Would a WW1 where Russia and UK on opposite sides, where UK invaded Central Asia and colonized the region with Indian settlers (as proposed in OTL Iraq mandate) cause a Russian Revolution if Russia had won the RussoJapanese War?
Trying to get my head around this one...
Are we talking British Indian Muslims, and from anywhere across British India, e.g. from Hyderabad as equally as from Baluchistan? They would presumably get land grants in order to move that far? What areas are we looking at? Just the protectorates of Khiva and Bokhara, plus Kokand? Or into Turkmenistan and the Kazakh Steppe? Or even further afield? Any such colonisation is going to need a whole range of forts JUST AS RUSSIAN COLONISATION/CONQUEST OF THE AREA HAD DONE.
So, the timeline you are looking at is along the lines of:-
Russia wins the war with Japan
No Triple Entente, and either the Entente Cordiale never happens or does not interfere with alliances? Or what...? I can't see France ditching Russia at all in this period, even if Russia becomes friendly with Germany. You'd need to explain the sides in your world war for me.
Russia LOSES the Great War, and part of the peace settlement is for Britain to annex the areas it presumably occupies at the end of the war
I don't think that the annexation itself is going to cause a Revolution, but if you are talking Nicholas II and especially if you are talking Rasputin, then as soon as a major defeat becomes inevitable there are going to be strong forces to try and get him to abdicate. I understand that general anti-Tsarist forces will be a lot less in this timeline, but at the same time he just got his ass handed to him in the world war, and knowing NIcholas II he copied OTL and assumed personal command of the armed forces, so blame can be placed at his door.
OTL his abdication personally was demanded by people who did not know about Alexei's condition. So the expectation was, AT THAT MOMENT, he would abdicate and Alexei would become Tsar under a Regency. Of course, what happened was that Nicholas II could not abide the idea of this happening to Alexei, given how ill he was, and abdicated in BOTH his and Alexei's name, throwing the crown to his brother Michael. That MIGHT have worked - Michael had ONE opportunity to save the monarchy, if he had accepted it straight away. Units on the front were already swearing allegiance to him, but instead he told those who had come to see him that he would only accept the crown if the Duma, as representatives of the people, asked him to - of course he was asking this in the EXPECTATION that the Duma would do just this, but it was too riven with factions to manage it and the crown effectively lapsed.
In your situation, the monarchy might be strong enough for Michael, if he has survived the war, to accept without equivocation and head off the descent into provisional government. If he is dead, perhaps his cousins are strong enough in his stead.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf