asylum for the imperial family

[carkuczyn]

i agree with AGRBear and griffh  on several points.  in my opinion, the tsar mentally abdicated long before he officially did it on paper.  he had long been exhausted by a job which he never sought nor wanted and every decision that he did dare make on his own seemed to backfire.
one of the daughters was near death with the measles......i believe it was tatiana, who went temporarily deaf from the disease.  it would have been risky to move any of them.  
however, all that having been said, i believe the operative word for the whole situation can be found in the citation from anne morrow's work wherein she uses the word "childlike" to describe the tsar's initial attitude and behavior.  but i think he had always had a childlike quality to him.  his own father described him as a mere "child" when someone in the russian court of alexander III suggested that nicky be given more responsibility in order to prepare him to be tsar some day.  to sum it all up, nicholas was weak from day one of his life.  never assertive or aggressive, he always just seemed to roll with the tide with little foresight into any outcome.  another case in point of his childlike attitude can be found in the correspondence between him and alexandra in the final days of their reign.  he is at the front with the troops and she is at home in tsarskoe selo.  she has been writing to him for weeks about the riots in the streets of st. petersburg and in his letter to her he talks about spending the day going to mass and playing dominoes!  nothing wrong with either activity, but when one is the autocrat of his country and has been getting numerous correspondence about revolution and riots in the streets during a world war, no less,.....i think we are looking at someone who is in a "childlike" fog of denial.
but, getting back to the subject of the family's opportunities for escape, i have said all this merely to drive home the fact that the tsar never was capable of orchestrating anything throughout his reign and i think expecting him to realistically take care of his family by having the foresight to plan their escape somewhere is going far beyond his capabilities.

[Belochka]

Yes,  Nicholas II was fatalistic, if that is the term you would rather use,  and had been since his early religious teachers had drilled into him that he had been born on Job's Day.

AGRBear

Two points need to be offered here:

1. The English definition "fatalistic" does not convey the same meaning as the Russian equivalent <<Истина>> ["Istina"]. It can be best be described as: "truth".

2. According to Orthodox teaching, the Feast Day of Job does not mean that misfortune would befall the newborn, but how those misfortunes were accepted by the believer. It was a spiritual confirmation of their goodness: indicating sympathy and humility towards others. (Perhaps someone else can better define the Orthodox concept?)

There are subtle nuances which have bypassed most western interpretations that were eagerly used to present negative elements directed against Emperor Nikolai; that in reality are baseless when one understands the correct Russian concepts.

Margarita 

[Belochka]

...  The Emperor's was willing to accept exile if that would bring greater stability to his people.  I feel that he was willing to leave for the betterment of his country, but as the war effort disintegrated and Provisional government started to loose control, I believe it was then that the Emperor refused to leave his country.   

Nikolai never wanted to leave Russia permanently. Indeed once the possibility of going to the Crimea or England for an undetermined period had evaporated, due to the unexpected turn of events, both in the theater of war and Kerensky's failure to prevent the bolshevik walk-in, probably made Nikolai more determined that he would remain in the country of his birth.

Perhaps there is merit in suggesting that he never gave up hope for the goodness of the Russian people: to "wake up" and recognize the bloody path of bolshevism that was enveloping his beloved nation?

Margarita

[Belochka]

... in my opinion, the tsar mentally abdicated long before he officially did it on paper.

Such a presumption presupposes that Nikolai gave up in believing in the Russian people. There is absolutely no evidence that abdication was on on his mind at any earlier date. Such a notion only feeds those who prefer to place the Russian Emperor in a bad light.

however, all that having been said, i believe the operative word for the whole situation can be found in the citation from anne morrow's work wherein she uses the word "childlike" to describe the tsar's initial attitude and behavior.  but i think he had always had a childlike quality to him.  

Ms Morrow's oblique journalistic inventiveness does not deserve the dignity of a response.

Margarita

[Belochka]

... but, getting back to the subject of the family's opportunities for escape, i have said all this merely to drive home the fact that the tsar never was capable of orchestrating anything throughout his reign and i think expecting him to realistically take care of his family by having the foresight to plan their escape somewhere is going far beyond his capabilities.

To infer that the imprisoned Imperial Family were in the position to initiate and execute an "escape" whilst under the custody of armed guards is a nonsense.

Where would the Family "run"? Don't forget that Alexei was challenged by his inability to walk. Who would knowingly accept the entire Family and staff into their home with the bolsheviks searching for them? The logistics for a successful outcome are unfathomable. Would not the "protection" offered by the bolsheviks, away from the public be the best option after all?

Margarita

[AGRBear]

Let me back up to an early post on this thread.

I had forgotten about Nicholas II's plans to leave Russia and maybe live quietly on a estate in England.

And,  I had forgotten about a thead I had started way back when I had misread something about a uniform and there were....  Anyway here is one of my quotes:

p. 261

...[in part]...

"The archives reveal both the trivial and the significant. Only weeks before his final abdication Nicholas wrote to Benckendorff explaining that his delay in answering a letter had been caused by his need to order a new uniform for a photograph of himself wearing military medals rather than court ribbons. Less than a month later, according to the archives, Benckendorff was preoccupied by the possible departure of the royal family abroad and set out detailed notes, in his own handwriting, as to what would have been done in preparation."

Let me see,  the letter about the  uniform was sent to Benckendorff  weeks before Nicholas II's abdication.

It was "less than a month later", which appears to mean this occured after the abdication, "Benckendorff was preoccupied by the possible departure of the royal family abroad".

I would imagine the photo was probably a potential 'publicity shot'. Benckendorff is probably talking about the family being sent to asylum in England as everyone expected in the first few months after the abdication.

