WI: Grand Duke Michael became the Russian Tsar in 1917?

[Will Marshall]

After Nicholas II abdicated the throne in 1917 for himself and behalf of his son Alexei, the throne was offered to Nicholas's younger brother, Grand Duke Michael. Michael was considered kind, and he was humble, not power-hungry. He was described by one British ambassador (whose name escapes me) as an ideal constitutional monarch.

So what if Grand Duke Michael, rather than refusing the Russian throne in February-March 1917, took on the throne and was crowned Tsar Michael II of Russia? Would he have recognized that the war with the Central Powers was a dead end and serving only to inflame Russian socialist revolutionaries, something the Provisional Government OTL refused to pay much attention to? If Russia under Michael made peace early, peace terms would have been nowhere near as harsh as they were in OTL's Brest-Litovsk treaty. Or perhaps he could appoint competent generals and Russia would make territorial gains and reinvigorate the Russian people with the morale boost this would bring?

If he exited the war some time in 1917, German peace terms, while harsh, would still allow Russia to keep most of Ukraine and maybe Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and parts of Poland. Not only would this quell the threat of a Bolshevik revolution (a big part of the Bolsheviks' attraction was their opposition to the war, and their supporters were largely soldiers, as Russia's proletarian class was small). Perhaps not fighting Russia and not having to control much territory would free up enough German troops to win at the Western Front (or at least extend the war considerably and hold out against the Americans for some time), while allowing Austria-Hungary to focus their efforts on Italy?

If they don't exit the war, but instead competent generals are appointed and Russia starts winning on the front, what are the implications of this? Do the Bolsheviks still get the support they did? Or do victories on the front give the Russian populace the morale boost they need to fight until the war's conclusion? Would the combined Russian and American troops fighting CP on two fronts with the Entente make the difference?

And even further than that, what would the implications be for the years after the war? What happens to Russia under a constitutional monarchy? Does Russia still have a Communist revolution? Is Russia able to industrialize and modernize in time for the next great war? What would the circumstances for the Second World War be?

 

[Keb]

So what if Grand Duke Michael, rather than refusing the Russian throne in February-March 1917, took on the throne and was crowned Tsar Michael II of Russia? Would he have recognized that the war with the Central Powers was a dead end and serving only to inflame Russian socialist revolutionaries, something the Provisional Government OTL refused to pay much attention to? If Russia under Michael made peace early, peace terms would have been nowhere near as harsh as they were in OTL's Brest-Litovsk treaty.

,

Even the initial German proposal going into the negotiations wasn't as bad as OTL Brest-Litovsk. It was, IIRC, the independence of Congress Poland, the Baltic states and, I think, Finland. Heavy losses, but not catastrophic ... and they'd rid the Russians of troublesome minorities (looking at Poland primarily, here).

It was only after the Russian (Red Russian) delegation walked out, deciding to call the German bluff ... only to find out the Germans weren't bluffing and their armies continued to advance, that the OTL Brest-Litovsk was imposed, as the Russians figured out they really didn't have a choice and the Germans were pretty pissed at having to keep their armies in the East when they could've been deployed to the West Front.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

...If he exited the war some time in 1917, German peace terms, while harsh, would still allow Russia to keep most of Ukraine and maybe Belarus, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and parts of Poland...

I'm not sure that's the case, IIRC the Germans wanted an independant Ukraine to secure it's grain supplies due to the economic situation in Germany. IMHO, if the Russians are defeated and the Germans don't take Ukraine, the treaty would stipulate pretty harsh provisions for supplies of foodstuffs to the Germans to continue their War. Would, if the new Tsar agreed to these terms, Russian public opinion support this kind of peace?

 

[Daedwartin]

I'm not sure that's the case, IIRC the Germans wanted an independant Ukraine to secure it's grain supplies due to the economic situation in Germany. IMHO, if the Russians are defeated and the Germans don't take Ukraine, the treaty would stipulate pretty harsh provisions for supplies of foodstuffs to the Germans to continue their War. Would, if the new Tsar agreed to these terms, Russian public opinion support this kind of peace?

Perhaps the Tsar could get Germany to offer buying the grain on some sort of lend-lease?

 

[teg]

Michael was apparently even stupider than Nicholas, so I don't think things would change that much. On the other hand, the new tsar might be sufficiently insecure that someone with a reasonable amount of common sense and understanding of what was going on at the front, like Brusilov, manages to muscle their way into power and negotiate a peace with the Germans. More likely all that happens is that the Provisional Government lasts even less time than in OTL.

teg

 

[Will Marshall]

Michael was apparently even stupider than Nicholas, so I don't think things would change that much. On the other hand, the new tsar might be sufficiently insecure that someone with a reasonable amount of common sense and understanding of what was going on at the front, like Brusilov, manages to muscle their way into power and negotiate a peace with the Germans. More likely all that happens is that the Provisional Government lasts even less time than in OTL.

teg

It wasn't that Michael was stupid necessarily, he was just naive in many respects. However, he was a popular leader and, assuming he became a constitutional monarch (which is likely, given that he'd only take power if he accepted it after the February Revolution), it wouldn't even be up to him to make these kinds of decisions.

 

[Thoresby]

On your final suggestion of a new Tsar changing the leadership of the army and improving it's performance that's not the problem. While Russia had done fairly duff General's in 1914 by 1917 most had been weeded out and you had fairly competent types like Brusilov running the show. The Russians problem was that they lacked the depth of trained experienced pre-war staff and mid-ranking officers to actually coordinate their forces, plus their massive economic issues. While 20/20 hindsight could improve the performance of the Russian Army as with the Hapsburg Army there is a fairly low ceiling. Bluntly the Western powers could turn pre-war managers into staff officers without too much difficulty, the difference between supplying an army with boots and a power plant with coal isn't that great. The Russians were drawing from a illiterate peasant society.

 

[Cregan]

For the Provisional Government - with or without a new Tsar - to survive it needs to make peace with the CPs. If Grand Duke Michael makes an early peace with Germany, ceding the independence of Congress Poland and the Baltic States (with some territory in Belarus and Ukraine lost), but holding onto most of the rest of Ukraine and Belarus at the cost of grain exports to Germany, the Provisional Government gains much needed breathing space to survive and begin reforming the country.

 

[DrakonFin]

For the Provisional Government - with or without a new Tsar - to survive it needs to make peace with the CPs. If Grand Duke Michael makes an early peace with Germany, ceding the independence of Congress Poland, the Baltic States, and Finland, but holding onto most of Ukraine and Belarus at the cost of grain exports to Germany, the Provisional Government gains much needed breathing space to survive and begin reforming the country.

There is nothing in an early peace that would lead to Finnish independence. As long as there is a Tsar in Petrograd, the Finns likely will not declare independence (that was IOTL due to the perceived "personal union" of Russia and Finland breaking down as there was no longer a Tsar in late 1917). There would not be German troops in Finland, and prior to early 1918 not really Finnish troops either. As long as the Russian troops in Finland stay even somewhat functional, they are the only realistic fighting force in the Grand Duchy. Really, in an early peace Germany would have no leg to stand on for demanding Finland being detached from Russia and possibly would not even bring the idea to the table. Even at Brest-Litovsk IOTL the Germans were only ready to officially support Finnish independence after the Svinhufvud Senate had secured recognition from Lenin et al. for Finland in early January 1918.

 

[Cregan]

There is nothing in an early peace that would lead to Finnish independence. As long as there is a Tsar in Petrograd, the Finns likely will not declare independence (that was IOTL due to the perceived "personal union" of Russia and Finland breaking down as there was no longer a Tsar in late 1917). There would not be German troops in Finland, and prior to early 1918 not really Finnish troops either. As long as the Russian troops in Finland stay even somewhat functional, they are the only realistic fighting force in the Grand Duchy. Really, in an early peace Germany would have no leg to stand on for demanding Finland being detached from Russia and possibly would not even bring the idea to the table. Even at Brest-Litovsk IOTL the Germans were only ready to officially support Finnish independence after the Svinhufvud Senate had secured recognition from Lenin et al. for Finland in early January 1918.

