So, the PoD would be after the Russo-Japanese War's conclusion. In the midst of the popular unrest, say on Bloody Sunday, Nicholas is assassinated by anarchists. How would the rest of the Tsarist state react? How would the revolutionaries? Assuming the revolution worsens because of this, would there be outside intervention?
WI: Nicholas II dies/is killed in 1905?
- Thread starter Hashoosh
- Start date
You don't see whoever assumes power in the interregnum would crack down heavily on the revolutionaries? Or an internal power struggle among the ruling elite?
It would be a great opportunity for a strong man like Grand Duke Vladimir or Grand Duke Nicholas to force themselves to the fore.
Well, the crackdown is part of the "blood" part I referred earlier. But by 1905 the Czarist system simply had to reform or break down entirely, and the person of Nicholas II was among the main obstacles for a new Duma and Constitution, ideas that enjoyed widespread support among the emerging middle class and their representative parties.
So unlike in the earlier cases of regicide in Russia, the death of Nicholas II is likely to lead to the rise of the same strong ministers around Stolypin who came on top in the OTL post-1905 revolutionary struggles, and to same kind of reforms. The war had discredited the old power-brokers like Kuropatkin and Witte, and Stolypin and his colleagues were the only credible alternatives.
It would require extraordinary circumstances to avert the reforms and the rise of the new ministers, since the reforms were supported by such large segments of the population of the Empire, as well as key members of the old regime, and the new ministers were the only people who could bring them about. At least that is how the people in Russia saw the matter in 1905.
The key difference to OTL is that without Nicholas II, I fail to see how any of the possibe replacement Czars could conduct a similar determined "rollback" of power that Nicky did between 1905 and 1914.
This is probably the worst possible timing for the Romanovs. Alexei is one, at most, Michael is pretty much an unknown but the 1901 Livadia crisis had placed him as indisputible regent and not Alexandra, and yet he is likely to be dominated by the older Grand Dukes
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
LordKalvert
Banned
We get a confused Michael acting as regent for the newborn Alexis. Hard to say what Michael's going to do in this situation but the notion that liberal reform is inevitable is wrong
Michael is a bit of a liberal in his political views but he's also a bit of a drunk. That said, he might not be all that inclined to reduce his nephew's rights and besides an innocent child is something a lot of the people might rally behind.
What is called the revolution of 1905 is a rather hopeless affair of scattered, uncoordinated violence with no real leaders as various elements express displeasure on various small scale grievances. Its also quite localized and concentrated in historic Lithuania rather than the great Russian provinces
In the end, the liberal revolution is going to lose support once the elite realizes that the peasants intend to take their property. The rural revolution is going to come to a halt when the snows fall and everything pretty much shuts down in the country
Could certainly go down either way with a hard line response aimed at the elitist rural elements behind much of the disorder.
We should remember that Russia was a very liberal country at its heart and the peasants grievances were economic and not political
Michael is a bit of a liberal in his political views but he's also a bit of a drunk. That said, he might not be all that inclined to reduce his nephew's rights and besides an innocent child is something a lot of the people might rally behind.
What is called the revolution of 1905 is a rather hopeless affair of scattered, uncoordinated violence with no real leaders as various elements express displeasure on various small scale grievances. Its also quite localized and concentrated in historic Lithuania rather than the great Russian provinces
In the end, the liberal revolution is going to lose support once the elite realizes that the peasants intend to take their property. The rural revolution is going to come to a halt when the snows fall and everything pretty much shuts down in the country
Could certainly go down either way with a hard line response aimed at the elitist rural elements behind much of the disorder.
We should remember that Russia was a very liberal country at its heart and the peasants grievances were economic and not political
Liberal? As compared to what? Mongolia? In all of my readings of history, never have I ever read anything remotely close to the assertion that autocratic, Czarist Russia was liberal. Joho
.LordKalvert
Banned
Liberal? As compared to what? Mongolia? In all of my readings of history, never have I ever read anything remotely close to the assertion that autocratic, Czarist Russia was liberal. Joho
At its heart- yes Russia is very liberal probably the most liberal country in the world at the time.
Local government- the government that most people care about- in Russia was handled by the local village assembly with minimal outside interference. The villages regulated the lives of the peasants, collected the taxes and called up the draftees. They did it in village assemblies where the vote was by household and everyone- including the women- had voice. So yes, local government is as liberal as you can get for the 80% of Russians living in the village