If the czar had stayed in power past 1917 would he have been forced out by the nazis

[Benedict XVI]

I am not sure if he would have been able to hold on to everything if the had invaded.

 

[nascarlucy]

If would be interesting what would have happened if the czar had managed to stay in power even after the Nazis invaded. The czar and his family probably would end up fleeing the country but I don't think that the Nazis would have taken over Russia. No one has ever been able to invade Russia and take it over. The German army never got to Moscow or St. Petersburg but came very close. The harsh cold Russian winters made this very difficult if not impossible.

It would be a different Russia. It would be interested who would actually be in power if the Russian Royal family had managed to keep their throne. It probably would not be a woman inheriting the throne is my guess unless they changed something in their rules. To my knowledge no woman who was a Russian royal ever came to power directly.

 

[Benedict XVI]

Yes everything in the world would be different in the world no cold war, no bad relations with Russia. He would have left Russia and would have made it to his cousin's country of England. But if he made it through 1917 it would have been hard to hold on to power through all the rest of the problems faced after the revolution. The czar during that period would have to be extremely tough and fearless.( I doubt that Alexy wouldn't be able to be that czar. So it probably would go to Nicholas's brother Michael and his line.

 

[nascarlucy]

The czar would have to be like a dictator to survive. Rule with an Iron fist. In Russian history books during the Communist era, the czar was often depicted as being very cruel or brutal towards their people. I would have to say that some of the Russian leaders after World War II were in some cases more brutal or cruel than some of the czars who ruled. Stalin would be a good example of this.

 

[Benedict XVI]

I agree Stalin was worse than hitler was. He was although Nicholas did have massacres they where not on purpose and he always regretted the fact that those happened. They hadn't had such a bad ruler since Ivan the terrible. I think the people would have been happier with the czar then Stalin.

 

[Sonjapearl]

I tend to wonder what kind of lives OTMA would've lived. They probably would have been flapper girls, particularly Maria and Anastasia since they were younger. I also wonder who each of the four Grand Duchesses would've married.

I agree with nascarlucy that the Nazis would not have been able to invade Russia because no one has. The Tsar would have remained in power.

Sadly, I think Alexei would've died young since he was a hemophiliac after all. Grand Duke Michael would have inherited the throne.

 

[Benedict XVI]

They have invaded but they dont get much farther then Moscow. But I wonder if the tsar would have been strong enough to beat back the Nazis. A big reason Stalin beat them back was because he would threaten and force the people to fight and they were scared of him. And I don't think a czar could be like that.

 

[Al_bina]

Similar to Napoleonic French troops, Nazis would have been defeated by Russians. Russia had excellent commanders, who could have raised to the occasion and motivated common people to expel the enemy .
Furthermore, Bolshevicks did continue most of the Tsarist policies. The Romanovs were listless tyrants, who did not wish to hear warnings from the family members or educated nobility and intelligentsia.

 

[Benedict XVI]

I do not think they were that way. Nicholas was not very fit to rule and very unprepared to take the throne. His father didn't let him be in his court until he found out he was dying. And some of the stuff Stalin did can't be forgotten. Even with all the stuff that the Romanovs Did doesn't mean they deserved to be exiled with nothing or killed.

 

[Al_bina]

Did Louis XVI and his consort deserve to die? Perhaps they should have been exiled. The enlightened French decided to take their lives in the end.
As far as I can see, you hate Stalin and communists and paint a rosy picture of the Romanovs. Who exactly has forgotten atrocities perpetrated by Stalin? There are books written about it by both Russian and foreign historians.

 

[Benedict XVI]

You are right Stalin had nothing to do with it it was all Lenin and his government. As for Stalin he is responsible to over a million deaths which happened will he was in charge like the great purge http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
As for making the Romanovs look so rosy I don't like stalin or Communists and think of them as not good. it is my opinion and I am entitled to it. As for the French I don't Study them so there for I have no opinion about them. But I think that anytime that monarchs are killed it is wrong to do and unjust. Especially if the country will have terrible problems without the old government. Which is what France went through and Russia. When a monarch is executed by the new government it is not a sign of power it is a sign that they think the government will no last so it's a sign of weakness.

 

[Al_bina]

You are telling me about the repressions, as we call it, and cite Wikipedia ..? I guess I should not be surprised.
Yes, you are entitled to deify the Romanovs.
It is better for us to acknowledge a significant difference in our views on the topic and agree to disagree.

 

[doric44]

had the czar remained on after the WW1 that would have most likely been as a constitutional monarch like the UK.
and if the Nazis had invaded Russia they wouldn't have had as much success. i don't think because Stalin before the invasion killed most of his best generals leaving him with the incompetent and the stupid making the Nazi invasion that much easier.

i dont think the czar would have fled the country the Russians would do what they have always done to invaders.
slash and burn retreat and make the invaders spread thin then wait for the Russians best ally winter to take its toll then counter attack. the outcome of the war would have most likely been the same but with much less loss of life on the Russian side.

