what if Nicholas the II survives Russian civil war

As I wrote here a few months ago:

I have never seen a less important question (politically [1]) get so much attention as that of the fate of the Romanovs after their overthrow.

Russian conservatives had little use for the Romanovs by 1917-18. In fact, not one of the White leaders proclaimed restoration of the monarchy as a political objective. (Their official line was always that the question of whether Russia would be a monarchy or republic would have to be settled in the future by a Constituent Assembly. As Denikin wrote in 1918, "If I raise the republican flag I will lose one half [of the Volunteers] and if I raise the monarchist flag--the other half will leave me.") It was precisely the fact of the murder of the Imperial Family by the Bolsheviks that made the Romanovs heroes to the Whites.

As I have suggested before: If the Bolshevik leaders were smart, they would allow--or rather force--Nicholas to flee abroad and then claim that he (along with foreign governments) was masterminding every anti-Bolshevik movement in Russia (including Left SRs and Anarchists) and for that matter all oppositionist movements within the Bolshevik party...

[1] Not of course that I don't recognize the human tragedy. To quote the émigré poet Georgii Ivanov:

Emalevyi krestik v petlitse
I seroi tuzhurki sukno…
Kakie pechal’nye litsa
I kak eto bylo davno.

Kakie prekrasnye litsa
I kak beznadezhno bledny –
Naslednik, imperatritsa,
Chetyre velikikh kniazhny…

Not-quite-literal translation, quoted from memory from Markov and Sparks, *Modern Russian Poetry*:

Enameled cross in the buttonhole,
The grey fabric of his coat,
How very sad the faces,
And the era--how remote.

What lovely faces, and yet how pale
In utter hopelessness-–
The Tsarevich, the Empress,
The four Grand Duchesses…
 
It wouldn't have much, if any, impact on Russia. By the time of Nicolas II's death pretty much no one liked him, and he'd already renounced the throne. Realistically he stays out of politics and lives a quiet life in the English countryside. Alexei could claim the title of Tsar, but Nicolas had abdicated on his behalf. While it's unclear if that was legal this decision, alongside Alexei's hemophilia, gives plenty of opportunities for other pretenders to sideline him. Although at any rate Alexei would probably die before having children, given that the average lifespan of a person with hemophilia at the time was less than 20 years old.
 
In a timeline that I have doodled, the alt British monarch allows the Romanovs to claim exile in the United Kingdom and essentially hand them the Isle of Wight as their own private fiefdom. Years later when Soviet Russia has built up confidence, they demand that the British hand over Nicholas and his wife to face war crimes and given that this will essentially see them face execution, the British government refuses and the Russians invade (and occupy for several years) the Isle of Wight.

The Russian Court in Exile flees to the mainland but ultimately the British hand Nicholas and his wife over to the Soviets whilst the other members of the court are forces to publically denounce their claims to the Russian Imperial throne.

Nicholas and his wife are executed. Little Russia becomes Little Soviet Russia until the Soviets eventually withdraw following the execution. They hold it until then in case the British try to interfere in the mock War Crimes trial.
 
Bit silly this.

But based on actual events that I had seen mentioned in a handful of documentaries - admittedly the idea to hand them the Isle of Wight (and I mean that in the loosest sense, in that they were given Osborne House as their main residence and that there were no other nobles of note on the island, so it was host to the Russian Court in Exile) was to provide a parallel to the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands in the alternative timeline I was pondering.

http://www.theromanovfamily.com/romanov-family-british-cousins-offer-of-asylum/
 
In a timeline that I have doodled, the alt British monarch allows the Romanovs to claim exile in the United Kingdom and essentially hand them the Isle of Wight as their own private fiefdom. Years later when Soviet Russia has built up confidence, they demand that the British hand over Nicholas and his wife to face war crimes and given that this will essentially see them face execution, the British government refuses and the Russians invade (and occupy for several years) the Isle of Wight.

So what was the Royal Navy doing during all this? Drinking Lead paint out of the can?
 
