What Could Nicholas II Have Done to Preserve the Imperial Throne?

Elisabeth and Petr, thanks for the excellent posts here on this thread.

Hey, what about me, Robert, Constantinople, and Bear?  We're contributing here too

I'm having a blast posting in this thread.  Debating can be fun.

I am sorry. You are absolutely right. It is just that the conversation between them two triggered my response.

And the fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been for Lend Lease, American assistance, the Soviet Union would not have been able to recover as quickly as it did from Operation Barbarossa. In fact, if it hadn't been for the United States I doubt very much Stalin's troops could have rolled into Berlin when they did - it would have taken many more years, maybe a decade, maybe even decades, of incredible loss and hardship. Robert Harris has a wonderful "counterfactual" novel, Fatherland, set in the 1960s, about what would have happened if the USA had stayed out of World War II and Britain had signed a separate peace with Nazi Germany.

There's a similar book (I forget the title) which is premised upon a successful invasion of Britain (which came close to reality).  Its interesting that most of the trucks used by the Soviet Army were manufactured by Ford. However, if there is one thing that Stalin did do right it was that he moved all his armaments factories to the Urals, a remarkable feat. Ultimately, that is what allowed the Societ Army to reach Berlin. Probably the best tank of WWII over all was the T-34 (the German Leopard and Panther were great tanks but were difficult to maintain and were not manufactured in sufficient numbers to make a difference) which was manufactured in those factories. It was the T-34 that won the battle of Kursk the greatest tank battle of all time (except possibly the one in the first Iraq war).   

Elisabeth and Petr, thanks for the excellent posts here on this thread. I couldn't have said it better. Fully agree with you both.

WWI was devastating fot Tsarist Russia. It brutalized the masses, consider how many Vietnam veterans were traumatized, and then consider that in WWI the numbers were much and much larger. It brought violence of the front right into the backland. Also consider the giga inflation, people waiting 8 hours for a loaf of bread etc. etc.

Also I agree, and am happy to read from you that you also assume that Alexander III could have made a big difference. Because an important factor which troubled relations between countries was Pan Slavism and the Russian need to bother themselves with the Balkan. Pan Slavism sentiments were growing after the Russo Japanese war, as the Balkan became important as a means of diverting attention of interal unrest. My guess with Alexander III would be that he would ignore the Pan Slavist sentiments. He was standing "with his back to Europe" while Nicholas had a European outlook and was under influence of these forces. Alexander would probably have dealt with Revolutionary activity internally, without looking for a way out, as Plehve said "to look for a short and victorious war to appease the public". In my opinion Alexander III is very underestimated even if there is a rivival of interest in Russian media. In Western countries he is still very much unknown and as best known as "the man between" (the son of a famous Tsar and the father of the most tragic Tsar) and that his politics had the effect of leading the country directly into revolution and misery. I agree that his reactionary politics were bad for the Russian people but he did not invent them himself. In the beginning of his reign he was very much under influence of the conservative opinionmakers, like Pobedonostsev. And there are indications that, in the end he freed himself of this influence.

Alexander III is also much judged on his supposedly low intelligence. While he was not an intelligent man on the rational way, he certainly was intelligent on the human side (EQ instead of IQ). Finally he didn't like adventurism and vanity.

All qualities which could have been vital in the period just before WWI, as opposed to the mental delusions which prevailed in so many state Leaders at that time.

My guess would be that the European politics of the era leading to WWI were a very delicate task, a task of balancing interests, as politics always are, and some of the polticians, unfortunately the most important ones, like Wilhelm and like Edward Grey by example, led themselves carry away with nationalist and revanchist sentiments. I personally don't think WWI was unavoidable. Usually Wilhelm is blamed for adventurous politics. But they were all to blame.

Thanks so much, Sergei, it's true that we all contribute but it's nevertheless nice to hear that my posts are stimulating for thought and discussion! That's all I want, really, when I post, probably all that any of us want?

This post of yours certainly set off a train of thoughts in my head... I'm not nearly as familiar with the diplomatic history of World War I as you are. All I can say, from my standpoint of very general knowledge, is that probably no war is unavoidable. Of course, most of us were born in an age of nuclear weapons and as a result another world war is inconceivable (although I guess it was quite conceivable during the Cold War, at least theoretically -- still, that particular armed conflict was indeed avoided!). Without nuclear deterrence, however, it seems that wars on a vast scale, world wars in fact, are much more likely to occur...