When was there talk by the Provisional Govt., who had Nicholas II and his family under house arrest, to send Nicholas II and his family abroad?  Because Clarke is telling us that "Beckendorrf was reoccupied" with this task?

Anyone have a source?

AGRBear

p. 261 THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke.

[Alixz]

I think you are both right.  There was no fight left in Nicholas.  And he was ready to meet his fate.  I suppose it is impossible to get into the mind of anyone who was so powerful and rich and so used to everything being solved by the power of Ukaze.

His inner need to be just a "country gentleman" probably clouded his judgement as well.  Don't we all have days when we think that life could be just that much easier if we just stepped back a little and let things be?

And in all of his ramblings, Rasputin was right, had they just let the trains through to the bigger cities and allowed  what was available in food stuffs to get through, the mass population might have hung on just a little longer and the first revolution might have been averted.

But I still think that Demark let them down.  It was closer than England and Nichols was more closely related being a Grandson of the former late King.

[David_Pritchard]

If assylum for the Imperial Family was so difficult why did they not ask for asylum instead. Maybe asylum would have been easier to achieve, since I cannot even find a definitition in my dictionary for assylum. Maybe an assylum is a refuge for overworked donkeys? Any thoughts on this?

David

[carkuczyn]

you are toooo funny, david.  i stand corrected.  touche.

[David_Pritchard]

I have found some assylums for ther Imperial Family:

http://www.pvdr.org/

http://www.longhopes.org/

http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/crossroadsdonkeyrescue.html

http://www.turningpointedonkeyrescue.com/

http://www.thedonkeyrescue.com/

[Belochka]

It is better to be the head of a donkey than the tail of a horse!

[Belochka]

But I still think that Demark let them down.  It was closer than England and Nichols was more closely related being a Grandson of the former late King.

All of Europe let the Family down to meet their final destiny! 

[AGRBear]

Yes,  Nicholas II was fatalistic, if that is the term you would rather use,  and had been since his early religious teachers had drilled into him that he had been born on Job's Day.

AGRBear

Two points need to be offered here:

1. The English definition "fatalistic" does not convey the same meaning as the Russian equivalent <<>> ["Istina"]. It can be best be described as: "truth".

2. According to Orthodox teaching, the Feast Day of Job does not mean that misfortune would befall the newborn, but how those misfortunes were accepted by the believer. It was a spiritual confirmation of their goodness: indicating sympathy and humility towards others. (Perhaps someone else can better define the Orthodox concept?)

There are subtle nuances which have bypassed most western interpretations that were eagerly used to present negative elements directed against Emperor Nikolai; that in reality are baseless when one understands the correct Russian concepts.

Margarita 

The English word "fatalist" refers to these "nuances" you presented and do not indicate bad luck or good luck because a person's fate can include both.

Just listen to tone of the Russian voices when they utter words like:

"Whatever we do or don't do is preordained for us for all eternity."

" Fate is our mistress from the day we are born until the moment we die."

Old Russian Proverb: "God never sends you any more than he knows you can bear"

"What March brings,
April takes away."

Nicholas II was fatalistic and one of the examples was explained in Robert K. Massie's book NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA:

Even before Bloody Sunday it was noticed that Nicholas II was deeping his beliefs about fatalism.  

p. 114 "...Nicholas had always been struck by the fact that he was born on the day in Russian calendar set aside for Job.  Nicholas II voiced, "I have a secret conviction, " he once told one of his ministers, "that I am destined for a terrible trial, that I shall not receive my reward on this earth."

Although wealth and throne created an enormous physical gulf between Nicholas II and the poor peasant,  they were not seperated, however, in their souls because of their beliefs that the events in their lives was "god's will".

AGRBear

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

... but, getting back to the subject of the family's opportunities for escape, i have said all this merely to drive home the fact that the tsar never was capable of orchestrating anything throughout his reign and i think expecting him to realistically take care of his family by having the foresight to plan their escape somewhere is going far beyond his capabilities.

To infer that the imprisoned Imperial Family were in the position to initiate and execute an "escape" whilst under the custody of armed guards is a nonsense.

Where would the Family "run"? Don't forget that Alexei was challenged by his inability to walk. Who would knowingly accept the entire Family and staff into their home with the bolsheviks searching for them? The logistics for a successful outcome are unfathomable. Would not the "protection" offered by the bolsheviks, away from the public be the best option after all?

Margarita

To me,  your claim that the IF couldn't "escape" and  "where would they run..?" has the undertow of what I and others call "fatalism".

Having not grown up underthis  kind of thinking,  it is difficult for me to understand why you would ever  think "escape" was impossible"   or why  you'd ask,  "...where would they run..?"

As long as I had breath in me,  I'd be plotting and planning my escape.

As long as I had breath in me,  I'd be looking for places to run as fast and as far as I could from my enemies.

To live for another day to fight my enemy is far from what I'd consider as being "nosense".

To do anything less is commiting sucide which I believe is considered a "sin" in most Christian religions, who claim:

"Sucide is the worst foum of murder, because it leaves no opportunity for God to forgive."

AGRBear

[Tania]

It is not nonsense. I know someone, and others, who were facing a bolshivik firing squad, and escaped!
I have kept quiet because most, if not all of these people on the forum, are those who live with out 'hope', and or faith.
You can escape from harrowing issues of death, and still beat the ba......! Bear, all you can do is what you do. These are people who have never faced anything that europe, eastern europe, the middle east, and asia has faced. Most are the men who have been sent to a foreign land to fight a foreign war, but have never really been in the mele of it all. If any of them had to face the onslaught, as i have said in the past, they would never make it. Plain and simple. They are arm chair readers at best, nothing else.
But you know that already

God Bless, and take care.

Tatiana+