What would've happened to Russia had it not entered WWI?

[COUNTESS]

Yes, he was very concerned. He made all kinds of offers. His first concern was the Grand Duchess Elizabeth, whom he wanted to marry. But her cared about Nicholas and Alexandra and their children and he tried very hard against many odds. The Kaiser had a good side that is often overlooked. But anyway, Alexandra loathed him and Germany at that point and refused. She said she would rather die than go to Germany.

[Al_bina]

The British cousin would never have rescued his Russian cousin because the British government had its own goals and cared very little about family ties. Nicholas' II abdication helped the British Empire "to achieve one of its major war aims". Prime Minister Lloyd George stated so in his speech in the parliament in 1917. The above means that the downfall of the monarchy in Russia fitted the British plans to rule the world.

The Romanovs - Emperors & Empresses of Russia: Tsar Nicholas II: Myth and Reality

[Mbruno]

As mentioned before, if Russia had not entered WWI, it would have been easier for Germany to achieve victory in the Western Front early in the conflict. Britain would never tolerate though a German hegemony in the continent and would eventually try to build a new anti-Germany coalition as it did for example several times against Napoleonic France over nearly two decades. Russia and probably even the US would be probably dragged into a war with Germany at some point anyway.

[Curryong]

Lloyd George and the pre-war Liberal party were never admirers of the autocratic system in Russia, with its pograms, suppression of freedoms and Secret Police, all supported by the Tsars, Al_bina. Desiring a change in Russia as a war aim, however, is very far from wishing for the death of a royal family or conniving at it.

Whatever happened in the war, whether Russia was out of the conflict or in, the country was on the road to revolution, IMO, and the Romanovs were a doomed dynasty from the time of the Decembrists. The deaths of the royal family and their relatives had little to do with the First World War.

[Al_bina]

When it comes to committing atrocities, no one can surpass the British - the royals and their governments.

It is hard for me to ascertain who (Mr George or King George V) took the responsibility for the final decision. We just look at various sources of information and make subjective conclusions. However, King George V's procrastination can be viewed as the most morally questionable.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

As mentioned before, if Russia had not entered WWI, it would have been easier for Germany to achieve victory in the Western Front early in the conflict. Britain would never tolerate though a German ... [snipped]

I agree with your comment.

[Curryong]

So the British surpass the Germans in both World Wars, or the Soviet Communism regime in the 1930's and 1950's in committing atrocities, Al_bina? A surprising POV! And which particular modern British royals have committed atrocities, the Queen, Charles, King George VI? By the way, King George the V not VI was on the throne in World War One.

[Al_bina]

You have a right to your point of view. Repeating the usual "Soviets... and Germans... " is trite in my personal opinion.

Thanks for catching my mistake! I have corrected my post.

[Curryong]

But the point was that you said that the British and their royal family surpassed all others. There are plenty of other examples, mass murders in the Bosnian conflict, the actions of the Khmer Rouge, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks, for example. Plus I am still curious to know which members of the BRF were responsible for massacres which surpass those I've mentioned.

[BorisRom]

Was First World War Inevitable?

Little-known facts and mysteries of the eve of WWI. 100 years after the begining of First World War, there is still exist some forgotten or mysterious facts. The brochure tells the story of a forgotten (by historians) telegram of Russian Emperor Nicholas II to German Emperor Wilhelm II on July 29, 1914 - two days before the start of WWI. Documentary sources found by the author convincingly shows that the telegram could prevent the war - would if the Kaiser Wilhelm agreed with the proposal of the Russian Emperor. In addition, the author criticizes the version of "equal responsibility" of the great European powers for starting WWI, and tells the story of the little-known (or the forgotten) facts of peacekeeping efforts of Nicholas II for the convening of the Hague Conference in 1899, and during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. The last part of the brochure is devoted to the analysis of the state of Russia by 1917, on the eve of Russian catastrophe. The brochure contains the reference of sources (36 references), and this may be of interest as to the general reader so and for professional historians.

[Curryong]

The Kaiser, though autocratic by nature, wasn't fully in charge of his country's foreign policy, however. Moreover, there is some evidence that he was largely in the hands of his generals, who wanted war, (or at least wanted to grind France into the dust again for the second time in 45 years.) They wanted a Europe under German domination and there's no evidence that William would have been able to stop that inexorable drive towards war.

No Nicholas didn't want war, nor did King George V, nor did William really. Whether anyone would have been able to stop the preparations at that late stage is debatable though. It would be like trying to stop an avalanche.

I don't think Russia could have avoided a revolution either. In a way that had been building up bit by bit since the Decembrists revolt early in the 19th century.

Nicholas was a weak man and, with the stubbornness of the weak, lit the final fuse when he had decided to follow his father in the path of autocracy at the beginning of his reign. He set his face against almost every democratic reform.

