What if: Nicholas II died at the front in WWI?
- Thread starter rick007
- Start date
Mourning would be pro forma and somewhat muted anyhow given wartime conditions. Alexandra would tear herself apart intellectually, more than likely, between mourning for her husband, wanting Alexis to become tsar and yet wanting to protect him at all costs. I'm unsure here whether she could be regent, but I have my doubts. Thus I'm guessing Michael would become regent. As unpopular as Alexandra was, I could see Michael and the Grand Duke Nicholas "persuading" her to step aside (and have Alexis step aside by proxy) to preserve the monarchy. Assuming that to be the case, look for a noticeable liberalization on the basis of anything less would be disastrous at the time. That might be enough to ensure an uneasy coalition between the Romanovs and Kerensky and company for at least the short term.
As to the war: perhaps there could be a brokered peace with, say, Sweden as the intermediary. Russia would be dealing from strength with respect to Austria but weakness with respect to Germany. Could be a status quo peace ensues with the borders getting re-drawn following the fronts, approximately. Might not be everything Germany would want but it would free troops for the west. At the same time, Austria could be spared about 15 months ± of fighting, and might just survive as a monarchy.
That situation might stand for a matter of weeks or months, since I could see the Poles deciding to take advantage of the debilitated / unstable conditions in St. Petersburg and Vienna and break away, with neither capital having the power to stop them. Similar comments apply for Finland and what we know now as the Baltic republics. What's left is a somewhat shrunken Russian Empire with a figurehead monarch and a rickety constitutional government of sorts.
But with Russia out of the picture in the war, there's no incentive for the sealed train. Lenin is stuck in Switzerland for some time to come. If he's ever able to get back to Russia, it would be by a circuitous route, meaning there would be plenty of time to tip off the authorities and have him arrested as soon as he sets foot on Russian soil, assuming he makes it that far and isn't sidetracked / jailed elsewhere.
In the aftermath, Carl (the new Habsburg emperor after Franz Joseph's death) would be trying to pick up the pieces and salvage what he could of the Habsburg Empire. Doubtless Hungary would be itchy to assert more power or break away entirely, especially if Carl had any ideas about liberalizing or giving equal footing to the Czechs/Slovaks and/or the south Slavs.
Kind of a messy situation in eastern Europe, to be sure, but no Bolshevik revolution.
As to the war: perhaps there could be a brokered peace with, say, Sweden as the intermediary. Russia would be dealing from strength with respect to Austria but weakness with respect to Germany. Could be a status quo peace ensues with the borders getting re-drawn following the fronts, approximately. Might not be everything Germany would want but it would free troops for the west. At the same time, Austria could be spared about 15 months ± of fighting, and might just survive as a monarchy.
That situation might stand for a matter of weeks or months, since I could see the Poles deciding to take advantage of the debilitated / unstable conditions in St. Petersburg and Vienna and break away, with neither capital having the power to stop them. Similar comments apply for Finland and what we know now as the Baltic republics. What's left is a somewhat shrunken Russian Empire with a figurehead monarch and a rickety constitutional government of sorts.
But with Russia out of the picture in the war, there's no incentive for the sealed train. Lenin is stuck in Switzerland for some time to come. If he's ever able to get back to Russia, it would be by a circuitous route, meaning there would be plenty of time to tip off the authorities and have him arrested as soon as he sets foot on Russian soil, assuming he makes it that far and isn't sidetracked / jailed elsewhere.
In the aftermath, Carl (the new Habsburg emperor after Franz Joseph's death) would be trying to pick up the pieces and salvage what he could of the Habsburg Empire. Doubtless Hungary would be itchy to assert more power or break away entirely, especially if Carl had any ideas about liberalizing or giving equal footing to the Czechs/Slovaks and/or the south Slavs.
Kind of a messy situation in eastern Europe, to be sure, but no Bolshevik revolution.
With Lenin out of the way (jailed, killed, not having power), what becomes of the other leaders (Stalin, Trotsky et al.)?
By Russian succession laws, Nicholas's only son Alexi will ascend to the throne. Things get really tricky, you have a Hemophiliac Tsar with a very controlling and to some degree from all stations in Russian society disliked mother as a regent. There are a whole lot of ways this can go. The monarchy could receive a temporary boost in popularity, our Tsar died bravely fighting the germans, which could help morale if it's used as a galvanizing force.
