Theoretically if Alexander II dies early in 1865, Nicholas is going to be yanked out of his trip in South Europe and might survive.
As far as I know, though, Nicholas's health problems were caused by an injury that he received in a wrestling match several years before that point in time. Indeed, these health problems simply became much worse during this trip to southern Europe.
Also, though, I meant having Russian Tsar Alexander II die
after his eldest son Nicholas dies.
But anyway...
I'd say it's still likely.
Alexander III's 20-21 at this time, and they didn't think Nicholas was going to die so soon, so he never got the education he needed.
But in this case, he might end up relying more heavily on advisers.
But the underlying problems and reasons for selling Alaska are still there.
OK. Basically, the reasons that I am asking this question is because Alexander III appears to have been more of a Russian nationalist and more hostile to democracy than Alexander II was. However, it is also certainly worth noting that Alexander III had no problems with allying with the democratic and republican France against the autocracies in Germany and Austria-Hungary in the early 1890s in our TL. Thus, since Alexander III is very likely going to be convinced that selling the indefensible Alaska to the democratic and republican United States is in Russia's national interests, I am tempted to agree with you on this and to say that, just like his father Alexander II, Alexander III would have sold Alaska to the U.S. in (or around) 1867 in this TL.