Stalin cared nothing for the lives of the russian people and used them as cannon fodder

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Tsar showed in WWI that he didn't care about the lives of his people - that is why he was overthrown. He would never had agreed to be a constitutional monarch - he had had a chance to do so in 1905 and he continued to take back what little power he did give away.

The man was an autocrat who was responsible for the deaths of millions of people through starvation, war, gulags, pogroms etc. I can't think of too many endearing characteristics in the man (other than he loved his family).

What followed - for the Russian people wasn't all that different to what they had before but at least there was less of the opulent wealth thrust down their throats but the secret police remained, the disappearances in the night continued, the brutality continued under the Bolsheviks - especially Stalin who was responsible for the deaths of about 60 million people during his lifetime.

Would Nicholas have killed off his generals etc - probably not but would have appointed competent generals in the first place - given his track record again probably not. Would have allowed Zhukov to train the army in the east or not - he probably wouldn't have actually seen his worth and thus he wouldn't have been in a position to lead the army when the time came to save the Soviet Union.

What we do know is that WWII would have been very different. Nicholas would probably have maintained his alliance system with France and Britain so the arrangements with Germany in the 1920s to allow the German army and airforce to illegally train in Russia probably wouldn't never have happened thus the German army wouldn't have been able to grow as quickly as it did in the 1930s.

What ifs are fun but once you change one position e.g. Nicholas becoming a constitutional monarch (fat chance but...) then you have to realise that everything that follows changes - the total relationship between Russia and Germany would have been different throughout the 20s and 30s and one of the elements of fear - communism - wouldn't have been avaible to Hitler to use to gain power.

 

[Benedict XVI]

You are telling me about the repressions, as we call it, and cite Wikipedia ..? I guess I should not be surprised.
Yes, you are entitled to deify the Romanovs.
It is better for us to acknowledge a significant difference in our views on the topic and agree to disagree.

I agree that we will never agree

 

[Benedict XVI]

I think nicholas could have changed if he had been more like his grandfather Alexander but even then the people had been plotting against him since the Decemberists. We don't know if his brother would have changed it? Do any of you know what kind of education his brother michael got. Or how he was (like his brother or more liberal) I think nicholas tried hard to be a good tsar but ultimately was not prepared to fill the big shoes.

 

[AristoCat]

The Tsar showed in WWI that he didn't care about the lives of his people - that is why he was overthrown. He would never had agreed to be a constitutional monarch - he had had a chance to do so in 1905 and he continued to take back what little power he did give away...

Quite honestly I am of the belief that either way, there would have been difficulties in any situation. There is a real chance that Russia would have still been under armed and untrained and there would have been a tremendous amount of death and destruction either way. I just think that had Nicholas ended up giving into the constitution in 1905 he never would have died and Russia would have been able to end up helping itself be more practical and self sufficient to meet the threat of Nazism. I am sure the Romanovs would have gladly defended Russia to the best of their ability, but I just wonder if whether or not Nicholas understood that his stubborn insistance on maintaining the autocracy would have ended up instead fostering more division. IF by then he had been a constitutional monarch, he would have ended up being an effective symbol of patriotism and the country would have been able to focus on preparing itself for possible war instead of blaming him and making him a target of hatred and resentment. Perhaps then Stalin would have been a general in the military and Lenin a brilliant strategist working on the maneuverings of soldiers and not at all working on academic papers to show support for his revolution. It all boiled down to if Nicholas had instead agreed to be a constitutional monarch and not a monarch who ended up constantly making his people a target. He could have ended up (if you can believe it) signing his autocratic rights away and effectively neutralizing the communists and their justification for revolution.

 

[Benedict XVI]

At the out break of world war I I think the Russian army swelled to either 4 or 7 million (I can't remember which) to save the empire just like they had when they were under the mongol yoke.

Nicholas was a symbol for strength for a while but then like most men in war they got tired and angry.

 

[AristoCat]

Well, the army wasn't equipped or set up the way it should have been. That is another reason that an autocracy was an impossible thing. His other duty was to ensure that the military was as well equipped as possible, but nothing was set up to end up equipping them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He was incompetent from the beginning of his reign. By 1905 he was really struggling to maintain control of the country and protect his own family. By 1910 it was really a matter of time before the dynasty fell - just a matter of what would trigger it.