There's also the fact it could knock some of the sails out overthrowing the monarchy, you're not dealing with a grown man that you could project being responsible for your issues on but a young child. So more of the blame would probably go towards the unpopular Tsarina Alexandra, but if whoever is in charge still decides to continue the war, it's gonna be a problem.
There's also the fact it could knock some of the sails out overthrowing the monarchy, you're not dealing with a grown man that you could project being responsible for your issues on but a young child. So more of the blame would probably go towards the unpopular Tsarina Alexandra, but if whoever is in charge still decides to continue the war, it's gonna be a problem.
That's just it, the Tsar died while bravely fighting against the Germans. Alexandra, being of German descent and derided as a spy by the common folk, will never be accepted as regent. Michael probably won't be allowed to step in as regent, too, because his morganatic marriage removed him from succession. Marie Fydorovna might step in as regent for her grandson, however.
Can Olga also act as regent for her brother, though?
I'm only floating the possibility of Alexandra because if the Last Tsar by Radzinsky is anything to go by it paints Alexandra as being incredibly stubborn, and kinda like a stereotypical stuck up noble but ignorant of Russian succession law and being unable to assimilate well with the people high and low.
if Nicholas II dies during combat, his only son Alexei will ascend to the throne, but he a sick boy of 13 years old !
it's realistic that his uncle the Grand Duke Michael would be regent until Alexei is can become Tsar
But that is almost ABS scenario, do mess Nicholas II created before WW1 and there Rasputin and the Russian revolution also
it's realistic that his uncle the Grand Duke Michael would be regent until Alexei is can become Tsar
But that is almost ABS scenario, do mess Nicholas II created before WW1 and there Rasputin and the Russian revolution also
Notes by Drakon-of-China
Map by Serafim
The map inspired by Russian-language sci-fi dystopian AH novel 'The Greatest Dictator' (2010). Great story about world wars, spy games, forbidden love, political intrigues, and most of all - everyday life of ordinary citizens under various oppressive regimes. It was praised by critics and readers alike as, I quote: '1984' of our generation'. Really good book, I hope one day we'll see it translated in other world languages.
Any way here we go:
Main POD - Nicholas II of Russia died during Great War I. New Russian Emperor signed separate peace with Central Powers and became the most loyal puppet of Germany. The Central Powers quickly sent all the troops to the Western Front and defeated Allies before American intervention. The war is over. Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottomans are big winners.
British Empire, France, Italy are losers and now they all suffer from Weimar syndrome. Oswald Mosley take power in Great Britain, Mussolini (again) in Italy. In 1933 new President take power in France - one Charles Edouard Jeanneret-Gris.
Jeanneret restore France to the former glory, defeat Germany and Russia (with little help from Fascist Britain and Italy) et cetera. Five minutes after the victory Cold War between France and UK errupted.
The way things are in 1963:
Most important states and territories:
_____________________
British Empire:
Current Leader - Prime Minister and Lord Protector for Life Sir Oswald Mosley.
Second-in-Command and designated successor - Lady Margaret Thatcher.
King of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions, Emperor of India - Edward VIII
State ideology - British Fascism.
Military power Number 2, economical Number 3.
Sun never sets.
New Great Indian Rebellion supressed with atomic bombs.
Protector of Lisbon Treaty Alliance.
In Cold War with French-led Social Avantgardist Union.
_____________________
French Republic:
Current leader - President Charles Edouard Jeanneret-Gris.
State ideology - Social Avantgardism.
Totalitarian socialist technocratic dictatorship.
French-led Social Avantgardist Union - highly integrated confederacy, military and economical power Number One, undisputed hegemon of Eurasia.
In Cold War with British Empire.
_____________________
United States:
Economical power number 2, military power number 5 or 6.
Capitalist, liberal, more or less democratic, Civil Rights movements (nothing new here).
Neutral and isolationist most of the time (well, that's something new).
Not participated in both World Wars.
In secret alliance with British Empire - "Oswald Mosley may be a son of a b*tch, but he's our son of a b*tch."
_____________________
Italian Empire:
Current Leader - Prime Minister and Il Duce Benito Mussolini.
King of Italy, Emperor of Rome, Emperor of Abyssinia, King of Albania - Umberto II.
State ideology - Italian Fascism.
Theoretically - one of the Great Powers. Large army, vast empire. Practically on the edge of collapse and partition. Mussolini is old, weak, drunk, high and sick. Corruption, incompetence at all levels of the government, low moral of the armed forces.
Second Ethiopian War of 1959 was one big disaster and hardly won only with help from Fascist Israel.
_____________________
Fascist Republic of Germany (North Germany):
Ex-British occupation zone.
British puppet.
State ideology - British Fascism, slightly adapted version.
_____________________
South Germany - annexed to the France. German population deported and dispersed all over Eurasia.
_____________________
Empire of Japan.
The usual stuff - samurai, banzai, kempeitai and kamikaze but much smaller and humbler.
Ex-British ally. Today in alliance with France.
_____________________
Russian Republic (South Russia)
President - Alexis Gubarev.
State ideology - Social Avantgardism
Most loyal ally of France.
Power number 2 in the Social Avantgardist Union.
Totalitarian socialict technocratic dictatorship (much like France).
Enemy number 1 of North Russia.
_____________________
Novgorod Republic (North Russia)
State Ideology - Slavophilia and Pochvennichestvo.
British puppet.
Enemy number 1 of South Russia.
_____________________
Fascist State of Israel:
Joint creation of Mosley and Mussolini.
Right-wing theocratic dictatorship.
Miltary power number 1 in the Middle East (nothing new here).
Conquered ex-German Djibouti for the better access to the Ethiopian Jews.
Enemy mumber 1 of pro-French Jewish Republic.
_____________________
Jewish Republic.
Creation of Charles Jeanneret.
Asylum for European Jews.
Socialist dictatorship, highly secular.
Enemy number 1 of the Middle-Eastern Israel.
_____________________
Turkish Empire:
State ideology - Pan-Turkism.
Very sick man of Europe but still alive.
Practically British puppet. Protector of lesser Caucasian states.
_______________________
Qinghai-Sichuan Commune:
The only one communist state on Earth.
More or less Maoist.
_______________________
Warlordship of New Hubei:
Ex-pirate ex-Mahdist state.
Destroyed and depopulated by international military task force. Today resettled by Chinese.
_______________________
New Hessen, South Prussia, Wilhelmsland, Goldkuste:
Ex-German colonies.
Declared independence after Great War II.
Mostly apartheid states with German ruling elites, including refugees from Fascist Germany and French-occupied South Germany.
_______________________
Spanish Republic:
Most fanatical and radical member of Social Avantgardist Union.
_______________________
Parts of that seem unrealistic to me.
I have to agree.
I shudder at the thought.Le Corbusier as french leader ???
LOL
Don't even dare to imagine what he would have done to Paris, compared to what Hitler planned for Berlin/Germania.
The Duma guaranteed Polish autonomy post war at some point in 1916 and Dmowski (who led the largest party in Poland) was pretty strongly pro-Russian. It's not impossible that Poland becomes independent, but I think it would require Pilsudski to turn on the Austro-Germans and launch an independence bid (much as he did OTL) and I think it would require Russia to be distracted somehow. Even if Nicky dies before the guarantee of autonomy is made to Poland, I think it is still issued as it was pretty clear that Russia needed to change its stance on Poland. Keeping down the Poles (some of whom are pro-autonomy rather than pro-independence - at least until Russia shows it is in complete collapse) would be alot easier than fighting the Germans.
Lenin might get involved in the German revolution here.
Hmm.
I wonder if it would be possible to get a situation with a Communist Austro-Germany, an allied Communist Hungary and an allied Socialist West Poland under Pilsudski (East Poland being aligned or part of Russia under Dmowski).
fasquardon
Re whether Russia has revolutions or not--that depends on whether the regency, whoever runs it, continues the war as an Entente member or not. OTL the Provisional Government did, I take that as a strong indication that despite Russia's desperate condition re Germany, any regency would probably feel compelled to keep faith with France and Britain and hope their sacrifices and sufferings would be redeemed once the Western powers finally brought Germany down. As noted above, Russia was actually winning against the Austrians--and this despite extensive German help to them on their own fronts as well as the general distraction of victorious German offensives on the northern fronts--had Austria gone to war with Tsarist Russia alone, with no other allies getting sucked in, the Russians clearly would have mopped the floor with them. But victories against Austria-Hungary meant little with the Germans advancing toward St. Petersburg and gutting their holdings to the Ukraine and beyond in the middle.
So it would have been sensible for Russia to put up a white flag and cut her losses. Of course OTL the Provisional Government was encouraged by the American decision to enter the war; it meant as I said above, if only they could hold out, minimize further losses to Germany, hold the line in the south, when the Entente finally forced Germany to come to terms, surely a loyal Russia (especially one that now appeared to be on the more normal European spectrum of liberal republic or perhaps constitutional monarchy--the PG had not ruled out some sort of restoration of Tsardom) would not be forgotten, all losses to Germany restored, perhaps gains won against Austria-Hungary vindicated. The Bolsheviks found and published correspondence between the Entente members cataloging all the material gains of various kinds they hoped to win at CP expense, surely Russia would get some of what they asked for as the price of alliance?
Here it seems ol' Bloody Nicholas gets bloody for real earlier, when the US had not yet entered and there would be considerable doubt it ever would. Before US entry obviously the Entente clung to some hope of some sort of victory or they would not have held out as long as they did, but I'd think that these hopes justifying fighting on in France and in Britain included those who saw very little hope of net gain but hoped to prevent unacceptable loss--to force a basically victorious Germany to agree to status quo ante in some respects--such as say, not annexing more of France, or making claims on French or British colonies. In fact the Russians, as the weakest overall performer in the original Entente (Italy vied for the grand booby prize with them of course--the Russians at least could prevail against AH, but the Italians were losing to that same Hapsburg empire!) might well expect to be thrown under the bus in such a "white peace."
So a Regency, however rational or irrational, has some tough calls to make. Letting Alexandra have the real power of the Regency, ruling as Tsarina in effect, does seem out of bounds to me--she'd be taken aside and told in no uncertain terms to watch her step, and kept off-stage as much as possible. But perhaps to keep things simple she is nominally still the Regent, on paper? Even that might be dangerous since Russians had so little faith in her, and if in fact she is a puppet with her strings being pulled, it might be very ominously unclear who exactly is pulling those strings. I assume Rasputin, if the timing has him still lurking about, is hustled off stage one way or another, and if Alexandra is not the nominal Regent she might be encouraged to go sequester herself wherever her beloved mystic is banished to. (Unless they banish him by killing him--I don't think the execution of the former Tsar's consort and mother of the minor successor would be contemplated! Lock her up in isolation on some minor estate in the countryside, yes. Kill her--no).
So having handled the challenge of how to constitute itself, the Regency must settle the issue of whether Russia fights and bleeds on in the hope her allies will redeem the effort and loss thus far, or call it quits--which in a phase where the USA is not about to join up, would most likely trigger the collapse of the Entente in the west, thus seeming to vindicate the judgement of a defeatist Regency. And branding it traitorous to the defeated Entente of course.
Speculation here has mainly assumed the Regency would indeed quit. I think it goes too far in the magnitude of the victory Germany gets though. There is little reason to speculate that either Britain or France, let alone both, would be put in the position of Weimar Germany for instance. Central Power victories were all in Europe; there is no reason for either Britain or even France to lose any colonial territory, unless one or the other wants to offer to trade some for a better outcome in Europe. I doubt the Germans would want to annex a lot more French territory; Alsace-Lorraine already was choking them politically, with parties to the Reichstag dominated by a regionalist one followed by Social Democrats. France might pay mainly in the form of being disarmed, with restrictions on border forts, neutral zones, ceilings on army size and level of arms, naval restrictions, etc. Germany is in even less of a position to dictate to Britain which sits inviolate (though hungry thanks to U-boats and drained of men) across the Channel. In the west, I think the major outcome is that the war stops and Germany has the pride of being the winner. They won't be in a position to impose the sort of conqueror's peace that American backup gave the Entente OTL. In the East, the terms on which the Russian Regency concludes her surrender would similarly be somewhat restrained by constraints on the Germans--the idea is, the Russian offer to bow out is what gives them hope of victory in the West, and in pursuit of that hope I think they'd generously restrain themselves from ripping every potential spoil from Russia they might dream of. The terms in the east would be harsh but considering German potential to mop the floor with Russian forces, fair, and much less heavy than the terms of Brest-Litovst OTL. Russia may indeed be asked to surrender say Poland or some of the Baltics. But not Ukraine, not anything threatening St. Petersburg. Probably no reparations, and a restoration of the status quo ante in respect to Austria-Hungary. Maybe some arms restrictions on the borders, maybe some small reparations.
