How could the Romanovs have stayed in power?

[Will Marshall]

I was thinking about writing an AH on Tsar Nicholas II, and I was thinking about different scenarios in which the Nicholas II and the Romanovs could have stayed in power that are actually plausible.

There are plenty that I've read where Russia remains a monarchy under the Tsar, but the requirements are "Russia doesn't enter the First World War" or "Nicholas II allows for peaceful democratic reform", things that really just don't seem plausible to me.

 

[HIM Dogson]

Well, Nicholas II didn't heed Machiavelli when he said that it was better to be feared than to be loved if you cannot be both. If you're going to be an absolute monarch, you had damn well better either make your people love you too much to revolt or fear you too much. Nicholas II did niether. Another way is to not interfere in the decisions of the generals in WWI;'appoint Brusilov ASAP and stand back.

 

[Lalli]

There should be different Nicholas II that Russian Empire can survive. Nicholas II was too weak and out of reality that he could make enough reforms.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

I would put the POD before 1905, and, of course, getting rid of Nicholas and Alix.

 

[Gukpard]

I would put the POD before 1905, and, of course, getting rid of Nicholas and Alix.

No, the PoD must be AFTER 1905, without the 1905 it would take even longer for them to adopt a constitution

Answering the OP, the Russian empire can survive indefinitely if the right actions are taken, just by saving Stolypin you got a bonus

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

But you still have Nicholas distrusting the Duma, Alexandra hating Stolypin and, to make it funnier, Rasputin.

 

[Gukpard]

But you still have Nicholas distrusting the Duma, Alexandra hating Stolypin and, to make it funnier, Rasputin.

Yes, but you already have a constitution defining the rights of the people and the power of the duma, you already have parties and after the russo japanese war the imperial army noticed that they weren't "invencible" as they were while fighting the ottomans


Without the 1905 revolution and the russo-japanese war the empire would stayed without a constitution and the army still would believe in a invencibility, and we all know how this usually ends

 

[Knightmare]

There should be different Nicholas II that Russian Empire can survive. Nicholas II was too weak and out of reality that he could make enough reforms.

Also married to someone who kept Rasputin in power, which didn't do their image wonders, and was German.

Given they went to war with Germany, that did not help.

 

[Gukpard]

Nicholas II was too weak and out of reality that he could make enough reforms.

This is not true

here all the info I got from "The reforms of Sergei Witte"

The growth of the russian railways

1866 3 thousand miles
1881 13270 miles
1891 19510 miles
1900 33270 miles
1913 43850 miles

The railways almost doubled from 1890 to 1914 thanks for Sergei Witte reforms, Nicholas II finance minister, the largest railway in the world (even now in modern times) the trans siberian railway, was built during Nicholas II reign

You can download the PDF here, it have a lot of more information about Russia in the late 19th century to the early XX century

You also got Piotr Stolypin's reforms, but I'm not a expert on them yet

 

[riggerrob]

Have Russia industrialize earlier and faster. That would require a stable Duma to pass laws more favourable to factory owners, investors, etc.

OTL Germany attacked Russia in 1914 because they knew that the Russian Army was re-arming and modernizing. Germany felt that 1914 was their last opportunity to crush the Russian Bear.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

Competence is key. I think the necessary POD is Alexander II surviving. The reforms were necessary, but Alexander III was a hopeless conservative.

 

[Kurt_Steiner]

And he made it worse by keeping Nicholas from learning about the basic of power. Not that Nicholas was interested on that, though...

 

[Lalli]

Competence is key. I think the necessary POD is Alexander II surviving. The reforms were necessary, but Alexander III was a hopeless conservative.

It is very important that Alexander II survives from assassination attempt. But even better is that AII's oldest son Nicholas Alexandrovich lives so long that he can inherit his father. Him had some ideas for constitution.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

And he made it worse by keeping Nicholas from learning about the basic of power. Not that Nicholas was interested on that, though...

