Eh, by WWI Russians were more or less just tolerating the Tsar. He was still getting majorities of Socialist Deputies (supporting abolition of the monarchy) in the Duma after he limited the vote to landowners, for heaven's sake. When he tried to abdicate in favor of his brother, his talk of a constitutional monarchy was laughed down. By 1917, barring a comet strike on Berlin, the tsars were on the way out.
No WWI would probably save him. At some point, though, something will have to change. Either a huge restructuring of the Tsarist police state with mass participation and a populist focus, a constitutional monarchy, or, still likely, a republican model.
But WWI isn't the end of the road, necessarily. A quick victory for the Entente, or an even quicker one for the Central Powers, could have spared the house of Romanov. Let's move Churchill to another post come wartime. The man in his place doesn't confiscate the two ships being built for the Ottomans. Rather he keeps them on hand as a bargaining chip to keep the Porte out of the war, (rightly) valuing Turkish neutrality over two extra boats.
The Turks opt to avoid the diplomatic risk of sheltering the last of the German Med fleet, which gets sunk making a dash for Trieste. With the flow of supplies coming through the Straits Russia will do a little better in the fighting - putting Austria-Hungary in real trouble and holding better against the Germans. More importantly, it would do a lot better on the home front. Russians didn't turn on the Tsar because the war was being lost - one of the most effective offensives of the war happened just before the revolution. They turned on him because he was fighting a war for imperialist aims, doing it very badly, and allowing the home front to go completely to pieces. Also because they hated him, but they'd gotten over that before.
Russia does better in the East, avoids a Caucasian Front entirely, supplies the Entente with grain and is supplied with materials it ought to have had to actually fight a modern war. Turkey being out also keeps Bulgaria out, so Serbia and Montenegro are probably not overwhelmed. Romania comes in early with its flank safe and with the Entente able to support it, doesn't get overrun. Austria-Hungary is stuck using German support to hold on against the Russians - there are no great Italian victories, no fall of Belgrade, no drive to Bucharest. In late 1916 the Austrian fronts start falling to bits one after another, the Germans do their usual "one last throw of the dice" thing and make a few desperate offensives, then collapse. The war is over.
There would still be a backlash against the Tsar, after the war. (It's a whole lot of poor returning soldiers, after all.) But monarchs can weather that sort of thing when they aren't at total war. At the end, you have a constitutional monarchy, and maybe Nicholas has to abdicate in favor of someone.
No WWI would probably save him. At some point, though, something will have to change. Either a huge restructuring of the Tsarist police state with mass participation and a populist focus, a constitutional monarchy, or, still likely, a republican model.
But WWI isn't the end of the road, necessarily. A quick victory for the Entente, or an even quicker one for the Central Powers, could have spared the house of Romanov. Let's move Churchill to another post come wartime. The man in his place doesn't confiscate the two ships being built for the Ottomans. Rather he keeps them on hand as a bargaining chip to keep the Porte out of the war, (rightly) valuing Turkish neutrality over two extra boats.
The Turks opt to avoid the diplomatic risk of sheltering the last of the German Med fleet, which gets sunk making a dash for Trieste. With the flow of supplies coming through the Straits Russia will do a little better in the fighting - putting Austria-Hungary in real trouble and holding better against the Germans. More importantly, it would do a lot better on the home front. Russians didn't turn on the Tsar because the war was being lost - one of the most effective offensives of the war happened just before the revolution. They turned on him because he was fighting a war for imperialist aims, doing it very badly, and allowing the home front to go completely to pieces. Also because they hated him, but they'd gotten over that before.
Russia does better in the East, avoids a Caucasian Front entirely, supplies the Entente with grain and is supplied with materials it ought to have had to actually fight a modern war. Turkey being out also keeps Bulgaria out, so Serbia and Montenegro are probably not overwhelmed. Romania comes in early with its flank safe and with the Entente able to support it, doesn't get overrun. Austria-Hungary is stuck using German support to hold on against the Russians - there are no great Italian victories, no fall of Belgrade, no drive to Bucharest. In late 1916 the Austrian fronts start falling to bits one after another, the Germans do their usual "one last throw of the dice" thing and make a few desperate offensives, then collapse. The war is over.
There would still be a backlash against the Tsar, after the war. (It's a whole lot of poor returning soldiers, after all.) But monarchs can weather that sort of thing when they aren't at total war. At the end, you have a constitutional monarchy, and maybe Nicholas has to abdicate in favor of someone.