If Russia bows out like that and gets the sort of terms I think the Germans would settle for in order to win in the west, I suppose then that the perennial revolutionary crisis hanging over the Romanov regime at all times would slacken. Perhaps not immediately; the troops coming home have been radicalized to a degree already. But the regime, with half a brain (always something not to take for granted when dealing with Romanovs of course) can probably keep the predictable incidents from blowing up into full on revolutionary crisis.
How long it can last after that, as we pull back from a moment-to-moment perspective considering the tough decisions in the days after Nicholas's death to a longer view, is something that has to be gamed out in the context of the larger postwar world. It would be my guess that revolutionary insurgencies remain popular enough that some sort of organized revolutionary underground or other will plague any Romanov regime, whatever form it takes. Sooner or later there will be another crisis and then it might fall to revolution of some sort of reddish tinge or other. Maybe not until the ATL version of the Great Depression though (yes, I figure if the world keeps a basically capitalist system, some version of that crisis will be bound to happen sometime between the mid-20s and mid-30s, though it may take variant forms such as two crises, with weak or no visible recovery between them for instance). Maybe the monarchy, perhaps in liberalized form, or perhaps precisely because it refuses to take liberal form, who knows, might ride out all these crises and remain to this day. (But not without being challenged a lot, and I think they'd have to either be very lucky or very smart and change the form of Tsarism a lot to jump all these hurdles).
Now let us consider the other alternative! Suppose that the Regency decides, as the Provisional Government did OTL, that their best bet, risky and painful though it is, is still to keep faith with the western Entente and hope for their fair reward when Germany is brought to terms at last. If Germany is losing, despite being able to loot Russia, and Russians remain staunch in their alliance to the West, then even the German success in seizing territory cannot guarantee they get to keep that territory. I fear that if in fact Russia under a pro-Entente regime had stuck it out and been present at Versailles as a victor, they would have been screwed over, getting little of what is extorted from the Central Powers.
But before that can even happen, assuming that the USA joins up on schedule and becomes the decisive factor in breaking German power, the Regency has to survive to victory.
I credit the Regency with the possibility it can evade revolution if they throw in the towel and accept peace terms from Germany early on. If they do not, woe betide them! There is then no reason to think that Russian forces will perform better--no reason to think they will do worse either, but changing the war leadership around did not seem to make much difference OTL and will make little here. Russia will suffer as OTL, with or without Nicholas to look up to or to blame. Their objective situation is unchanged, and so the conditions of "February" (by Julian calendar--in Gregorian calendars both OTL 1917 Revolutions happened the next month) ought still to prevail, not changed in substance. In detail they might be, the flash point might come a little earlier or later, the exit circumstances being different.
But, here is a misconception I cannot point out enough is wrong, what Kerensky, or the other gentlemen of the OTL Provisional Government, might have thought differently if they were dealing with a Regency instead of Nicholas II, is quite beside the point. These gentlemen did not make the February revolution. The collapse of Tsarist authority was not brought about them, nor even the hard-line radical organized parties. It began spontaneously, and accomplished the elimination of Tsarist authority, without any guiding genius. It was a mass referendum of the Russian people, particularly the people of St. Petersburg but then ratified by mass rising all across the Empire. And there is no reason to think these unorganized masses would have acted differently if it were not Nicholas but some Regency running things, if that Regency would have acted to create the same objective conditions on the same timetable. And given the decision to go on at war in the Entente, those objective conditions were inevitable.
