This week we are expected to celebrate the revolting Russians of the year 1917.
This film by Eisenstein from 1929 was on BBC Four on Sunday. It is heavy going for near two hours and concerns the masses fighting for their liberty in 1917 urged on by men who had lived on benefits in London a few years earlier.
This from Hollywood in the same year I think appealed rather more to the masses than that of the Russian. It is also about Liberty and comes in at an economic twenty minutes.
I wonder which one the veterans of this force might have preferred? Especially, the Scousers of the 17th King's Liverpool Regiment?
It is known that King George V and particularly Queen Mary, opposed refuge for the family of the Tsar in 1917 in Britain, as well as the politicians being very nervous of the reactions. But why not in Cyprus or another part of the Empire? And yet British troops were sent to North Russia to support the White Army opposition to the Communists.
But the record of Tsar Nicholas II as an autocratic ruler was very bad and he was certainly a high security risk bearing in mind all the other refugees in London who had fled from his regime or been the victims of his pogroms.
Had refuge been granted, might Edward, Prince of Wales; the King who abdicated in 1936 because of his wish to have Wallis Simpson as his Queen, have married Olga, the Tsar's eldest daughter much earlier?
Imagine, a Buckingham Palace, Balmoral and Windsor Castle without the corgi dogs.
Caught up in a simple twist of fate. How different it might have been.ReplyDelete
Surely the second link is a government infrastructure project.ReplyDelete