Tsar Nicholas II escapes to Britain

[raedwald]

Jul 23, 2018 8:08:00 GMT @wattyler81 said:

Jul 23, 2018 8:02:14 GMT raedwald said:

Indeed, it is bizarre - whereas Nicholas II was a firm ally of Britain in wartime, Wilhelm II was a dangerous, unstable brute who had threatened to upstage the balance of power in Europe.

Nicholas II (the bloody) was an autocrat, and a bad one at that, it was a good thing he and the monarchy were overthrown. Autocracy was a degenerate and fossilised system of government unfit for the 20th century. It is a good thing we did not actually give asylum to him or the Kaiser.

How on earth can you describe not granting asylum to Nicholas II as a 'good' thing? Regardless of whether or not you liked the man (and it is quite clear that you don't), you do realise the end result of not offering the Tsar asylum was that five poor, innocent children watched as their parents were killed before being clubbed to death in barbaric circumstances. Furthermore, your description of the overthrow of the Russian monarchy as a 'good thing' is also ridiculous - before the outbreak of the Great War, under the rulership of the Tsar, Russia was improving - it was undergoing a French-backed modernisation while the Russian economy was enjoying strong growth. After the February and October Revolutions, however, Russia underwent a massive amount of damage - first during the Civil War and then under the rule of the Bolsheviks which resulted in millions upon millions upon millions of deaths. So no - the overthrow of the Russian Monarchy was not a 'good thing', and a Russia in a parallel universe where the Tsar was never overthrown is undoubtedly better off than the Russia we know today which has never recovered from the scars of civil war and communism.

As for the Kaiser, well I agree that it was good he never accepted the offer of asylum and entered this country, as he was an enemy to our nation and had posed a direct threat to Britain and the balance of power during his rule. My mentioning of Wilhelm II accepting asylum in Britain was simply as part of the thought exercise of what could have happened if Nicholas II arrived in Britain.

[Deleted]

Another idea I had is if Russia didn't sell Alaska to the USA in 1867 and Tsar Nicholas II and his family escaped there - creating a Taiwan-style scenario whee the Russian Empire was based in Alaska and claimed sovereignty over the whole of Russia.

What implications would this have for the Cold War and for Russia?

[Devil Wincarnate]

Jul 23, 2018 9:32:10 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Another idea I had is if Russia didn't sell Alaska to the USA in 1867 and Tsar Nicholas II and his family escaped there - creating a Taiwan-style scenario whee the Russian Empire was based in Alaska and claimed sovereignty over the whole of Russia.

What implications would this have for the Cold War and for Russia?

This is quite plausible, especially as there were eventually two Russian Orthodox patriachates as well.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2018 10:50:08 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Jul 23, 2018 9:32:10 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Another idea I had is if Russia didn't sell Alaska to the USA in 1867 and Tsar Nicholas II and his family escaped there - creating a Taiwan-style scenario whee the Russian Empire was based in Alaska and claimed sovereignty over the whole of Russia.

What implications would this have for the Cold War and for Russia?

This is quite plausible, especially as there were eventually two Russian Orthodox patriachates as well.

The value to the Soviets of having missiles in Alaska during the Cold War would be immense - I could see them propping up a Taiwan-style Russian regime in the area quite heavily after the War. But surely the Soviets would try and take it during the 1920s. It would be quite an interesting counterfactual to see what would've happened if the Alaska Purchase didn't occur. 

[sirbenjamin]

Rasputin would probably still be alive today.

[myth11]

Britain did take in Napoleon the third who,s son died fighting for Britain in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.

[Deleted]

Jul 23, 2018 21:38:50 GMT sirbenjamin said:

Rasputin would probably still be alive today.

I’m disputin that claim.

[Adam in Stroud]

Jul 23, 2018 23:19:37 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Jul 23, 2018 21:38:50 GMT sirbenjamin said:

Rasputin would probably still be alive today.

I’m disputin that claim.

Rightly so. There was a cat that really has gone. Oh, those Russians.

[finsobruce]

Jul 23, 2018 23:19:37 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

Jul 23, 2018 21:38:50 GMT sirbenjamin said:

Rasputin would probably still be alive today.

I’m disputin that claim.

You're darn tootin'

[finsobruce]

Jul 23, 2018 22:50:15 GMT myth11 said:

Britain did take in Napoleon the third who,s son died fighting for Britain in the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879.

Local resident : "Officer, my next door neighbour thinks he's Napoleon"

PC 49 : " That's because he is Napoleon, Madam".

[raedwald]

Jul 24, 2018 9:06:50 GMT @wattyler81 said:

Jul 23, 2018 8:42:22 GMT raedwald said:

How on earth can you describe not granting asylum to Nicholas II as a 'good' thing? Regardless of whether or not you liked the man (and it is quite clear that you don't), you do realise the end result of not offering the Tsar asylum was that five poor, innocent children watched as their parents were killed before being clubbed to death in barbaric circumstances. Furthermore, your description of the overthrow of the Russian monarchy as a 'good thing' is also ridiculous - before the outbreak of the Great War, under the rulership of the Tsar, Russia was improving - it was undergoing a French-backed modernisation while the Russian economy was enjoying strong growth. After the February and October Revolutions, however, Russia underwent a massive amount of damage - first during the Civil War and then under the rule of the Bolsheviks which resulted in millions upon millions upon millions of deaths. So no - the overthrow of the Russian Monarchy was not a 'good thing', and a Russia in a parallel universe where the Tsar was never overthrown is undoubtedly better off than the Russia we know today which has never recovered from the scars of civil war and communism.

As for the Kaiser, well I agree that it was good he never accepted the offer of asylum and entered this country, as he was an enemy to our nation and had posed a direct threat to Britain and the balance of power during his rule. My mentioning of Wilhelm II accepting asylum in Britain was simply as part of the thought exercise of what could have happened if Nicholas II arrived in Britain.

Lots of innocent people including children died in the revolutionary events after the Tsar's overthrow. What makes the children of the royal family any different? Both sides killed at will. As to the manner of their deaths the record shows it was by shooting, the children were not forced to watch their parents executed first. One or two of the children survived the initial bullets but were finished off with pistols.

I'm not suggesting that the Romanov children were the only children to be killed during the revolution and civil war - my point was that you identified the decision to rescind the offer of asylum to Nicholas II as a 'good' thing, which was clearly not the case as it resulted in a family dying under barbaric circumstances.

As for the circumstances of the royal family's death - when I said 'watched as their parents were killed', I was referring to the fact that none of the children were killed in the first volley yet Nicholas II and Alexandra were - indeed, the daughters may not have felt any pain, given that the bullets ricocheted off of their clothing (which the family diamonds had been sewn into). So the Romanov children did indeed witness their parents' murder.

Meanwhile, just to clarify, my description of the children being 'clubbed to death' refers to reports that, while Nicholas II, Alexandra and Alexei were all shot, the daughters were clubbed with bayonets.