I do think someone of Alexander III's strength of personality and character might have delayed a world war during the time he lived, if he had only lived longer. I agree that AIII is underestimated (except possibly by Putin and his cronies in the current Russian government) in so far as he apparently had, as you say, a pretty high EQ, in other words, he knew what was what, he could "read" people and make his own judgments with minimal second-guessing and probably no self-doubt whatsoever. Very unlike his son and successor Nicholas II, poor soul. Which is not to say that AIII didn't make some major mistakes, including tamping down on the zemstvos (although they seem to have flourished despite him) and overreacting to political activism in the universities (his political persecution forged a whole new generation of revolutionaries, unfortunately).

On the other hand, to play devil's advocate, Pan-Slavism was only a strand of nationalism, and Russian nationalism, like other nationalisms, was obviously on the rise at the beginning of the 20th century. It's been argued recently (by Niall Ferguson for one) that World War I was not initially (or ever) as wildly popular as previous historians had claimed; nevertheless, in Russia the declaration of hostilities against Austria-Hungary and Germany seems to have been met with great acclamation, at least in the cities. What tsar could have withstood such a tide of popular opinion? Okay, maybe Alexander III could have. Maybe. But if not in 1914, then in 1924... sooner or later he would have been gone, and the tides of war would still have been churning.

Elisabeth, thanks for your reaction.

It was generally believed in 1914 by the inner circles of Nicholas and the political parties on the right that participating in a war against Germany and defeating the "Teutonic barbarians" could save Nicholas the throne. And he must have been confirmed in this thought when he saw the public's enthousiasm on the day of the mobilization. Certainly, revolutionary activities had increased - again - from 1912 until 1914 so the thought may not be that strange when he saw the public united around him. Even the Duma dissolved itself! So he could rule alone again, what he always wanted.
But this public's enthousiasm may have been a facade of middle class people who were encouraged to show up and pay him their support. Certainly the peasants and workers would have nothing to do with war.

And what you say about nuclear deterrence is true. In 1914 there was of course no such thing and so, with the coalition system and growing nationalism, there was always a chance for war. And there were a number of statesmen who held very heroic beliefs on warfare, the more because they hadn't experienced the horrors of war themselves and didn't understand that a modern full scale war would be something never experienced before.

"And there were a number of statesmen who held very heroic beliefs on warfare, the more because they hadn't experienced the horrors of war themselves and didn't understand that a modern full scale war would be something never experienced before."

Which leads me to repeat what my Grandmother told me...WWI changed everything!

Kaiser Wilhelm definitely understood the scope of modern war and if you read about his preparations, you can see he spent a lot of time p[reparing the scientific basis and logistical basis for a continent wide war in the 10 or 15 years prior to 1914.

If Nicky had stayed out of the war, I wonder if the revolution would have happened.  Or would he have had time to turn Russia into a Constitutional Monarchy?

I wonder to what extent the Kaiser played a personal part in the development of those plans or was it really Schlieffen and Von Moltke who crafted the plans and presented them to the Kaiser for approval. Was he aggressive yes but did he really understand the consequences and could he have been restrained under the proper circumstances.  Actually I've read that he may have lost control of the General Staff which then proceeded to execute the plans that they had worked on so diligently for so many years so the question could be who had the real whip hand, the Kaiser or the Army. Having been in the military I can see how people get invested in plans and once in that mindset its difficult to change their views (WMD anyone?).    

In spite of having a parliament to answer to, the Kaiser more or less did what he wanted to do.  The Kaiser was personlly involved in the direction of the army.  I think that the von Schliefn plan only came into play after the initial disaster suffered by the Germans at the hands of the Russians, but I am not sure.

If you'd like to know about the Kaiser,  an excellent book to discover your answers is in:
The Arms of Krupp: The Rise and Fall of the Industrial Dynasty that Armed Germany at War by William Manchester (Mar 4, 2003)

An eye opener for many who are not familiar with Wilhelm II and Krupp Works.

Someone mention "Fatherland".  Another good book.

