Can a (slightly) different Nicholas II actually save Imperial Russia?

Tsar Nicholas II was generally considered an incompetent monarch (though the reasons behind it were quite sound), and some of his policies proved detrimental to Russia.

But, what if Nicholas II was a bit more reasonable, or more understanding, person than in OTL? Can he actually save the Russian Empire, or even modernize it? Or is the end of the monarchy inevitable with him at the helm?
 
Himself alone probably not. But if he was willing to use his power to create a system that abrogates it to an extent, probably. The Russian Revolution was not inevitable, though some form of revolt probably was. But he rode out 1905 despite the fact that he was horrendously inept. A competent leader surrounded by loyal, able and dedicated ministers and generals should be able to create something that can survive.

Of course we wouldn't see it like that. We'd be talking about a moribund, corrupt monstrosity dragging itself into the new century. A vaguely ridiculous state, a place out of its time. We'd point and laught at the grandiose language of the "Czar" and the pitiful seclusion of his state (Imperial Russia will not survive a major war, so it must not be involved in any).
 
Himself alone probably not. But if he was willing to use his power to create a system that abrogates it to an extent, probably. The Russian Revolution was not inevitable, though some form of revolt probably was. But he rode out 1905 despite the fact that he was horrendously inept. A competent leader surrounded by loyal, able and dedicated ministers and generals should be able to create something that can survive.

Of course we wouldn't see it like that. We'd be talking about a moribund, corrupt monstrosity dragging itself into the new century. A vaguely ridiculous state, a place out of its time. We'd point and laught at the grandiose language of the "Czar" and the pitiful seclusion of his state (Imperial Russia will not survive a major war, so it must not be involved in any).

It must not get into a war at the same time as OTL. That would change in about 10 years or so as rails and other infrastructure was built up which would greatly help logistics.
 
It must not get into a war at the same time as OTL. That would change in about 10 years or so as rails and other infrastructure was built up which would greatly help logistics.

If the Tsarist regime could manage to stay on top politically as the empire is transformed by industrialization, that is.

The thing is, industrialization does not automatically lead to a society where a moderate middle-class regime rules, and insofar as that is the desired solution--the Tsarist legacy is one of the impediments to it working out that way in Russia! A Tsar who was not slightly, but drastically, different than Nicholas II might be able to ride the waves and if his heir was both well-taught and of a suitable character, we might get a transformation to something politically and socially sustainable, I guess.

But I think the impediments to the Tsarist system gradually and smoothly shifting over to a completely different sort of society than the Romanov family had been accustomed to rule for hundreds of years go pretty deep.

And there are other impediments to Russia, in the early 20th century, mobilizing its resources and potentials to remain competitive in a world dominated by global industrial capitalism without the sorts of drastic breaks with tradition the Bolsheviks were for. Basically the class basis on which northwestern European kingdoms transitioned over centuries toward liberalism did not exist in Russia, nor would the predictable development of the kind of capitalism that could grow there in the early 20th century produce the necessary classes. (Even if it would, tempo matters--transformations that took centuries to work their way through the western European nations would have to happen over a single generation or less).

So, while I'm not fond of imagining alternatives for Russia that reject the radical Marxist framework (which prevailed among Russian intelligentsia, even those who either never accepted Bolshevism at all or were purged by that Party's agencies as too deviant to be permitted to speak) I might accept that there is some third way. Several timelines that I admire have come up with various solutions, but carlton_bach, who has come closest I've ever seen of anyone who has offered something realistic (and in the context of a Tsar Nicholas II who is indeed only slightly different than OTL, being the same guy but butterflied a bit by Kaiser Wilhelm II's early accidental death in the 1880s) offers basically a form of fascism--one which rules in the name of the Tsar and Orthodox Church, but is basically a whole new set of political machinery, one the traditional Tsarist organs look rather askance at--but the Integralist movement is bonded into place in the course of Russia's losing war with Germany in the first decade of the 20th century, a Germany improved, IMHO, by a different version of Wilhelm II's son, one raised very differently and without the input of his cranky father. (Wilhelm III is his own kind of crank!:p) I think Carlton has done a fair job of showing how the old Tsarists could be forced to come to terms with living with such a movement as his Integralists and that these guys would possibly be able to manage the ongoing social stresses of the transformation to a fully industrialized society while keeping the Tsar on his throne.

But they are a bunch of fascists, stressing the national glory of the Russian Empire and the superior qualities of the pure Russian people, and we have author foresight that they are going to start another war that will grind Poland to a fine powder and force the Germans of the 1940s to nuke St Petersburg (or Moscow; I think the Russians might be about to lose Petersburg in the war of the main timeline as of now, and maybe even if the Russians keep St. P, they will move the capital back to Moscow anyway in keeping both with prudent defenses and the nationalist/tradition-glorifying ideology.

I'm biased because personally I have no use for the House of Romanov at all and celebrate any timeline that brings them down and out of power, in any era; I don't see that poison tree sheltering any good thing growing.:rolleyes:
 
Nicky's uncles (who were all reactionaries of the deepest dye) had a very strong influence on him, and arguably controlled Russian politics and strategies.
IMHO it would not be enough to change Nicky, it would be necessary to change the court environment were he grew and also modify the leanings of his father and uncles.
So we go back to his grandfather, the so called "liberator". The defeat of Crimea might have been the spark for a change and for a few years it looked like Alexandr II would promote reforms. It did not work like that, and the czar regime went back to more reactionary approaches (and ultimately the czar was assassinated). If one posits a more coherent liberal approach by Alexandr II, maybe not only Russia reforms but also the bombing might be avoided. Even better if this happens in conjunction with a happier marital life, the growing disaffection between the czar and his wife (as well as the very poor health of the latter) had certainly a strong influence on the five surviving sons.

It would not be impossible, although it would certainly be very difficult.
I do certainly believe that by the time of the coronation of Nicky it was way too late, and it would have been too late even if he had been a much better man than he was OTL.
 
Top