Given the character of the February rising, it also seems inevitable that the PG, in much the same form as OTL, would jump up and pretend to be running things as they did here. If anything, the variable of a different Tsar might only underscore the fundamentally reactionary nature of the PG, causing them to coalesce around their initial inclination to champion a new Tsar, with or without reforms, rather than bow to the evident mob mood against any Romanov whatsoever. In that case Kerensky would perhaps not even be the face of this gang, with some Prince being put up in his place. This might merely accelerate the developments of OTL March-September and an equivalent of the October Revolution happen even earlier. More likely, things go as OTL and it happens in the autumn.
So for this POD to be effective, I think it must mean that the Russian leadership takes Nicholas's death as the sign that it is time to get out of the war before their situation deteriorates even further. It is hardly inevitable they do that, but if they don't we can predict events proceeding much as OTL with the Romanov regime annihilated by 1918. If they quit, there still might be revolutionary crises and perhaps an end to the monarchy by other paths, or perhaps it survives in some form.
So it would have been sensible for Russia to put up a white flag and cut her losses. Of course OTL the Provisional Government was encouraged by the American decision to enter the war; it meant as I said above, if only they could hold out, minimize further losses to Germany, hold the line in the south, when the Entente finally forced Germany to come to terms, surely a loyal Russia (especially one that now appeared to be on the more normal European spectrum of liberal republic or perhaps constitutional monarchy--the PG had not ruled out some sort of restoration of Tsardom) would not be forgotten, all losses to Germany restored, perhaps gains won against Austria-Hungary vindicated. The Bolsheviks found and published correspondence between the Entente members cataloging all the material gains of various kinds they hoped to win at CP expense, surely Russia would get some of what they asked for as the price of alliance?
Here it seems ol' Bloody Nicholas gets bloody for real earlier, when the US had not yet entered and there would be considerable doubt it ever would. Before US entry obviously the Entente clung to some hope of some sort of victory or they would not have held out as long as they did, but I'd think that these hopes justifying fighting on in France and in Britain included those who saw very little hope of net gain but hoped to prevent unacceptable loss--to force a basically victorious Germany to agree to status quo ante in some respects--such as say, not annexing more of France, or making claims on French or British colonies. In fact the Russians, as the weakest overall performer in the original Entente (Italy vied for the grand booby prize with them of course--the Russians at least could prevail against AH, but the Italians were losing to that same Hapsburg empire!) might well expect to be thrown under the bus in such a "white peace."
So a Regency, however rational or irrational, has some tough calls to make. Letting Alexandra have the real power of the Regency, ruling as Tsarina in effect, does seem out of bounds to me--she'd be taken aside and told in no uncertain terms to watch her step, and kept off-stage as much as possible. But perhaps to keep things simple she is nominally still the Regent, on paper? Even that might be dangerous since Russians had so little faith in her, and if in fact she is a puppet with her strings being pulled, it might be very ominously unclear who exactly is pulling those strings. I assume Rasputin, if the timing has him still lurking about, is hustled off stage one way or another, and if Alexandra is not the nominal Regent she might be encouraged to go sequester herself wherever her beloved mystic is banished to. (Unless they banish him by killing him--I don't think the execution of the former Tsar's consort and mother of the minor successor would be contemplated! Lock her up in isolation on some minor estate in the countryside, yes. Kill her--no).
So having handled the challenge of how to constitute itself, the Regency must settle the issue of whether Russia fights and bleeds on in the hope her allies will redeem the effort and loss thus far, or call it quits--which in a phase where the USA is not about to join up, would most likely trigger the collapse of the Entente in the west, thus seeming to vindicate the judgement of a defeatist Regency. And branding it traitorous to the defeated Entente of course.
