WI: Nicholas II is Killed in Japan

Well technically he wasn't Nicholas II then but anyway. In 1891, Prince Nicholas (As he was then) was touring Asia when in Otsu, Japan, he was attacked by an assailant and almost killed.

The assassination attempt occurred on 11 May 1891, while Nicholas was returning to Kyoto after a day trip to Lake Biwa in Ōtsu, Shiga Prefecture. He was attacked by Tsuda Sanzō (1855–1891), one of his escort policemen, who swung at the Tsarevich's face with a saber. The quick action of his cousin, Prince George of Greece and Denmark, who parried the second blow with his cane, saved his life. Tsuda then attempted to flee, but two rickshaw drivers in Nicholas's entourage chased him down and pulled him to the ground. Nicholas was left with a 9 centimeter long scar on the right side of his forehead, but his wound was not life-threatening.

What if this attempt had been successful? What would it mean for future Russo-Japanese relations (Apart from being a lot, lot worse of course)? What would this mean for Russia without Nicholas to take on the role of the Tsar? Your thoughts?
 
His brother Grand Duke Michael will likely become Tsar after Alexander III dies in 1894 and will rule as Tsar Michael II. He was only 16 at the time so he'll probably get a regent for the first two years though. The Dowager Empress (his mother) perhaps? This might actually be a good thing as Michael had a more liberal stance on things than his brother Nicholas.
 

Germaniac

Donor
Actually George will likely become czar, though he wont last long. He will most likely still die from TB sooner than later, Then Michael takes over. Michael was no less autocratic than his brother, it is a misconception.
 
If Nicholas II dies in 1891, and Alexander III still dies in 1894, his brother George becomes Tsar. He may have to abdicate; he was dying of tuberculosis, and could not physically travel to St. Petersburg for his father's funeral. If not, Mikhael becomes Tsar in 1899 when George dies.

Presumably Mikhael doesn't meet or marry commoner Natalya Wulffurt in ATL. His mother Empress Dagmar probably arranges a proper marriage to some princess.
 
?So do Whe get the Russian/Japanese War of 1895?
The Trans Siberian isn't complete so the Soldiers would have to March part of the way.
 
Some individuals such as Witte thought Michael the more intelligent, he also presented a more imposing figure than Nicholas II (who had inherited his mother's stature), I think its also fair to say the Michael would probably have been more pragmatic than Nicholas and may but its a big may have been more amenable to reform.
As for a wife the only Royal he ever showed any partiality for was his first cousin Princess Beatrice of Saxe Coburg Gotha - he fell for her in the early part of the century. Nicholas II forbade the match as first cousin marriage was against Orthodox rules although Romanov's in the past had married first cousins. No Nicholas then its far likelier to happen.
Had Michael become Tsar war with Japan becomes less likely which in turn delays the 1905 revolt which arguably delays the creation of the Duma and the beginning of reform. Though Michael under guidance from men such as Witte and Stolypin might have been more proactive in considering reform.
Personally - Tsar Michael makes a violent revolution less likely but doesn't remove the possibility as World War I remains likely as Russia's alliance with France dates from the 1890's and her pro slavic tendencies in the Balkans make her likely to support Serbia in 1914.
If you want to reduce the risk further - then your best bet is the survival of Alexander II's eldest son Nicholas who succeeds his father sometime in the 1880's -unlike his younger brother Alexander III he was more pragmatic and had been brought up to share his father's acceptance of the need for change to preserve the autocracy - even in the face of Alexander II's murder Nicholas was more likely to continue his father's policies. Alexander III had fallen largely under the influence of conservative elements at court and his relationship with his father had deteriorated badly at the point of his accession which is why his reign saw an end to the liberalisation process.
 
Michael appears to have had a stronger will than his brother. He was willing to go into exile to marry the woman of his choice, but while doing so refused to give up his rights of succession. He was also a success general during WWI. A stronger-willed monarch could keep Russia together, though I don't think it would change the slow slide toward civil war. Perhaps a more competent Russian high command would result from Michael's leadership, which in turn leads to less catastrophe?

I really think the only way to save the Russian Empire is to have Constantinople and the Straits fall into Allied hands. Opening up that life-line to the Russians is the only way to keep the Russians supplied, and to avert the Revolution.
 
Is there a way Russia could avoid participating in WW1? Do you have to go back to 1890 or even further before WilhelmII?
 
It requires quite a lot of effort to keep Russia out of the war.
The pan slavic movement of the 19th century is always going to make it hard for any leadership in St Petersburg not to defend fellow Orthodox Slavs in the Balkans whether threatened by the Ottomans or Austria.

Up to the reign of Alexander III - Britain's imperial interests in India and the middle east and support for the Ottomans mean Russia and Britain are natural political enemies - however close the family relationship between the Princess of Wales and the Empress Marie. Entente only really exists due to both nations mutual relationship with France (agreed with Russia in the 1890's - with France and Britain's entente in the early 1900's).