He had no belief in constitutional monarchies regarding such monarchs as weak. He was encouraged in that belief by both his mother and his wife - and considering how close they all were to the British royal family it shows a lot about what they felt about the rights of the people. Alexandra was partially raised at the court of Queen Victoria but never absorbed the lessons there of being a constitutional monarch. Their Aunt Alexandra (Queen Alexandra of the UK - aunt separately to both of them) was the perfect Queen Consort to a constitutional monarch but they saw her as weak and they distrusted Uncle Bertie who again was seen as weak.

To Nicholas and Alexandra monarchs were meant to be autocrats and anything else was simply not being a monarch. They believed in the literal version of 'divine right of kings' and like many who had believed that, when their people had had enough they took action and executed them (1649, 1792 and 1918 all executions of autocrats who wouldn't accept the rights of the people).

You can't say 'what if he had changed' if he had wanted to change things he had a chance but he chose not to and suffered the deserved consequences of autocrats who are responsible for the deaths of millions of people - as Nicholas was.

Not a saint in my book. A martyr to some - sure but to me saints have to care for people and try to alleviate suffering - he didn't - he added to it, making conditions in his country way worse.

His army was totally unprepared (there were 10 million). They were sent to the front without boots with a rifle between two men - the other man had the bullets so when one died they other would have both rifle and some bullets. In time the mass slaughter of the eastern front was too much and the troops started to desert in droves and then finally refused to follow the orders of the Tsar at home as well.

Compare his failures to Edward VII who encouraged investigations into the failings of the British army in the Boer War and then encouraged (not ordered as he didn't have that power) reforms and they still weren't ready in 1914 but Nicholas didn't even properly investigate the failings of the military in 1904-5.

Nicholas continually lost his people through his own actions - a cruel man who got what he deserved - like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi etc - similar type of leader.

 

[AristoCat]

He was encouraged in that belief by both his mother and his wife - and considering how close they all were to the British royal family it shows a lot about what they felt about the rights of the people. Alexandra was partially raised at the court of Queen Victoria but never absorbed the lessons there of being a constitutional monarch. Their Aunt Alexandra (Queen Alexandra of the UK - aunt separately to both of them) was the perfect Queen Consort to a constitutional monarch but they saw her as weak and they distrusted Uncle Bertie who again was seen as weak.

I think it was more Alexandra; the Romanovs were all acting out and if Alexandra had been autocratic with htem and not encouraged Nicholas in this belief, I think that quite frankly, there would have been a lot of differnet things. There was also Alexei and his hemophilia and that is what brought Rasputin in. Empress Marie was angry that her son was not reaching out to the people the way he was supposed to and Marie was part of a cabal that wanted to get rid of Alexandra and possibly take over herself.

 

[Benedict XVI]

Ya I think although Nicholas was an autocrat he would have given into many of the peoples wants. His wife Alexandra was controlling an would bully him into doing what she thought was right in a country that she didn't understand at all. Nicholas was not prepared to become tsar because his parents always treated him like a kid and that is why he always obeyed his mother and his wife what ever they asked him to do. I think if Nicholas had been able to abdicate before he took the throne or shortly after he would have been much happier with his family living on a small farm.

had the czar remained on after the WW1 that would have most likely been as a constitutional monarch like the UK.
and if the Nazis had invaded Russia they wouldn't have had as much success. i don't think because Stalin before the invasion killed most of his best generals leaving him with the incompetent and the stupid making the Nazi invasion that much easier.

That does make sense he didn't realize that you can't get rid of the old regime over night it takes in some cases a generation to do it. You have to replace the ones from key places but to get rid of all the old officers and generals only to replace them with undisciplined, unexperienced people who didn't car about human lives would be a nightmare. It is a spoil system that went on.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I recall that the monarchy in France and Russia had a similar problem that caused their downfall, the refusal to accept when the tide was turning against them and that "absolute power" was no longer theirs to hold. I recall reading that Marie Antoinette encouraged Louis to hold onto his birth rights and Nicholas of course was raised to believe only in the autocracy and its power over Russia, to heck with what the people have to say. Perhaps in both situations the monarchs death was needed for actual change to occur, because I can't say for sure if either side would have allowed itself to become like England and give up the reigns of power. By "deaths needing to occur" I only mean the monarch and possibly consort, not the entire family and extended family.
Though Alexandra was encouraging her husband, there is little in what I have read that Nicholas did not firmly believe in his rights as an autocrat to rule fully over his people, with or without Alexandra.
I have heard in a few classes that Stalin was much worse than Hitler, and while Hitler killed about 20million people, Stalin's was around that number or even over. I have never heard that Nicholas II was anywhere close to having killed 20 million people.

