'Nicky' forced to abdicate in December 1916

ivanotter

All, Still reading Montefiore's 'The Romanovs'.

Rasputin's influence was indeed grating on the rest of the 'family' and by extension the nobility and the country.

Apparently, there was a move to unseat 'Nicky' by capturing the Royal train, crown Alexei and get rid of the empress Alexandra.

A variation would have been to crown Nikolasha.

Apparently, general Alexeev and prince Lvov were in on the coup. And so were the British via John Scale, Rayner et al.

Scenario 1: Alexei
How long would he have been living? one bump against a table and he would bleed to death. Alexei trying to be at the front would not go well.
What would he have changed? and would he have achieved it?
Separate peace with Germany in January 1917 would have been really bad for the Entente.

Scenario 2: Nikolasha
He was surely interested in carrying on with the war. and with the Brusilov offensive having gone well, he might have forced Austria out much earlier.
If Austria is out by January 1917, it becomes very difficult for Germany to do both Italy and Galicia.

What could have been the most likely scenario:

Separate peace under Alexei?
Russian victory against Austria and a real force to be reckoned with under Nikolasha?

…. and what would happen to WWI?

Ivan
 

Nathan Bernacki

A haemophiliac would be a terrible choice to be Tsar. Alexei, for someone of his age, knew that he might not live to adulthood.

When he was ten, his older sister Olga found him lying on his back looking at the clouds and asked him what he was doing. "I like to think and wonder," Alexei replied. Olga asked him what he liked to think about. "Oh, so many things," the boy responded. "I enjoy the sun and the beauty of summer as long as I can. Who knows whether one of these days I shall not be prevented from doing it?
Click to expand...

Now, as for Nikolasha, the Brusilov Offensive only stalled because of Germany reinforcing Austria-Hungary combined with over-extended supply lines, leading to shortages of ammunition and food. The failure of the Offensive had nothing to do with the Tsar. Also, the Offensive ended in September 1916, before this point of divergence.

Also, I should point out that when Nikolasha was named supreme commander of the Russian Imperial Army in 1914, he "spent much of his time crying because he did not know how to approach his new duties". He was woefully unqualified for the position which his cousin had put him in and the disaster at Tannenberg showed that.

If Nikolasha becomes Tsar, he would most likely step away from command of the army and name another commander in chief, probably Bruisilov. But, it's not just the battlefield that would determine Russia's fate in World War I, it was the home front too. During the 1905 Revolution, Nikolasha threatened to shoot himself if the Tsar did not agree to the revolutionaries' demands. He may've been a incompetent general, but that alone tells me he's willing to concede to reforms if the fate of the government depended on it, so maybe Russia fares a bit better if Nikolasha is in charge, but that's a big maybe. The POD is December 1916. According to the Gregorian calendar, the Feburary Revolution happened in March 1917. I don't see how Nikolasha would be able to repair the damage done by his cousin in that time.
 

ivanotter

March 1917 would indeed have been very different if Nicky had not been there.

However, righlty pointed out, how much would a 'new broom' have been able to change in a few months?

Let us imagine:
1) Immediately seeking separate peace with Germany
2) Address the bread situation (Apparently there was enough grain, the obstacle was logistics)
3) more?

It could also be:
1) Carry on with the war - getting to knock out Austria
2) Hammer Turkey?
3) BUT without real reforms at the home front it might not be working after all.

Who would it have been? agree that Alexie was not the best choice.

It also highlights one thing: how deeply involved was Britain in this?
 

BigDestiny

Alexei being the Tsar is not the worst idea. With his new status, he'll have fewer opportunities to injure himself and might actually live to a reasonable age. And either way, a child monarch won't be able to counter the will of the coup regime.

I'm not convinced that Russia can hold out until 1918. But having a young pliable Tsar makes future coups more interesting. Because failure is going to be blamed on the government not the Crown. And I think a faction opposed to the war will take power before the Bolsheviks gain traction.
 
Blorg

Blorg

BigDestiny said:
Alexei being the Tsar is not the worst idea. With his new status, he'll have fewer opportunities to injure himself and might actually live to a reasonable age. And either way, a child monarch won't be able to counter the will of the coup regime.

I'm not convinced that Russia can hold out until 1918. But having a young pliable Tsar makes future coups more interesting. Because failure is going to be blamed on the government not the Crown. And I think a faction opposed to the war will take power before the Bolsheviks gain traction.
Click to expand...
If he is careful enough he could live to see the 80s and if EXTREMELY lucky the turn of the millennium. ps he was born in 1904
Otto von Hapsburg the last prince of austria, lived from 1922 to 2011
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top