WI: Michael accepts the throne?

IOTL, the last Tsar, Nicholas II, was forced to abdicate due to the ongoing pressures of the riots and demonstrations in Petrograd. He skipped over Alexei because of his hemophilia, and passed the throne directly to his brother, Grand Duke Michael. Michael would not accept the throne either until a Constituent Assembly could ratify it, and the monarchy was abolished and rendered defunct, with a Provisional Government under prince Georgy Lvov being formed. What if Michael had accepted out of hand? Some army units celebrated Michael's ascension and swore allegiance to the new tsar, though the mob was not happy. He seemed a less reactionary and more competent character than Nicholas? Can the monarchy survive? Is there still a civil war? Or does the monarchy still get overthrown, the difference being that Michael II is the last tsar?
 
I appreciate the summons, but I'm not a Romanov expert. I have no idea what Michael might have done. As for the revolutionaries, this Change would not have done. There's a reason why Michael did not accept. (Maybe many.) Had he tried to pull it off, rifts between the revolutionary councils and those Duma factions who'd support Michael would open wide, early. I doubt the strikes and mutinies could be ended this way.
 
@alexmilman Perhaps he can help.
I’m quite skeptical. To handle situation there would be a need for someone with a lot of brains and willpower (and readiness to kill people) and even then outcome would be unclear. And of course, the candidate would need to have the loyal troops close to Petrograd. Not necessarily too many but of a high quality, mobile and with artillery.
And he would need to have some at least superficially attractive political program . Not necessarily meaningful or something he is really planning to implement but simple and catchy (and not “war to the victorious end”), just like the Bolsheviks had (their slogans did not stood to any criticism but they worked).
 
Last edited:
IOTL, the last Tsar, Nicholas II, was forced to abdicate due to the ongoing pressures of the riots and demonstrations in Petrograd. He skipped over Alexei because of his hemophilia, and passed the throne directly to his brother, Grand Duke Michael. Michael would not accept the throne either until a Constituent Assembly could ratify it, and the monarchy was abolished and rendered defunct, with a Provisional Government under prince Georgy Lvov being formed. What if Michael had accepted out of hand? Some army units celebrated Michael's ascension and swore allegiance to the new tsar, though the mob was not happy. He seemed a less reactionary and more competent character than Nicholas? Can the monarchy survive? Is there still a civil war? Or does the monarchy still get overthrown, the difference being that Michael II is the last tsar?

I think Michael could only stay in power if he called a Constituent Assembly to ratify his rule (after taking the throne), pulls out of the war, and implements democratic reforms. Michael was not as reactionary as his brother to my understanding, but he'd have to be a very bold reformer in order to do what would've been necessary at that point to maintain the Romanov rule over Russia.
 
I think Michael could only stay in power if he called a Constituent Assembly to ratify his rule (after taking the throne), pulls out of the war, and implements democratic reforms.

In February, 1917, pulling out of the war was not an option. Sukhanov, a left-wing "Zimmerwaldist" Menshevik wrote with regret that "During the first weeks the soldiers of Petrograd not only would not listen, but would not permit any talk of peace. They were ready to lift up on their bayonets any uncautious 'traitor' or exponent of 'opening the front to the enemy.'" (Quoted in Adam Ulam, The Bolsheviks, p. 325. https://books.google.com/books?id=TdCK1WkconkC&pg=PA325; see https://books.google.com/books?id=6-D_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA202 for a slightly different translation.)

In fact, AFAIK, nobody in 1917 openly advocated a separate peace with Imperial Germany--including the Bolsheviks. They advocated peace with the German "workers and soldiers"--not with Wilhelm II, who they said would be overthrown by a socialist revolution, if only Russia itself got a real revolutionary government. Dominic Lieven, The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution, p. 255: "In 1917, the liberal and moderate socialist parties all joined the provisional government and supported its commitment to remaining in the war. Their stance was reasonable. To make a separate peace with Germany-—the only peace that was ever actually going to be on offer-—risked placing the fate of Europe and of the Russian Revolution in the kaiser's hands. With the Russian masses increasingly hostile to the war, the moderate socialists' position nevertheless allowed the only organized party outside the government—the Bolsheviks—to mobilize grassroots support. If the Bolsheviks in 1917 had openly advocated a separate peace with Germany, then their cause would have been ruined. By arguing-—even often believing—-that they could end the war without making a separate peace with Berlin, they avoided this trap." https://books.google.com/books?id=nqGvDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA355

I really doubt that Michael could consolidate his power--the people who made the Revolution in Petrograd wanted more than a change of monarchs, and even if Michael had the will to crush them by bringing in loyal troops from elsewhere, I am not sure how "loyal" those loyal troops would be if called upon to shoot their brother soldiers. But if he did manage to consolidate power and then tried to take Russia out of the war with a separate peace, the Bolsheviks would join the other Socialists in crying "treason!" and "sell-out to German imperialism!"
 
I think Michael could only stay in power if he called a Constituent Assembly to ratify his rule (after taking the throne), pulls out of the war, and implements democratic reforms. Michael was not as reactionary as his brother to my understanding, but he'd have to be a very bold reformer in order to do what would've been necessary at that point to maintain the Romanov rule over Russia.
But how is he going to spin the peace deal which will inevitably involve losses of huge chunks of territory and cause the monarchy's popularity to plummet even further?
 
But how is he going to spin the peace deal which will inevitably involve losses of huge chunks of territory and cause the monarchy's popularity to plummet even further?

He can't, at least not in a way that will satisfy very many people.

Which brings me to my response to @David T . You are right that pulling out of the war was not a politically feasible option in 1917, and neither was a violent consolidation of Michael's power. Were Michael to violently crack down on his opposition, the result would likely have been an overthrow of his government. Maybe if Michael somehow restored military morale and discipline and saw Russia to a series of victories in 1917, he could generate popularity and consolidate his rule. But by 1917 it may very well have been too late to save the monarchy, given how desperate Russia's situation was.
 
Top