WI: The Soviet Union was a monarchy

For a while after World War II the Soviets allowed monarchy to remain in place in Bulgaria and Romania but this was tolerated only in the very short run during the transition to "peoples' democracy." It was just not ideologically acceptable to the Communists. Similarly, I doubt that the PRG in Grenada would have kept the residual connection with the British crown indefinitely if they had succeeded in consolidating power. In any event, in Russia not only the Bolsheviks but all the other socialist parties in the soviets were anti-monarchist, and a monarchist Soviet Union was simply not possible.
 
So basically you could swing a Socialist dominated Duma under a Czar with Constitutionally restricted powers. But that isn't going to be with the Bolsheviks or Mensheviks in power.
 
This isn’t quite as implausible as it seems. There was a group called the Mladorossi, whose motto was “Tsar and the Soviets.” While they were a relatively small group, they had close ties with the Soviet leadership by the 1930s.
 

Kaze

Banned
Stalin once said privately, "I am the Tsar," probably as a joke to make people laugh (and if they didn't - basement room). Going with this premise you could go with the idea - due to his questionable sanity - and run with it. Stalin crowns himself Tsar. There would be some objections. Brief objections - but Siberia and fire-squads would stop all objections. Stalin rules Russia for the rest of his life - everyone would consider him Tsar. Then the problem - Stalin would not live forever, on his death there would be a problem indeed.

option 1. go with the chaos that followed Stalin's succession as IRL. Brief backstabbing and the like until a leader takes power. Then continue with the IRL version of the soviet union
option 2. go with the monarchy thing - Stalin had children. The son was a moron. And the daughter, I believe had questionable sanity. But one look at them, the council would likely go with option 1.
option 3. Follows premise of option 2 -> the council goes with option 1. Malenkov becomes 2nd Tsar, his children become 3rd Tsar, and so on.
 
Maybe it's like the French revolution where they keep the tsar around and keep breaking into his Palace to make him take photos wearing communist styled hats and supporting the revolution? Idk I'm not sure you can have a monarchist ussr
 
The USSR was founded on the basis of revolution against their emperor. USSR wouldn't be the USSR if it were a monarchy.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see why you can’t have a monarchist USSR. North Korea is functionally a monarchy no reason the Soviets can’t do the same.
 
I don’t see why you can’t have a monarchist USSR. North Korea is functionally a monarchy no reason the Soviets can’t do the same.

North Korea is still officially republic altough leadership is de facto hereditary. But it is totally against Communism and Marx's ideas. Altough NK is not anyway truly Communist.

But OP is asking what it USSR woud had been monarchy, no what if leadership would had been hereditary. It would be totally impossible. Monarchy hadn't anymore much of support in 1917 and February Revolution was targetted against monarchy. And Lenin and his Bolsheviks were too against monarchy. It would had been really stupid declare being monarchist movement. Lenin and key leaders of Bolsheviks never would accept that.
 
As ASB as this thread seems, OTL there was a political group that believed that the Romanov monarchy could be reinstalled within the Soviet Union:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mladorossi
640px-Mladorossi_badge.svg.png


The Union of Mladorossi (Russian: Союз Младороссов, Soyuz Mladorossov) was a political group of Russian émigré monarchists (mostly living in Europe) who advocated a hybrid of Russian monarchy and the Soviet system, best evidenced by their motto "Tsar and the Soviets".
 
Top