[CyrilVladisla]

Was it wise that Tsar Nicholas II of Russia attempted to take command of his armed forces by making himself Commander-in-Chief?

[Curryong]

No, I don't think it was wise, but then, a lot of things Nicholas II attempted were neither wise at the time or in retrospect.

Would it have saved his dynasty if he had succeeded as C-in-C.? No, not in my opinion. The army was under-supplied with what was needed anyway, and the Russian people had no food. The Home Front was collapsing. Too much was systemic, things had gone too far.

If, by some miracle, Nicholas had pulled a couple of tremendous victories against the Germans from nowhere, he would still have faced revolution at home, IMO. However, the allies, including Britain might have been scrambling for excuses in those circumstances for not offering immediate sanctuary to him and his family in another country like Spain or Canada.

[WreathOfLaurels]

Last year a book called towards the flame *was published - it's all about Russia's entry into Wwi and its consequences. Long story cut very short (read the book) Russia was screwed in most regards but Ns refusal to share responsibility for the outcome of the war w the Duma and the fact that unlike ww2 and 1812 Russia was not facing a direct threat were the final nails in the coffin. The army that was mostly peasants had no real reason to fight. The PG of kerensky was weak and dithering. Lenins rise to power was an accident (the social revolutionaries should have won as they had the support of the peasants - the bol's did not) but the downfall of the romanovs and imperial Russia wasn't. A lot of modern Russia's problems are the same ones N faced and ones the USSR only put on ice for 70 years rather than find solutions for along with making new ones

*its by Dominic Lieven

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The Kaiser, though autocratic by nature, wasn't fully in charge of his country's foreign policy, however. Moreover, there is some evidence that he was largely in the hands of his generals, who wanted war, (or at least wanted to grind France into the dust again for the second time in 45 years.) They wanted a Europe under German domination and there's no evidence that William would have been able to stop that inexorable drive towards war.

N

reform.

William was autocratic and his government was set up so that the Monarchy had most of the power, but all the saem Germany was developed politcally in a way that Russia simply wasnt at the time. Russia was still "in the Dark Ages" politicaly...and Nicholas stymied virutaly all attempts at refrom.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

But the point was that you said that the British and their royal family surpassed all others. There are plenty of other examples, mass murders in the Bosnian conflict, the actions of the Khmer Rouge, the massacre of Armenians by the Turks, for example. Plus I am still curious to know which members of the BRF were responsible for massacres which surpass those I've mentioned.

Not to mention the actions of Stalin and Hitler...

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Curryong

Lloyd George and the pre-war Liberal party were never admirers of the autocratic system in Russia, with its pograms, suppression of freedoms and Secret Police, all supported by the Tsars, Al_bina. Desiring a change in Russia as a war aim, however, is very far from wishing for the death of a royal family or conniving at it.

r.

I think it helped to create conditions of chaos and desperate poverty and so on, which drove the people to support the Revolution. If the war had not happened, perhaps the system would have bumbled on another 20 years and the Tsar would have been driven into exile rather than assassinated.
George V didn't want to welcome Nicholas to England, because in the increasingly revolutionary times, he feared to be seen as taking in an autocrat who had been driven out by his own people... Had Nicholas been sent into exile at a later stage in a calmer situation, I think that he would have been taken in by the UK and George if not exaclty welcoming him would have taken him in on humanitarian grounds.. Of course he didn't believe I am sure that by not taking his cousin in that he was leaving him in a situation where he migiht be killed...
And Lloyd George like most British liberals did want a change in the Tsarist autocracy either ot a republic or a constutional monarchy..

[Feologild]

A revolution would still have happened. But at a later date and the communist would probably never get to power.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The Revolution would have happened but perhaps the Romanovs would have survived. I do wonder if they would have gotten rid of the whole monarchy or make an attempt with Alexei; also wonder if he could have even survived long enough to produce children and reign for awhile.

[Curryong]

Alexei, poor boy, seems to have suffered a very severe form of haemophilia. In my opinion (and its just that) it's doubtful that he would have survived his twenties. Of course there is the example of haemophilic great uncle Leopold, who did marry and sired two children before he died. Also Heinrich of Prussia's eldest son who suffered that condition, married. Nevertheless, Alexei's life would have been hanging by a thread.

In my view Revolution was inevitable in Russia by the early 20th century. If the Kerensky government had been in power in say Revolutionary Year 1925, then I believe the Imperial family (including presumably spouses/children of OTMA if any) may well have been allowed to live in exile somewhere, perhaps Scandinavia. If a revolutionary group had seized power possibly not.

Either way the monarchy was finished, IMO. And, considering how Nicholas and his eldest daughter loved Russia with all their hearts and souls, exile away from it may well have been regarded by them as a living death anyway.

[Denville]

A lot of it was downto Nicholas and ALexandra.. IF they had not stymied all attempts at reforming the system, they might have ended up as constitutional monarchs.