The Romanovs had the problem of no (truly) parliamentary monarchy. That was the key importance of Alexander II: change, reform, the the possibility for future reform to drag Russia into the present century. A truly or even half way democratic Duma could have saved the monarchy from itself, preventing the incompetence that came with the concentration of power in one lackluster leader. It would also shift whatever there is of the blame around as well. Instead, the royals had enough power to literally hang themselves.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

On a related note, a parliamentary monarchy would not only save the Russian Empire from itself. It would save Russia from Bolshevism, even if there was the possibility for them to be elected to parliament. The Bolsheviks were not a more reformed alternative to the Tsar, much as they pretended. When given the chance after the Bolsheviks took power, the Russian people voted in democratic socialists and social democrats overwhelmingly, and not the Bolsheviks. And those results were not accepted by the Bolsheviks, leading to a totalitarian one party Communist state. In this scenario, you sideline the radicals.

 

[Will Marshall]

What if Nicholas II actually received a competent education as a monarch? The reason for much of his weakness in leadership was that he simply wasn't schooled in the matters and subtleties of governing a country as an absolute monarch, and, if he had been, maybe he'd at least be able to keep control of his country better than he did.

 

[lukedalton]

Well, maybe the Brusilov offensive is more succesfull (General Evert is more behind the plan and prepare better for it or there is another commander in charge), this mean that even if A-H is not immediately knocked out of the war by this offensive, it's in a very precarious position giving at the Russian a lot of breath.
A succesfull Gallipoli campaign mean a reopening of the straits and the possibility to open the russian to the Entente logistical chain...same can happen with an early enter of Greece in WWI (but in this case Constantine I need to go).
Better code discipline for the Russian will greatly help in the opening of the war

 

[Will Marshall]

Well, maybe the Brusilov offensive is more succesfull (General Evert is more behind the plan and prepare better for it or there is another commander in charge), this mean that even if A-H is not immediately knocked out of the war by this offensive, it's in a very precarious position giving at the Russian a lot of breath.
A succesfull Gallipoli campaign mean a reopening of the straits and the possibility to open the russian to the Entente logistical chain...same can happen with an early enter of Greece in WWI (but in this case Constantine I need to go).
Better code discipline for the Russian will greatly help in the opening of the war

But that counts on both the Brusilov Offensive and the Gallipoli Campaign being successful. The former, sure, it's entirely possible, but I personally find it highly unlikely that the Russians could have ended the war with it, given that the Germans would no matter what have responded. Meanwhile, the Gallipoli Campaign would only have really been successful enough if it knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the war, which is highly unlikely. Otherwise it wouldn't have been massively beneficial for the Russians.

 

[lukedalton]

But that counts on both the Brusilov Offensive and the Gallipoli Campaign being successful. The former, sure, it's entirely possible, but I personally find it highly unlikely that the Russians could have ended the war with it, given that the Germans would no matter what have responded. Meanwhile, the Gallipoli Campaign would only have really been successful enough if it knocked the Ottoman Empire out of the war, which is highly unlikely. Otherwise it wouldn't have been massively beneficial for the Russians.

It's WWI big and immediate change are not possible, we can have only baby step that will have big repercussion not in the now but in the medium period, expecially with premise like 'Russia enter WWI, the Russo-Japanese war goes as OTL and Nick II doesn't go for the usual allowing of peacefull democratic reform cliquè'.
A more succesfull Brusilov also mean that the A-H will be in a weaker position than OTL to counter Romania attack and continue the fight on the italian and macedonian front without weaken one part to strenghten the other open in this manner other possibilities and any German response to the A-H disaster mean lower the pressure on other point.
This can bring towards some lower social pressure that can at least delay the OTL February Revolution or give enough political force to Micheal to get the crown of Tsar in a reforme goverement; plus on the other side with a situation much worse than OTL, the Hapsburg goverment can become much more serious on his peace feeler or being embroiled in his own revolution (but in any case the result will be a direct German takeover)

 

[hwyl]

Brain transplant to Nicholas II?