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

[TimM]

Part of me still wishes I had that time machine.  I know, it probably wouldn't have done any good, but I would at least try.  Maybe it's just the monarchist in me talking, but I like the Romanov's, and they did not deserve to be brutally murdered like that.  Even if Nicky was an autocrat, that still does not justify his murder and it certainly does not justify the murder of his whole family.  What did Olga do to deserve such a fate?  What did Tatiana do, Maria do, Anastasia do, and so on.

A terrible crime was committed against this family, and their murderers were not punished for it.  Where is justice!?

[Constantinople]

Maybe you woudnt have been so positive about him if you were born into a peasant family in Russia and couldn't get an education and then wound up conscripted into the Russian army in WW1, where you didnt have a weapon and never knew when food supplies were coming and you were ordered to charge German machine guns with no bullits and no other weapon.

[TimM]

Maybe you woudnt have been so positive about him if you were born into a peasant family in Russia and couldn't get an education and then wound up conscripted into the Russian army in WW1, where you didnt have a weapon and never knew when food supplies were coming and you were ordered to charge German machine guns with no bullits and no other weapon.

Perhaps, but that still does not justify cold bloodedly murdering him and his family for no reason.  They had been out of power for over a year by that point, they were no threat to Lenin and his thugs.  Murdering them simply wasn't necessary.  Of course, murder is what Communists were all about, as we saw when Papa Stalin took over.

[Constantinople]

Well actually as the head of the White Army, the Tsar and his wife and heir were great threats but it doesnt justify how they were murdered.

[TimM]

Exactly, they could have easily been sent into exile.

[Constantinople]

Well Kerensky tried that but Britain turned him down.  And with the White Army still a threat and Russia out of the war, I am sure the last thing that the Bolsheviks needed was the Tsar raising money and support for the White Army.

[TimM]

But would he have.  From what I have read, Nicky seemed happy to be off the throne.  They should have sent them here to Canada, they could have settled out in the praries, we have a large Russian community out there.  I could see Nicky happily working a farm somewhere.

[Silja]

But would he have.  From what I have read, Nicky seemed happy to be off the throne.  They should have sent them here to Canada, they could have settled out in the praries, we have a large Russian community out there.  I could see Nicky happily working a farm somewhere.

More importantly, would the Whites have wanted this? The White Army was largely against a restoration of the Romanovs. They were well aware of the nation being pretty antagonistic to the former rulers by then.

[Constantinople]

I think they ould have.  They weren't called the Tsarist forces for nothing. You just have to llook at how much energy they focused on taking Ekaterinburg.

[TimM]

One has to wonder, would Nicky have taken the throne back if the White Army had reached him in time.  As I said, he seemed happy to be relieved of the burden.  I can't see him wanting it back.

[Robert_Hall]

 I doubt that he could, TimM I am not positive,  but I do not think one  could renounce an abdication.

[AGRBear]

I think anything was possible in those early years of the Bolshevik Revolution and Civil War.

Nicholas II might have been able to prove he had been forced to abdicate, therefore,  his abdication could have been null and void.  With that said,  why would he have to prove anything.  All the previous laws had been trashed by the Bolsheviks so why couldn't Nicholas II have trashed all laws and start fresh.  Those who supported him would have demanded  a government similar to what the Britsh have and Nicholas II and his family could have taken  residences  at  their palace and live happily ever after, while the new politicians in town worked on the new laws, etc. etc. etc.?

As for the uncrown Emp. Krill,  I don't think anyone was to thrilled with him anyway.  Besides,  I don't think he would have had the nerve to return to Russia and demand his rights.  Sure,  he might have been a pest through the ages but I doubt he'd been anything more.

AGRBear

[TimM]

Those who supported him would have demanded  a government similar to what the Britsh have and Nicholas II and his family could have taken  residences  at  their palace and live happily ever after, while the new politicians in town worked on the new laws, etc. etc. etc.?

Makes sense to me.  it would have been obvious at that point that the old system no longer worked and if the monarchy was to survive, big changes would have to be made.  I could see them following the British way.

[Elisabeth]

Those who supported him would have demanded  a government similar to what the Britsh have and Nicholas II and his family could have taken  residences  at  their palace and live happily ever after, while the new politicians in town worked on the new laws, etc. etc. etc.?

Makes sense to me.  it would have been obvious at that point that the old system no longer worked and if the monarchy was to survive, big changes would have to be made.  I could see them following the British way.

I can't see Russia following the British way in 1917, for one thing because Silja is right, the Russian monarchy and the Romanov dynasty were equally and thoroughly discredited in Russia by this time, amongst virtually all social classes. This is why the monarchy --and the dynasty -- collapsed so suddenly and decisively in February/March 1917. There was almost no one left to support it. By this date even a lot of monarchists and conservatives had turned their backs on Nicholas and Alexandra.

White troops did not want to bring back Nicholas II. The few Whites who retained hopes of a restoration of the Romanov monarchy had their eyes set on someone like Nikolasha, Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. No one wanted NII back on the throne, the very idea is laughable. Even Tsarevich Aleksei Nikolaevich was discredited not only because he was NII's son and thought to be a former puppet of Rasputin, but also because by this point everybody knew he was a chronic invalid (even if they didn't know the precise malady he suffered from).

The sad thing is that Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were more valuable to the Whites dead -- as murdered victims of the "evil" Bolsheviks --  than they ever were alive. Alive, they were an acute embarrassment, but dead, they were martyrs of holy Orthodox Russia murdered by wicked atheist revolutionaries ("hyenas laughing over the ruins of a great civilization," to mangle Churchill's famous description of Lenin and his cronies).

[TimM]

the Russian monarchy and the Romanov dynasty were equally and thoroughly discredited in Russia by this time, amongst virtually all social classes. This is why the monarchy --and the dynasty -- collapsed so suddenly and decisively in February/March 1917. There was almost no one left to support it. By this date even a lot of monarchists and conservatives had turned their backs on Nicholas and Alexandra.

Maybe they would have thought differently if they knew of the coming horrors of Communism.  You have to feel sorry for those poor people, they didn't know when they were well off.  Nicky may have been an autocrat, but compared to the likes of Stalin, he's not so bad.

If given a choice between Russia under Nicholas or the Soviet Union under Stalin, I'd pick Nicholas any day.