Both good points
That’s an interesting point I did not consider. I’ll do some research into it
Good point I’ll take it into account
To be clear, “губе́рния” is, translated character-by-character, “gubernya/gubernia”. I prefer “guberniya” because it reflects the way the word is pronounced: geuhburnie-ja. So yes, I do mean gubernias.
I'm assuming these troops are either Indian and/or ANZACS?
If I'm France, I'd seriously consider asking for help from the US at this point. TR may not have a dog in the fight but he would like to boost his international stature.
In the classic book The Guns of August, there is mention of a strong pro-German clique among the Nobility in Russia. Kaiser Bill should reach out to them and help them organize a new government to fight the various socialist and separatist movements in exchange for an Alliance; this would end the threat of encirclement and bolster him verses France.
As a Russian czar once said: "Russia's only allies are the Army and the Fleet." With both disintegrating. Russia's in serious trouble.
That makes more sense I'll fix that up
Yes they are primarily ANZACS and Indian troops
So would you think it would be more realistic to have Germany demand a multilateral conference as in OTL and the French would concede, with Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, France, Spain and the United States participating?
Im going to do more research on this, would you say that Nicholas II would remain Tsar of this "new government", or would this German backed Russia even have a monarchy at all, being more an aristocratic oligarchy?
Thats an understatement
A complete economic collapse as a result of the British blockade and paralysing protests created a volatile revolutionary atmosphere. As for Ukraine there were even bigger insurections compared to OTL as a result of the increased supplies being shipped in. In fact in OTL, it took Russia up to 300,000 soldiers to quell the unrest in Poland following 1905 alone
I was unable to get precise details on the ship itself. However, considering this website:
then it is fair to assume that the Kamchatka was armed to some degree with some form of naval artillery
That wouldn't be a bad idea; at least this way. France can be given some concessions to save face. It can also be used to resolve other issues as well. BTW maybe have a Japanese observer?
No way; Nicholas is too badly discredited, never mind both he and his wife are drug addicts. If you want a Czar I suggest looking at Grand Duke Michael; he was considered by many nobles to be the only "man" among the Romanovs.
Thats a fair point. I would still think that Great Britain would supply separatist rebels in Russia simply just to keep Russia distracted from Central Asia. After all Russophobia is at its peak and the Great Game is still fresh in the British minds.
I'll take it into account
NGL that has given me a great idea for something in the second half of 1905. What would you think the dynamic would be if Tsarist loyalists proclaimed Michael as Tsar Michael II while NIcholas II still claims the Russian throne?
That's not the way of diplomacy in the period.
I have no confess very little knowledge of the matter. I was working from press reports of the trigger-happiness of the Russians and a couple of books. Thank you for the information.
But probably some interest, on the Swedes part at least, in a weakened Russia and perhaps an independent (Swedish aligned) Finland.
If the Germans decide to back Michael then pressure will be applied to Nicholas to abdicate or in some way pass over the crown. If they stick with Nicholas then I think Michael is unlikely to strike out on his own without a great power in support, so he will disown any odd loyalist who tried to proclaim him the new Tsar.
It's probably too early for Lenin, and the Brits at least will be wary of stirring up revolution in Russia (a bad example, especially for British India).
Mmmm, tricky. It sets a bad example (remember how inter-relates monarchs of the period were) and Britain has vulnerabilities like Ireland and (especially) India.
