Latest POD for Russian Revolution not to happen

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.
 
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.

Uhhh...

Yeah!

I think that's pretty much it for the thread.
 
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.

This is a great plot!

With Turkey being neutral, it would make a huge difference for after-WWI-Europe. Turkey would not have lost territory after the war I think. What would be other results for Turkey?

Also many things would change if Russia would participate in the Versailles treaty; East Europe would look differently etc. The map of Europe would be completely different.

Any ideas?
 
For the latest possible point - then I would suggest that unlike in our timeline by 1916 an increasingly worried imperial family decides to act in concert to force change on the Tsar in OTL it became increasingly apparent in 1916 and early 17 that the family wouldn't act openly against the Tsar but what if they had.
The most likely solution would be to persuade the Dowager Empress, still relatively popular to return from her self imposed exile in Kiev *where she'd fled in disgust after apparently telling her son it was Rasputin or me*, so a delegation is sent to Kiev - urged by her son in law Grand Duke Alexander, his brothers and her surviving brother in law Grand Duke Paul and urged on by the rest of the family, she heads to the capital - just in time to hear of Rasputin's murder - Alexandra furious orders the arrest of Grand Duke Dimitri a breach of protocol, in response the dowager with the support some members of the collapsing government, the Romanov family etc orders the arrest of the Empress Consort and the removal of key ministers, once accomplished a delegation headed by his Uncle is sent to the Tsar at the Imperial HQ at Stavka, on bended knee they inform the Tsar that there must be change and he must abdicate in favour of the heir in order to save the dynasty, cut off the Tsar under pressure agrees and abidcates firstly in favour of his son Alexei, he tries later the same day to rescind his abdication after receiving a rabid telegram from his wife under house arrest with her daughter when that fails he begs not to be seperated from his son - again his proposal that he abidcate for his son as well is turned down - the boy is key to those wanting change! Within hours his abdication is announced and the new Tsar Alexis is being proclaimed across Russia. By agreement the regent is to be Grand Duke Michael who immediately informs the duma that he needs their imput into the formulation of a new government - he also informs arch royalist groups, and social democrats that to move forward Russia must reform.
The former Emperor and his family remain under house arrest at the Alexander Palace, the new Emperor is lodged with his grandmother in the Anitchkov Palace visits to his parents are permitted but only in the presence of the Dowager.
If the family acted in concert against NIcholas they might have persuaded him to go a little earlier than he actually did - had they insisted on the letter of the law then Alexei would have succeeded it might have been easier to rally round a teenage boy with no baggage and with the more pragmatic Michael as regent he might have been able to hold the monarchy together and to reestablish order in the capital. Michael would have also been more likely to have been able to strike a deal with the duma and limit the autocracy. It might have been enough to delay the initial coup which in turn wasn't strong enough to withstand the later bolshevik one. But as has been pointed out Michael's going to have to deal with the large number of Duma members who believe the Romanov's are a spent force and are looking for a republic and he is going to have to get Russia out of the war as respectably and as quickly as possible. Michael is more likely to risk his honour by betraying his allies to save his nephew's throne than Nicholas was.
 
A good point but like several other royal haemophiliacs including his uncle Prince Leopold Duke of Albany if he did survive the remainder of his teens he may well have been able to marry and have a child before his death - Michael could have ended up being regent twice over!
Michael's succession would have been problematic - largely due to his morganatic marriage and his illegitimate son. But with no revolution lack of heirs isn't a problem - Michael, Kyril, Vladimir, Boris, Andrei, Paul, Dimitri (from Alexander II alone)

... and Alexei would probably not have a long and prosperous life so Michael might in the end get the top office himself.
 
Top