So if you haven't heard of the Otsu Incident, it happened when Nicholas the Second, Crown Prince at the time, was on a tour of the East, and while in Japan a Japanese policeman tried to kill Nicholas, only saved by the actions of his cousin, Prince George of Greece and Denmark. So what if Prince George was slower to react, and Nicholas the Second died before taking the throne? Who would have succeeded him as heir to the throne? How would Russia differ from having a different Tsar?
What if Nicholas the Second of Russia was assassinated in 1891?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
The first consequence of Nicholas’ death would be a big strain on the relationship between Russia and Japan. Going on Russian affairs the situation would be interesting… the next heir would be his brother George, who was cleaver and outgoing but also acutely ill and would die in 1899, meaning who the third and last brother Michael would inherit the crown. Now with Nicholas dead he would not marry Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, so her presence in Russia is fully butterflied, but I wonder how would happen to the others, as in OTL Michael in 1902, when was 24, had a romance with Beatrice of Edinburgh. Now in OTL they were unable to marry as Orthodox Church forbidden weddings between first cousins and Nicholas, who was then head of the church, was too devote for giving an exemption to his brother, allowing him to marry Beatrice. But if Michael is the Tsar and he is free, he has no obstacle in marrying Beatrice (and that would mean who he would be inclined to concede to his cousin Kyrill the permission to marry Beatrice’s elder sister Victoria Melita after her divorce from her first husband in 1901)
A tsar Michael would be an interesting situation. From what I have read of him, he was an intriguing mix of honesty, disdain for much of Russias elites (especially Petrograd ones) and suprising amount of pragmatism and situational awareness for late Romanovs.I don't entirely agree with the assesment of the British ambassador that he would make a great liberal, British style monarch, though I would expect him to take a realistic view, giving some power to legislature, while still enjoying a possition stronger then even that of the German kaiser. He is less likely to have the publicity problems of Nicholas II. (no Rasputin), for though his romantical affairs might be problematic, its a much more acceptable thing then the idea that the tsar is influenced by a Siberian mystic, who might be sleeping with the tsarina.
Considering the circumstances of Nicholas's death, a Russo-Japanes war of some style is likely, and even if Michael makes some efforts for army reforms, still likely ends in a rather humiliating end. However, Michael will likely have much more situational awareness, so events likje the bloody Sunday are much less likely to occur. This could lead to either no, or much weaker 1905 revolution. At the same time, Michael would have an excellent reason to do away with many members of the Russian elite (that he disliked), from possitions of power in the army and navy, and would likely try hard for reforms in those fields, while also likely to be rather averse to future millitary conflicts. He might decide to still form the Duma, and will likely allow it more authority then his brother, though it would likely stop long way before British-style monarchy.
Considering the circumstances of Nicholas's death, a Russo-Japanes war of some style is likely, and even if Michael makes some efforts for army reforms, still likely ends in a rather humiliating end. However, Michael will likely have much more situational awareness, so events likje the bloody Sunday are much less likely to occur. This could lead to either no, or much weaker 1905 revolution. At the same time, Michael would have an excellent reason to do away with many members of the Russian elite (that he disliked), from possitions of power in the army and navy, and would likely try hard for reforms in those fields, while also likely to be rather averse to future millitary conflicts. He might decide to still form the Duma, and will likely allow it more authority then his brother, though it would likely stop long way before British-style monarchy.
How much will this be on the path towards democracy in the future? What was Michael stance on the war, and the cosying up to France?
An assumption that going “democratic” is an universal solution of all problems regardless the cultural framework is mostly a wishful thinking. In Russia the democratic experiments failed twice (in 1917 and after the fall of the SU) and experience of the constitutional monarchy in 1905-17 also was not impressive not only due to NII but also due to the Duma itself. Let’s be realistic. The people who had been elected to the Duma and State Council had been mostly a bunch of incompetent demagogues, some with the fantastic political platforms and some even without that but mostly incompetent. For example, how valuable would be opinion of a liberal professor of jurisprudence on the subject of constructing a new line of TransSib (one which is going completely within Russian territory) and how would he approach this issue? By (a) seriously studying the economic and geopolitical factors or (b) by voting based upon purely political considerations (if government is for it, the liberal faction should be against it)? The right answer is, of course, (b). Pretty much the same goes for the needed Stolypin reforms but when it came to the insanely bloated naval program it was supported by the Duma. What may or may not happen in some remote future is anybody’s guess but for Russia of 1890s and predictable future the top level elective institutions had to have a limited power because country did not have qualified “cadres” outside government’s administration. The proposals for creating a “responsible government” (growing in strength during WWI) had a purpose to save regime at least formally but, in practice, who would be in such a cabinet? The clowns of post-February Provisional Government or their likes? They were pretty much like Gomez Addams: took a failing company and speedily run it into the bankruptcy. 😢
Of course, the obvious problem was that, in an absence of realistic alternatives, a ruler had to be a competent person with a strong will (to ignore the undue influences). AIII fit the bill, AII and NII did not and there is absolutely no evidence that Michael was fit for the task: when push came to shove he simply abdicated. In other words, there were no realistic “good solutions” with the existing personages.
Michael’s “stance” on pretty much everything was unwillingness to get involved which, actually, was not too different from one of NII if he was not forced to do things due to his position: unlike AIII who was spending most of his time working with the state documents, NII was first and foremost “a family man”. The second “qualification” was a strong will, which AIII did possess, NII did not and most probably Michael did not as well. Which means that with a high probability Michael would cave to the pressure from his close circle and drift the same way as NII toward the RJW. The final “qualification”, a common sense, was clearly absent in NII and Michael is a tabula rasa. Well, he did not have a common sense to flee to the Crimea or another reasonably safe place.
Last edited: