Why didn't he help the Romanovs

>>2555479

He was a little busy at the time dealing with a world war

>>2555479
For the same reason the Kingdom of France did not help the Byzantines 1453.

Because he didn't want to help restore an oppressive Monarchy.

The main question is why Britain refused to accept the Romanovs when they asked to come.

File: 1477632558616.jpg (164KB, 960x570px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 960x570px

>>2555479
>>2555510

>Why didn't he help the Romanovs
The principal reason why not only the Americans but the other Euros didn't help the Romanovs was that by the time they wanted help it was too late.

Unlike other monarchs the Tzar refused to preemptively renounce the throne or political authority as he was constantly being advised to when he still had power.

He only tried to do so after it hit the boiling point where liberals placed him under house arrest in 1917. At this stage Russia under the Provisional Government was still an a member of the Entente and holding up Russia in the East.

So there are only two options for the Americans here -

A). Put pressure on one of the most fragile and key members of the alliance to restore an unpopular absolute monarchy, risking a collapse of the second front against the central powers

B). Invade their ally and send soldiers into Moscow to forceably liberate him

After 1918 the communists took over, which made it impossible not only because the UK and the US were not prepared or able to commit the vast numbers of soldiers beyond what they already had to liberate him but because the commies would execute the Tzar if there was even the faintest chance of a military liberation (which is what happened when the indepdent Czch legion caught a train near him)

tldr. Because the Tzar was a stubborn cuck who refused help until it was too late. Even Wilhlem II was clever enough to ditch his pigheadedness.
So instead of chilling in France writing memoirs and uniting the white movement with his family they died in a basement and were dumped in a well.

>>2555479
Except he did. He sent thousands of soldiers to Vladivostok and Archangel and many died.

Or was that a different president?

>>2555625
They requested refuge and he denied them

>>2555739
That was after the king of England denied them first, so he just followed his allies call.

Because he was a progressive liberal who hated European monarchies.

>>2555625
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_S._Graves

>Given some 7,000 soldiers in what was called the American Expeditionary Forces (A.E.F.), he settled on the idea of making sure the Trans-Siberian railroad stayed operational and brought in a number of railroad experts to run the railway. His troops did not intervene in the Russian Civil War despite strong pressure brought on him to help the White army of Admiral Kolchak. Early on, Graves developed a strong distaste for Kolchak and his government.[9]

Great "help" there.

File: 1280px-Polar_Bear_Monument_left-front.jpg (186KB, 1280x979px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1280x979px

>>2555796
>Great "help" there.

Ah yes lets just pretend those 5000 men in Arkhangelsk didnt exist and that Graves decision did not arouse controversy

>>2555479
I know it might seem hard to imagine but the US was once strictly Isolationist and pulling those kind of stunts were deeply unpopular

File: Fgoi9VL.jpg (9KB, 263x263px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 263x263px

>>2555483
>americans in ww1

File: 2409823.jpg (86KB, 850x566px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 850x566px

>>2555860
Those 5000 brave lads forget their tank while running away from the peasants with outdated pitchforks