Speculation here has mainly assumed the Regency would indeed quit. I think it goes too far in the magnitude of the victory Germany gets though. There is little reason to speculate that either Britain or France, let alone both, would be put in the position of Weimar Germany for instance. Central Power victories were all in Europe; there is no reason for either Britain or even France to lose any colonial territory, unless one or the other wants to offer to trade some for a better outcome in Europe. I doubt the Germans would want to annex a lot more French territory; Alsace-Lorraine already was choking them politically, with parties to the Reichstag dominated by a regionalist one followed by Social Democrats. France might pay mainly in the form of being disarmed, with restrictions on border forts, neutral zones, ceilings on army size and level of arms, naval restrictions, etc. Germany is in even less of a position to dictate to Britain which sits inviolate (though hungry thanks to U-boats and drained of men) across the Channel. In the west, I think the major outcome is that the war stops and Germany has the pride of being the winner. They won't be in a position to impose the sort of conqueror's peace that American backup gave the Entente OTL. In the East, the terms on which the Russian Regency concludes her surrender would similarly be somewhat restrained by constraints on the Germans--the idea is, the Russian offer to bow out is what gives them hope of victory in the West, and in pursuit of that hope I think they'd generously restrain themselves from ripping every potential spoil from Russia they might dream of. The terms in the east would be harsh but considering German potential to mop the floor with Russian forces, fair, and much less heavy than the terms of Brest-Litovst OTL. Russia may indeed be asked to surrender say Poland or some of the Baltics. But not Ukraine, not anything threatening St. Petersburg. Probably no reparations, and a restoration of the status quo ante in respect to Austria-Hungary. Maybe some arms restrictions on the borders, maybe some small reparations.
If Russia bows out like that and gets the sort of terms I think the Germans would settle for in order to win in the west, I suppose then that the perennial revolutionary crisis hanging over the Romanov regime at all times would slacken. Perhaps not immediately; the troops coming home have been radicalized to a degree already. But the regime, with half a brain (always something not to take for granted when dealing with Romanovs of course) can probably keep the predictable incidents from blowing up into full on revolutionary crisis.
How long it can last after that, as we pull back from a moment-to-moment perspective considering the tough decisions in the days after Nicholas's death to a longer view, is something that has to be gamed out in the context of the larger postwar world. It would be my guess that revolutionary insurgencies remain popular enough that some sort of organized revolutionary underground or other will plague any Romanov regime, whatever form it takes. Sooner or later there will be another crisis and then it might fall to revolution of some sort of reddish tinge or other. Maybe not until the ATL version of the Great Depression though (yes, I figure if the world keeps a basically capitalist system, some version of that crisis will be bound to happen sometime between the mid-20s and mid-30s, though it may take variant forms such as two crises, with weak or no visible recovery between them for instance). Maybe the monarchy, perhaps in liberalized form, or perhaps precisely because it refuses to take liberal form, who knows, might ride out all these crises and remain to this day. (But not without being challenged a lot, and I think they'd have to either be very lucky or very smart and change the form of Tsarism a lot to jump all these hurdles).
Now let us consider the other alternative! Suppose that the Regency decides, as the Provisional Government did OTL, that their best bet, risky and painful though it is, is still to keep faith with the western Entente and hope for their fair reward when Germany is brought to terms at last. If Germany is losing, despite being able to loot Russia, and Russians remain staunch in their alliance to the West, then even the German success in seizing territory cannot guarantee they get to keep that territory. I fear that if in fact Russia under a pro-Entente regime had stuck it out and been present at Versailles as a victor, they would have been screwed over, getting little of what is extorted from the Central Powers.
But before that can even happen, assuming that the USA joins up on schedule and becomes the decisive factor in breaking German power, the Regency has to survive to victory.
I credit the Regency with the possibility it can evade revolution if they throw in the towel and accept peace terms from Germany early on. If they do not, woe betide them! There is then no reason to think that Russian forces will perform better--no reason to think they will do worse either, but changing the war leadership around did not seem to make much difference OTL and will make little here. Russia will suffer as OTL, with or without Nicholas to look up to or to blame. Their objective situation is unchanged, and so the conditions of "February" (by Julian calendar--in Gregorian calendars both OTL 1917 Revolutions happened the next month) ought still to prevail, not changed in substance. In detail they might be, the flash point might come a little earlier or later, the exit circumstances being different.