 

[Benedict XVI]

You make some very good points. By killing the tsar they where able to give Russia the clean slate they needed for a new government. This sounds like another of history repeating itself. Essentially Stalin was just like hitler the only difference is that he got away with it because he didn't start an actual war. Nicholas did have 7 million (most were killed by war or by accidents such as bloody sunday) unlike hitler or Stalin who did it on purpose. The killing of the entire family was not only unneeded but dumb, if this were to happen today Russia wouldn't have a chance they would be handed many human rights violations and world outcry.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Yes I suppose people put the men killed in WWI on Nicholas' head which never really made sense to me. Does Stalin, Roosevelt, or Churchill get blamed for their soldiers who died during WWII? Of course it was two different wars, one justified and the other unjustified imo; but Nicholas himself didn't kill those men the same way Stalin ordered people to be taken out of their homes and shot and buried in secret.

 

[Benedict XVI]

I don't hear of people blaming the kaiser for the deaths of WWI (I maybe wrong I don't know) but also Nicholas was mobilizing his army (every country in Europe did so) and on August 1, 1914 GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON RUSSIA so the deaths first of all should go on the kaiser after all so all the deaths were in defense of the mother land. Yes the person in charge should have been someone who HAD military experience but he did what he thought was right.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Perhaps in both situations the monarchs death was needed for actual change to occur, because I can't say for sure if either side would have allowed itself to become like England and give up the reigns of power.

The English executed a King - in 1649 - and when Charles II was restored it was with the understanding that parliament had a say in the government of the country - autocracy died in England the same way it did in France and Russia - overthrow and execution of the monarch.

By "deaths needing to occur" I only mean the monarch and possibly consort, not the entire family and extended family.

No way for a clear restoration or a rallying point for opposition if all the claimants are dead. This makes sense actually - from a political perspective.

Though Alexandra was encouraging her husband, there is little in what I have read that Nicholas did not firmly believe in his rights as an autocrat to rule fully over his people, with or without Alexandra.

Nicholas' father was very autocratic as a result of the assassination of his father. Alexander II - Nicholas' grandfather - died as the result of a bomb and Nicholas saw him when he was returned to the palace. The Tsar liberator was assassinator so his son and grandson argued - less reform not more.

I have heard in a few classes that Stalin was much worse than Hitler, and while Hitler killed about 20million people, Stalin's was around that number or even over. I have never heard that Nicholas II was anywhere close to having killed 20 million people.

Stalin was responsible for 20 million in the late 20s - early 30s alone with the man-made famine. Conservatively his figure is close to 60 - 80 million, including most of the German PoWs and returning Soviet PoWs (captured Soviet soldiers were sent to a gulag and died as a result of life there - Stalin claimed that they had committed treason by being captured).

Nicholas didn't have to directly order the deaths of that many to be evil - he didn't allow his people freedom, he refused them a say in their government, he forced non-Russians to learn Russian (even if they didn't live in Russia as such e.g. Turkmanistanis had to learn Russia), persecuted non-Orthodox followers, especially Jews (the pogroms saw many Jews leave Russia for the Austrian Empire - where a disgruntled Austrian saw them and felt threatened by their presence, or migrated out of Europe to the US in particular, but also other nations), actively enforced a policy of Russification throughout the Empire etc etc.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't hear of people blaming the kaiser for the deaths of WWI (I maybe wrong I don't know) but also Nicholas was mobilizing his army (every country in Europe did so) and on August 1, 1914 GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON RUSSIA so the deaths first of all should go on the kaiser after all so all the deaths were in defense of the mother land. Yes the person in charge should have been someone who HAD military experience but he did what he thought was right.

Why did Germany declare war though? Because Russia was mobilising. The Kaiser asked the Russians to stop and Nicholas refused so the Germans then took action. Had Nicolas stopped the mobilisatoin who knows what might have happened? Could the war have been stopped at that point? Possibly but as Nicholas wouldn't stand the army down there was no chance to stop the progress to war.

Don't get me wrong - I am not putting all the blame on Nicholas but he does share some of the blame for the millions who died in that catastrophe, along with the Kaiser, Franz-Joseph, the British government (not George V as he was a constitutional monarch), the French government, the Serbian government and finally Gavrilo Princip.

 

[Benedict XVI]

I will say that Nicholas could have avoided war but chances are the kaiser was a land greedy person and probably would gave declared war on them but maybe a little later I don't know for sure. I do think that a partial mobilization may have worked better but if he didn't have any mobilization he risked being caught with his pants down which would probably been the kaisers plan anyway.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Tsar did start with partial mobilisation on the 28th July against Austria-Hungary, while still in communication with The Kaiser. He was advised, by his military personnel, that partial mobilisation would result in chaos so on the 29th July he went to full mobilisation.

However, the Schlieffen Plan - required the Germany army to mobilise against both France and Russia at once so once things started to move partial mobilisation by the Russians wasn't possible.