvud allegedly "walked to the town's police station and bluntly announced, "The person who sent me here has been arrested. Now I'm going home." In Helsinki he was greeted as a national hero."

[TimM]

It seems to me that the poor guy and his family got screwed over by everyone.  King George should have offered NAOTMAA refuge.  Apparently, for the rest of his life, George regretted not helping Nicky and his family.  Of course, no one at the time suspected that the Imperial Family would be brutally murdered.

[Alixz]

King George was more worried about keeping his own throne.  There was a movement, at the time, in Britain to overthrow the monarchy as the people of Britain were living in about the same conditions as the Russians.  The Socialist movement could easily have gotten more support if the tsar and his family were given asylum.

In the interest of pure humanity, we now (looking thought 20th century and 21st century glasses) see the asylum as the proper thing to do to save a family of 7 and their retainers.

Life was "cheaper" back then.  We may not see that as the correct view, but that is how it was.

[TimM]

That could be, however, George could have at least offered to take in OTMAA.

[Robert_Hall]

NII may have been popular with the RF, but  certainly not with the British people. As Alixz  said, Socialism  was a seriously growing fore to be reckoned with. Also dissatisfaction with the war was verging on sedition.
  Alexandra  would not have taken well to a quiet life in England, I think.  After being Empress  of Russia. She may have been tolerated by the RF, but she was not well liked. I think.
  Also,  breaking up the family was never a considered option. That, IMO, was one of the big misjudgements. So it was not GV's fault that they did not come to England, or anywhere  for that matter.
 

[Constantinople]

First of all the British cruiser wouldnt have had to take them to Britain.  There would have been other options such as one of the colonies.  Russia was an ally of Britain.  The feeling I am getting from this show (although I can't substantiate it) is that the British had secretly offered a cruiser to someone in the administration or to the provisional government.  It would be interesting to go through M16 records or those of the Imperial government.  Canada hosted a number of heads of state incliding the Dutch Queen during the second world war and Grand Duchess Olga Aleandrovna during the 1920s.

[Kalafrana]

Constantinople

I think the British Government would have seen giving refuge in one of its dominions in the same way as giving refuge in Britain, with the added element that the dominion government would need to agree.

As I understand it, in WW2 Queen Wilhelmina stayed in Britain (along with Prince Bernhard). It was the then Crown Princess Juliana who went to Canada, along with her children, primarily to safeguard the Dutch succession. Wilhelmina (and, for example, Haakon of Norway, who also stayed in Britain) was in a rather different position from Nicholas, being the head of state of a democracy under Nazi occupation. Both Wilhelmina and Haakon, if little known here before the war, soon acquired personal popularity as a result of their unpretentious natures and obvious devotion to their respective countries.

As Alixz has said, in 1917, life was cheap compared with today, and in April 1917, with Russia apparently settling down under the Provisional Government, there was probably no sense of an immediate threat to Nicholas and family. Although we can now draw comparisons with Louis XVI and family, where the threat took some time to develop, that was something nobody knew then. Further, April 1917 was a low point in the war (huge losses on the Somme, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, the Americans now in the war but not yet in a position to do much). The safety of the 'tyrant' Nicholas was not going to be high on the British priority list.

Ann