Ah my bad. Was just basing my thoughts on the BL treaty. Edited accordingly. The Grand Duchy of Finland remaining part of Russia puts the Provisional Government in an even better position - provided they make peace early.

 

[David T]

To quote an old post of mine:

Two problems with this scenario [Michael accepts the throne and makes peace]: (1) The workers and soldiers who overthrew the Tsar did not do so just to have a new Tsar. Even if the moderate socialist parties were willing to accept Michael, it does not follow that the Petrograd workers and soldiers would--instead the effect might be to drive the crowd into Bolshevik and other far-left hands and have an "October" several months early. (2) Milyukov's, Guchkov's, etc. biggest complaint about Nicholas was that he was not winning a war that they thought was still winnable. It is very unlikely that they would accept German peace terms. They might reluctantly accept a genuinely independent Poland--though it is noteworthy that in OTL even when the Provisional Government recognized the independence of Poland in the spring it added the significant proviso that Poland would be "attached to Russia by a free military union." But a German-controlled Poland, Courland, etc.? This would not be acceptable to any plausible Russian government in the spring of 1917. To say that these territories were *already* occupied by the Germans is to miss at least two points. First, Milyukov, Guchkov, etc. definitely did not accept the military/territorial status quo as of early 1917 as acceptable; to them, regaining the lost territories was precisely why the old Tsar had to go. (And that this could be done seemed plausible. Few people in Russia or elsewhere realized just how desperate the position of the Western Allies was in spring 1917. And of course the Russian army had not been weakened to the extent it was in OTL by summer 1917--yet despite this weakness the PG decided on an offensive, not on making peace with the Germans.) Second, a separate peace, it was thought, would be sure to lead to a German victory. (This does not conflict with what I just said about the weakness of the Western Allies being insufficiently recognized. It was thought that they could win--*but only if Russia stayed in the war.*) And once Germany was the master of Europe, why expect it to stand by any limits it had agreed to in the peace treaty?

In short, a "Brest-Litovsk"--even with less severe terms--was not really an option for either the OTL PG or a monarchy headed by Michael (with many of the same ministers as the OTL PG) in spring 1917. In particular, the socialist parties--not just the defensists but the Menshevik Internationalists and even the Bolsheviks!--would be the first to scream "treason!" and "sell-out to German imperialism!" (The Bolsheviks would explain that of course they favored peace--but only with the "German workers and soldiers", not the Kaiser, whom the German masses would already have overthrown if the Russian Revolution had not been betrayed...) In OTL, Sukhanov, a left-wing "Zimmerwaldist" Menshevik wrote with regret that "During the first weeks the soldiers of Petrograd not only would not listen, but would not permit any talk of peace. They were ready to lift up on their bayonets any uncautious 'traitor' or exponent of 'opening the front to the enemy.'" (Quoted in Adam Ulam, *The Bolsheviks* [New York: Macmillan 1965], p. 325. http://books.google.com/books?id=TdCK1WkconkC&pg=PA325

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I misread this as "WI: Michael Dukakis became the Russian Tsar". I should rest now.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Michael was apparently even stupider than Nicholas, so I don't think things would change that much..

Out of curiosity, where did you get that from? Everything I've read before paints Michael as a better choice as Tsar as opposed to worse.

On the other hand, the new tsar might be sufficiently insecure that someone with a reasonable amount of common sense and understanding of what was going on at the front, like Brusilov, manages to muscle their way into power and negotiate a peace with the Germans. More likely all that happens is that the Provisional Government lasts even less time than in OTL.

The same Brusilov who launched a successful offensive that crippled the Russian Army for the future? Would a different Tsar mean a more limited offensive, still as well planned, that was less costly and allow the Russians to continue the offensive in 1917, with the propaganda and 'feel good' effect that entails?

 

[frustrated progressive]

As long as he is popular, and knows he needs to delegate, his own naiveté wouldn't he be that much of a problem, provided he finds good people.