WI Czar Michael II?

[Don_Giorgio]

In 2 March 1917 Czar Nicholas II signed the his and his son's abdication from the Russian Throne and proclaimed his brother Grand Duke Michael as Czar...
Michael however declined to take the Imperial Crown until the people voted for a Constituent Assembly whoch would determine if monarchy was to be abolished or retained...
WI Michael had accepted the Throne and ascended the Throne as Czar Michael II?
He would have escaped and lead the Whites against the Bolshevics... Does the Whites under his leadership have any chances to succeed against the Reds?
Any thoughts?

[Trotsky]

If Mikey succeeded Nicholas II in March 1917, then the October Coup would be butterflied away. The Bolsheviks would remain a fringe movement with most of its leaders exhorting the masses from safety in exile.

There would be no "White" movement to lead if no Reds seized power, not that there was much of one in OTL since it wasn't a monolithic force but a loose alliance of anti-Bolshevik armies, almost none of them having any desire to restore the House of Romanov or even the monarchy in general.

[SirRoderickGlossop]

Originally Posted by Don_Giorgio

In 2 March 1917 Czar Nicholas II signed the his and his son's abdication from the Russian Throne and proclaimed his brother Grand Duke Michael as Czar...
Michael however declined to take the Imperial Crown until the people voted for a Constituent Assembly whoch would determine if monarchy was to be abolished or retained...
WI Michael had accepted the Throne and ascended the Throne as Czar Michael II?
He would have escaped and lead the Whites against the Bolshevics... Does the Whites under his leadership have any chances to succeed against the Reds?
Any thoughts?

The Whites were heavily factionalized (socialists, monarchists, capitalists, democrats, etc) while the Reds all believed in a common goal, were almost invariably Russian (there were many foreigners in the White ranks), and outnumbered the White forces, as well as being more motivated. They also lacked any really effective leaders (Kolchak messed up quite a bit)

Also the Romanovs and monarchy as a whole had become extremely unpopular. I would think that TTL would only serve to lengthen the Civil War for a bit.

[Sargon]

I believe Grey Wolf has done an (incomplete yet very long) ATL about this.


Sargon

[rcduggan]

that would IMO be one of the worst things the PG could do at this point, with a Tsar at the head it would alienate majority of the population who still supported the Whites, because by this time most were firmly anti-monarchist and anti-Romanov. so it would give the Socialists even more propaganda to use against the Whites, and while it might extend the civil war longer, it would still end with a Red victory.

[Trotsky]

When does this even begin, like when does this Constituent Assembly give the popular support for Michael's coronation? If it's before 1918 then there wouldn't be a civil war, let alone a White movement for it. Unless Mike's coronation is what triggers a civil war in 1917, in which you wouldn't have leftists versus right-wingers, anarchists, foreigners, and everyone else that collectively made up the "anti-Bolshevik movement"; you'd have instead republicans and monarchists, and the monarchists would lose.

Then of course the next question is, with all those factions making up the republican side - Mensheviks, SRs, nationalists, fringe groups, anarchists, etc. - what happens?