As for Alex. III's having lived up and through 1914,  he  did indeed disliked war and probably wouldn't have been a part of a WW I, but,  if that had been the case,  Germany, who was very prepared for war,  would have marched into London then turned eastward.   Alex. II may have held off the revolutionaries until 1918 but a war with Germany would have been even bloodier....  For an example: The siege like what  occurred in WW II in Stalingrad [Tsarytsin to 1925 and Volograd after 1961] would have occurred sooner.   Out of  48,190 houses,  41,685 houses were destroyed [mostly due to fire since most houses were of wood].  From 1941 to  1942 some 200,000 were lost in this city.    

The results would have probably been the same for Wilhlem II as what happen to Napoleon in Russia in 1812, but,  then, maybe not.  If not,  the  German Empire would have turned their eyes toward the rest of the world, including the USA.  The one thing that may not have happen was the rise of Hitler if Germany had been victorious.

AGRBear  

If the Russians had not taken the bait, then Kaiser Wilhelm would have probably been left festering.  Without a reason, he probably knew that he could not just start a war.  I think that he would have moved towards the Middle East and would have made deals with the Ottoman Empire to develop German economic interests in Iran and Iraq.  Britain had a significant navy and probably the Germans wouldnt have been able to invade Britain but theywould have been able to conquer western Europe and once Germany had secured energy supplies from the middle east, then it would have been able to develop into a real powerhouse by the 1920s and at some point a more serious war would have started.

Suppose the Russians had chosen to do what they had done with Napoleon a century earlier, just dig in and let the Germans come to them.  What would have happened?  Could the Kaiser's forces overcome the harsh Russian winter?  Napoleon coudn't, Adolf Hitler couldn't (and let's not forget that Hitler had much more advanced military technology than the Kaiser did).  Could Willie have succeeded where Napoleon and Hitler failed?

Tim, I have argued the same point and ti would depend on whether the Germans decided to fight a one front oor two front war.  The problem was logistics and the answer lies in how successful the Germans would have been. There wouldnt have been  a trench warfare situation in Russia and the Germans actually were developing artificial solutions to their armaments problems. Germany had the most advanced Chemical industry in the world and had mastered the industrial solutions to high outputs for weapons manufacturing.  Hitler lasted a lot longer in Russia than Napoleon did  so I imagine that the answer would have lied in the logistics of each side. One thing about Russia in 1914 onwards is that it did not have support. In other words, western countries like Britain, France and the US were not willing to finance or lend equipment to Tsarist Rusisia so that when the Russians ran out of ammunition or weapons, they would have been fighting the Germans hand hand and fighting against machine guns and things like gas. Stalin got a lot of support from both America and Britain in terms of arms and that was one reason why he defeated Germany.

I had posted this under the Red and White thread,  but,  the more I think about it,  perhaps this is what Nicholas II should have done to preseved the Imperial throne, so, I'm repeating it here:

Figes  A PEOPLE'S TRAGEDY p. 416:

>>As Breslov saw it,  the soldiers were so obsessed with the idea of peace that they would have been prepared to support the Tsar himself, so long as he promised to bring the war to an end.  This alone, Brusilovs claimed, rather than the belief in some abstract 'socialism', explained their attraction to the Bolsheviks.  The mass of soldiers were simply peasants, they wanted land and freedom, and they began to call this "bolshevism' because only that party promised peace.<<

AGRBear

A couple of thoughts and observations. As I pointed out earlier Hitler came damn close to doing what Napoleon couldn't do. Actually we have Mussolini to thank because of his botched invasion of Albania Hitler wound up invading Greece delaying Barbarossa by almost two months. Using the same actual rate of the German advance had the invasion started two months earlier Hitler's forces would have been on Moscow's doorstep by October well before the weather made air operations and transportation difficult (remember German troops were sent into battle totally unprepared for winter because the original plan had most of the objectives reached before then). As for Russian performance in WWI, the fact is that after the disasterous opening campaigns (e.g., Tannenberg) towards the latter half of 1915 and 1916 there were signs of improvement on the battle field, particularly against the Austrians. I have read in another thread that the "Progressive Block" turned its attention away from Rasputin and Alexandra and focused on NII because they feared that there was a possibility that Russian victories on the battlefield would strengthen NII's position with the masses.  There was some western assistance (principally financial I believe) but certainly nowhere near the level of Lend Lease during WWII.