But, here is a misconception I cannot point out enough is wrong, what Kerensky, or the other gentlemen of the OTL Provisional Government, might have thought differently if they were dealing with a Regency instead of Nicholas II, is quite beside the point. These gentlemen did not make the February revolution. The collapse of Tsarist authority was not brought about them, nor even the hard-line radical organized parties. It began spontaneously, and accomplished the elimination of Tsarist authority, without any guiding genius. It was a mass referendum of the Russian people, particularly the people of St. Petersburg but then ratified by mass rising all across the Empire. And there is no reason to think these unorganized masses would have acted differently if it were not Nicholas but some Regency running things, if that Regency would have acted to create the same objective conditions on the same timetable. And given the decision to go on at war in the Entente, those objective conditions were inevitable.
Given the character of the February rising, it also seems inevitable that the PG, in much the same form as OTL, would jump up and pretend to be running things as they did here. If anything, the variable of a different Tsar might only underscore the fundamentally reactionary nature of the PG, causing them to coalesce around their initial inclination to champion a new Tsar, with or without reforms, rather than bow to the evident mob mood against any Romanov whatsoever. In that case Kerensky would perhaps not even be the face of this gang, with some Prince being put up in his place. This might merely accelerate the developments of OTL March-September and an equivalent of the October Revolution happen even earlier. More likely, things go as OTL and it happens in the autumn.
So for this POD to be effective, I think it must mean that the Russian leadership takes Nicholas's death as the sign that it is time to get out of the war before their situation deteriorates even further. It is hardly inevitable they do that, but if they don't we can predict events proceeding much as OTL with the Romanov regime annihilated by 1918. If they quit, there still might be revolutionary crises and perhaps an end to the monarchy by other paths, or perhaps it survives in some form.
If it's in 1917, the bleep has already hit the fan. Let's say October 1916.
The effects will be mixed. I see three impacts.
1) The Tsar has died for the country. This will revive patriotism and restore some of the damaged prestige of the monarchy.
2) Alexandra will be displaced from authority. Tsesarevich Alexei becomes Tsar, but there will be a regency for the sickly boy, and it won't be her. This will end the damaging influence of her and Rasputin on the government, and may restore some of the government's credit.
But 3) The Tsar is gone, and the boy and the regent don't constitute an authority figure. It was one thing to depose the Tsar, the anointed-by-tradition ruler himself; a difficult step. But Alexei is just a hapless figurehead and the regent just an intriguing courtier; tossing them out is much less emotionally difficult. For one thing, if the monarchy is preserved, Alexei is going succeed eventually, bringing Alexandra and Rasputin right back into the government. (Rasputin isn't dead yet.)
I think that the February Revolution would be delayed by 1 and 2, while the dissidents evaluate the regent and see how the new regime goes. But unless the regency really improves things, 3 comes into play and the monarchy falls.
I think that death of Nicolas II will have far reaching consequence for WW1
If he dies end 1916 on frontline, it could trow Tsar Russia into Chaos with immediate revolution, hampering succession on throne for Alexander.
The Russian Government (or Tsar Loyalist) would in that case demand from Germany Empire a cease-fire, to get Russian troops back to gain control over situation at home.
With 1917 Spring time offensive of Entente ended in fiasco, they gain 6–7 kilometres (3.7–4.3 mi) with over 187,000 soldier killed by German Army
It let to rebellion in French and Russian troops at west front against there Generals special against "meat grinder" Robert George Nivelle.
with extra troop coming from East front the German Army has realistic chance to brake true Entente front line direction Paris
But if German Army manage to reach Paris and conquer it, is another question...
If he dies end 1916 on frontline, it could trow Tsar Russia into Chaos with immediate revolution, hampering succession on throne for Alexander.
The Russian Government (or Tsar Loyalist) would in that case demand from Germany Empire a cease-fire, to get Russian troops back to gain control over situation at home.
With 1917 Spring time offensive of Entente ended in fiasco, they gain 6–7 kilometres (3.7–4.3 mi) with over 187,000 soldier killed by German Army
It let to rebellion in French and Russian troops at west front against there Generals special against "meat grinder" Robert George Nivelle.
with extra troop coming from East front the German Army has realistic chance to brake true Entente front line direction Paris
But if German Army manage to reach Paris and conquer it, is another question...
nico223
Banned
no
armed soldiers go to their homes after peace and overthrow any government which does not give them the land
therefore, the government of Kerensky had not ended the war .The land could be taken away from the owners only the Bolsheviks