In my own penciled alteration I have the possibility for a neutral Britain, in that event I think the Czar stands a better chance getting asylum if he can escape. I am not entirely certain why the British refused him sanctuary or if they would stubbornly refuse him since they took other émigré "White" Russians. My scenario has the civil war still a real possibility and even if it settles out as a republic my thinking is it looks like the Weimar, pro-monarchists abound but no real push to restore the Czar, maybe the monarchy generally as a symbol. Here I tease with the idea of the Czar ending up in Holland rather than Wilhelm. And I wonder if Germany would take the Czar if he fled overland to them. I like to think Wilhelm would prefer the Czar in exile and his family alive than murdered in a revolution. It is a question mark for my surviving Imperial Germany.
 
I wouldn't discount Nicky's importance.

Nicky was discredited, but so long as he lived, he was a symbol of the ancien regime and could appoint a legitimate successor. He did this in OTL, but it was like all things Nicky did in the last twelve years of his life - ill-timed. Suppose Nicky digs in and does not abdicate in favor of anyone and instead flees and lives out in exile somewhere and manages to survive the assassins the Bolsheviks would send en masse? Yes, the Bolsheviks gain a short term victory in painting all those who oppose them as wanting Nicky back, and yes, Nicky being Nicky will no doubt spout off about how he is waiting to return. But let's not brush over such things as the Bolsheviks being collosal heavy handed pricks capable of making a lot of people hate them and how the rosy prism of nostalgia makes people long for the good ole' days that were actually awful when confronted with setbacks.

The real time for Nicky to shine would not have been during the Civil War, which would go either way, but let's suppose the Bolsheviks do manage to eke out a win because their opponents are still their opponents and master-class-blunderers such as Yudenich are given armies when they should not have been allowed to lead battalions.

The post-Civil War Soviet Union is a pariah state fermenting world wide rebellion and led by undomesticated zealots, and Lenin, who has a clue, but still has to rely on getting things done via a political leadership that is aces at smuggling his newspapers and speeches in their underwear across various European borders but not that good at actual administration beyond exercising theories gleaned from very thick books of very crazed Germans.

How good does Nicky look then as the Tsar Across the Water? The opposition would be fractured and the Socialist Revolutionaries and Constitutional Democrats would be at each other throats and write long articles full of Latin and French quotes on how Nicky is wrong for Russia, but at gut level, how many Russians would follow someone who has lawful legitimacy of a 300 year dynastic reign?

How would the Cossacks and the peasants react when told of a possibility of the Tsar the Good Father coming back?

Now, granted, Nicky could still screw it up. Would still probably screw it up. But let's not write him off as a non-factor. Plenty of men and women would have died for him, and did die for him, as a symbol of ancien regime.
 
In a timeline that I have doodled, the alt British monarch allows the Romanovs to claim exile in the United Kingdom and essentially hand them the Isle of Wight as their own private fiefdom. Years later when Soviet Russia has built up confidence, they demand that the British hand over Nicholas and his wife to face war crimes and given that this will essentially see them face execution, the British government refuses and the Russians invade (and occupy for several years) the Isle of Wight.

The Russian Court in Exile flees to the mainland but ultimately the British hand Nicholas and his wife over to the Soviets whilst the other members of the court are forces to publically denounce their claims to the Russian Imperial throne.

Nicholas and his wife are executed. Little Russia becomes Little Soviet Russia until the Soviets eventually withdraw following the execution. They hold it until then in case the British try to interfere in the mock War Crimes trial.
So there's a lot wrong with this:

1. So you clarify that you just mean the British giving the Royal Family Osbourne House, so I'm not going to go into the impossibility of the Isle of Wight being taken over by Nicolas II. However, there's no reason that it would become the Russian Court in Exile. As I outlined above Nicolas is already out of the game, and Alexei in all probability is out as well. Realistically, it would be private property for private citizens.

2. The Russians aren't going to go to war over the Romanovs. The only time that Russia would be in a position to even attempt something like this would be post-WWII, but at that point attacking Britain would mean declaring war on the US as well and starting WWIII. Given that the Soviet Union didn't start WWIII over the Berlin blockade being broken, the US blockade in Cuba during the Missile Crisis, or other major events why would they start it over a group of completely irrelevant people?