Russia's alliance with France was a direct result of Germany and Russia moving apart - Alexander II had been pro-german, Alexander III had been willing to continue the three emperors alliance despite his growing anti german views (significantly fed by his Danish wife). Even in the early 1890's Russia was still willing to treat with Germany however Wilhelm II didn't pursue any formal alliance relying instead on what he considered his warm relationship with the new Czar Nicholas II instead it forced Russia into an entente with France.

Germany's growing sense of self belief following unification and the view of its destiny as a great power wasn't all down to Wilhelm II - its been argued that war was inevitable at some point.

If you can create the circumstances that instead of relying on his relationships with Nicholas and Alexandra you can persuade Wilhelm and the German Government to sign a new treaty with Russia in the 1890's that states that neither will go to war with the other unless say Russia attacks Austria or Germany attacks France. And you can amend are alter Germany's seperate commitments to Austria then you might have a situation where in 1914 the Austrian heir is murdered in Sarajevo - Austria gives Serbia her demands - Serbia accepts all bar one - Austria mobilizes - but then Germany tells her she's on her own if Russia comes to the defence of Serbia - Austria backs down. No war in 1914.
Or Austria assumes no matter what Berlin says that they won't let Austria stand alone - she mobilizes - Russia declares war (with the usual slow Russian mobilization) - Russia invades Galicia - Wilhelm II, France and Britian offer to mediate between the two emperors to prevent further bloodshed possibly - a small localised war of attrition between the two sides - and its all over by Christmas 1914 (grin) with no great gains on either side - the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs remain on their thrones for the time being.
 
Even in the early 1890's Russia was still willing to treat with Germany however Wilhelm II didn't pursue any formal alliance relying instead on what he considered his warm relationship with the new Czar Nicholas II instead it forced Russia into an entente with France.
France bought Russian alliance with credits. Up until late 1800s Germany had been Russia's main creditor. However, Germans denied large-scale credits Russia needed for industrialization (they chose to spend monies on something they considered more profitable and the rest is history).

Austria assumes no matter what Berlin says that they won't let Austria stand alone - she mobilizes - Russia declares war (with the usual slow Russian mobilization) - Russia invades Galicia - Wilhelm II, France and Britian offer to mediate between the two emperors to prevent further bloodshed possibly - a small localised war of attrition between the two sides - and its all over by Christmas 1914 (grin) with no great gains on either side - the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs remain on their thrones for the time being.
Russia bloodied Austria very well IOTL with Austrian front playing distant second fiddle to Russo-German struggle. Without German front to draw majority of Russian forces, Austria is toast.
 
It requires quite a lot of effort to keep Russia out of the war.
The pan slavic movement of the 19th century is always going to make it hard for any leadership in St Petersburg not to defend fellow Orthodox Slavs in the Balkans whether threatened by the Ottomans or Austria.

Up to the reign of Alexander III - Britain's imperial interests in India and the middle east and support for the Ottomans mean Russia and Britain are natural political enemies - however close the family relationship between the Princess of Wales and the Empress Marie. Entente only really exists due to both nations mutual relationship with France (agreed with Russia in the 1890's - with France and Britain's entente in the early 1900's).

I think you're underestimating how much Britain was threatened by Germany's naval build-up. The Germans threatened the British in a way that the Russians couldn't. I think that post-Crimean War the British had effectively bottled up the Russians, and closed off all avenues of meaningful Russian expansionism. Even if Constantinople fallen to the Russians in 1870-71 it wouldn't mean anything, because the British had control of the major choke-points in the Med, and would keep the Russians from being able to project power from their new port.

So the British in the late 19th century saw an expansionist Germany, who was challenging the British on their home turf- the ocean. The Germans had already established themselves as the foremost land power in Europe, and with a bid for a colonial empire accomponied by a rapid expansion of naval power the Germans basically forced the British to get involved with the anti-German alliance.

Russia's alliance with France was a direct result of Germany and Russia moving apart - Alexander II had been pro-german, Alexander III had been willing to continue the three emperors alliance despite his growing anti german views (significantly fed by his Danish wife). Even in the early 1890's Russia was still willing to treat with Germany however Wilhelm II didn't pursue any formal alliance relying instead on what he considered his warm relationship with the new Czar Nicholas II instead it forced Russia into an entente with France.

Germany's growing sense of self belief following unification and the view of its destiny as a great power wasn't all down to Wilhelm II - its been argued that war was inevitable at some point.

Russian-Austrian War without general European involvement.

So you want a Franco-Austrian alliance opposing a German-Russian alliance? The Franco-Austrians would be joined by the British and Ottoman Empire with hardly an eye batted- the Germans have no direct interest in the Ottoman Empire and the Russians want Constantinople. The Germans threaten Britain on the seas and the Russians have long-running colonial disputes.

The Austrians would get wasted. I don't know if they would even stand up the Russians and Germans. I dont think they would. So the Anglo-French-Italians stand against the Three Emperors' League? Balkan issues are going to have to be dealt with somehow- fix that and you have your Three Emperors' League.
 
Top