3. The Russians can't capture and hold the Isle of Wight. After the war the British had the second-largest navy in the world, and the largest navy in the world was their ally the US. Meanwhile the Soviet Navy in 1945 was not that great for a major power. They had no aircraft carriers and only a couple of battleships. Much like Operation Sealion the Royal Navy would have sunk the Soviet troops who were trying to land, and those that made it to the island would swiftly find themselves completely cut off. Now, by the late 1950s the Soviets had surpassed the Royal Navy. But again, nuclear war would have broken out had the Russians tried this.
 
I wouldn't discount Nicky's importance.

Nicky was discredited, but so long as he lived, he was a symbol of the ancien regime and could appoint a legitimate successor. He did this in OTL, but it was like all things Nicky did in the last twelve years of his life - ill-timed. Suppose Nicky digs in and does not abdicate in favor of anyone and instead flees and lives out in exile somewhere and manages to survive the assassins the Bolsheviks would send en masse? Yes, the Bolsheviks gain a short term victory in painting all those who oppose them as wanting Nicky back, and yes, Nicky being Nicky will no doubt spout off about how he is waiting to return. But let's not brush over such things as the Bolsheviks being collosal heavy handed pricks capable of making a lot of people hate them and how the rosy prism of nostalgia makes people long for the good ole' days that were actually awful when confronted with setbacks.

The real time for Nicky to shine would not have been during the Civil War, which would go either way, but let's suppose the Bolsheviks do manage to eke out a win because their opponents are still their opponents and master-class-blunderers such as Yudenich are given armies when they should not have been allowed to lead battalions.

The post-Civil War Soviet Union is a pariah state fermenting world wide rebellion and led by undomesticated zealots, and Lenin, who has a clue, but still has to rely on getting things done via a political leadership that is aces at smuggling his newspapers and speeches in their underwear across various European borders but not that good at actual administration beyond exercising theories gleaned from very thick books of very crazed Germans.

How good does Nicky look then as the Tsar Across the Water? The opposition would be fractured and the Socialist Revolutionaries and Constitutional Democrats would be at each other throats and write long articles full of Latin and French quotes on how Nicky is wrong for Russia, but at gut level, how many Russians would follow someone who has lawful legitimacy of a 300 year dynastic reign?

How would the Cossacks and the peasants react when told of a possibility of the Tsar the Good Father coming back?

Now, granted, Nicky could still screw it up. Would still probably screw it up. But let's not write him off as a non-factor. Plenty of men and women would have died for him, and did die for him, as a symbol of ancien regime.
He couldn't flee, because most of his family had measles. In particular, his daughter Maria's measles developed into double-lung pneumonia. Travelling would have meant abandoning his family, and Nicolas would never have done that. Furthermore, he wouldn't be able to get asylum in another country. The British for instance didn't give him asylum IOTL, and they certainly aren't going to do so if he's still claiming to be Tsar. There's nowhere internally he can flee, because he doesn't have any supporters.

As to how popular he would be, we can look at how the other pretenders to the throne faired. There was pretty much no popular will for them to come back. In fact, the White emigrees suffered from the perception that they were going to bring Tsarism back. Granted, Nicolas does have more legitimacy than the other pretenders, but being more legitimate isn't enough to overcome the anti-monarchist sentiment that existed in Russia. But let's for a moment assume that Nicolas is popular enough to not be immediately ignored. There's still no chance of a monarchist revolt succeeding. After the civil war ended the Soviets were firmly in control, and the revolts and insurgent organizations that occurred prior to WWII were small and put down without much trouble (and after WWII the only insurgent groups of any note were nationalists who wanted independence from Russia). The only time anti-Soviet forces had a chance of bringing down the USSR was in their collaboration with the Nazis in WWII. But the Nazis never planned to restore the Tsar, or give the Russians any self-government.
 
Stalin killed Trotsky. He could certainly kill Alexei.

Then I am curious the fallout over killing a Czar or the young Alexei. Assassinating Trotsky is rather like a gangland killing, sensational but no one cries, killing a deposed Monarch or an innocent youth looks more barbaric and disturbing. Would it further isolate Stalin's regime?
 
Top