Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think neutrality would have been an option for long. They might have tried to go the Sweden route but would have ended up trying to defend themselves from Hitler. Hitler wanted to Germanize western Russia, eliminate the Jews, and take their stuff...
I suppose Russia would have stayed in WW1 and maybe benefited a little from that outcome. I'm inclined to think that a 1940s Czarist Russia would have been a pushover but maybe not. The heir, Czarevich Alexei, was too sickly to survive very long and would not have instilled confidence so likely would have left the scene. There might have been reforms and massive industrialization, trade unions, foreign investment, and a modern military. Or there might have been famine, civil war, oppression, foreign intervention, etc. (kinda like under the Bolsheviks but worse).
Romanov's dynasty always sided with British crown. As example of how well British crown sided with Romanov's, here's simple fact. Young Nikolas was offered his future spouse, a German royalty female, by then queen of England, who was well aware that, that woman was hemophilia gene carrier. Plan was to leave Nikolas without healthy male heir to the thrown and, in fact, young prince indeed had hemophilia and, Rasputin was the only one, who could stop his bleeding, by laying hands.
But, regardless of who they side with, they were not, actually, overthrown by Bolsheviks. You need to refresh your history knowledge.
They were overthrown by their own upper military officers and, that resulted in the Temporary Government of one Kerensky.
That government existed only for few months, had no real power in masses and then, was overthrown by Bolsheviks. Even that is not correct, as driving force behind it was Leon Bronstein, aka Trotskiy, who was hardcore Menshevik. Jewish Bund had major part in that cupe d'etat same time.
Mensheviks dominance in revolutionary government was all the way through 1932, when last of them were expelled from the USSR, after Trotskiy was exiled.
That aside, West always tried to conquer East/Russia. Nothing would have changed. Purpose of WW1 was destroy 5 then existing empires - Austro Hungarian, German, Ottoman, Russian and I forgot the 5th one... What awas accomplished. So tsar, no tsar, that had to be done.
it is said, that, WW1 never really ended and, simply went sort of dormant, with 1939 returning back to hot state. For example, fights lasted in Russia/USSR all the way into 1930s, just at different fronts, mostly in Asia. Remember, oil and other sought for commodities were there.
I'm not sure how you can answer this kind of question. There are a lot of factors that would come in to play. While Russia and Germany were antagonists during both wars, it's important to remember that they were not the same entities fighting one another.
German Empire vs Russian Empire
Nazi Germany vs USSR
If Tsar Nicholas II and Russia hadn't been overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and the Russian monarchy is ongoing...
Which side do you think Russia would be on during World War 2? The Allies or Axis? Or do you think they would stay neutral?
While I'm not opposed to What-If? scenarios in general, this one is a classic example of how most people fail to approach them at all properly.
In the first place, World War I plays out differently, unless we assume the Tsar behaves precisely as the Provisional Government and the Bolsheviks actually behaved over the last year and a half of the conflict. This seems a considerable leap. The final terms would certainly have different, resulting in different German attitudes regarding them during the following decades. Does Hitler still come to power? Perhaps, but maybe not. For all we know the butterfly effects from Tsar Nicholas holding power - which can safely be assumed to be considerable - result in the Austrian corporal dying in the western front. Maybe the opportunity never arises for the 1923 putsch attempt, remembering that despite its failure this act made Hitler politically. It was a critical moment that gave him a public platform and transformed him from just another agitator to a nascent player in German politics. And a different regime headed by a different person is very likely not to possess Hitler's unusual penchant for high-risk undertakings such as invading the USSR/Russia. For that matter, does Russia absent a communist boogeyman present a sufficient foil for Hitler or whoever to effectively present as a dire threat to the German populace? Barbarossa didn't just happen. Its reasons were part inherent in the personality of Adolf Hitler, part a function of longstanding attitudes toward Slavic peoples by Germany, but partly due to the presence of a Marxist regime in Moscow for the preceding 24 years. And also due in no small part to the brief existences of the People's State of Bavaria and the Bavarian Soviet Republic. Hitler lived in Munich before and after the war, and living - however briefly, before they collapsed - under these regimes had a profound effect on the future Fuehrer. Again, absent them and a Red Moscow, Hitler is likely not concerned much with communism (because it would then be just an idea, not a clear and present danger). How industrial is Russia in 1939? Nicholas was no saint, but Stalin forcibly wrenched Russia into a degree of industrialization that the Romanovs simply were not going to do. The USSR and Poland fought a war between 1919 and 1920. Does a similar war happen? How does it play out? Major difference there. Is there a Ukrainian civil war, and does Nicholas manage to hold Ukraine? Another major difference.
What I'm trying to say is that you can't simply propose a major historical change and then fast-forward a quarter century and assume that the world has continued to develop along the same lines. You have to at least try to account for the ramifications of that change in the interim.
In this case, I think you're looking too far post-change. The successful establishment of a communist state in Russia was a radical development that would shape global history directly for most of the next century. At best, we might assess the immediate effects in the Russian Empire and how the major world powers approach Russia differently than they approached the USSR. But re-imagining World War II in which Lenin and his cabal were snuffed out before they got going?
While I'm not opposed to What-If? scenarios in general, this one is a classic example of how most people fail to approach them at all properly.
....
Good response, I was thinking about creating a similar lengthy response but just didn't have the time or patience. You put it right, you have to consider all the changes that would occur in that quarter century between the two events. It's simply not event A then 25 years later event B. In between those 25 years there are events c, d, e, f, g, h.....beyond are ability to even measure, that also impact the final event.
I also don't think the OP understand the events leading to Soviet Russia entry into ww2, the nazi parties "living space" concept of Russian land (as well as the ideological hatred), Stalin's "let the west fight each other out" concept, Stalin's expansionist policy at the time which permitted a short lived non-agression pact between those two countries, all those contributing factors. I seriously don't think he even knows that Germany attacked Russia in Barbarossa, breaking the treaty.
I don't think the Nazis get to power ever without the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. In fact, I think it would have made a left-wing revolution in another European country such as Germany more likely.
People forget the degree to which the events in Russia terrified the middle classes in the West. Without the Bolshevik terror serving as a warning, the moderate SPD men in Germany may well have been more willing to join a "People's Front" government with the communists after the lost war - instead of working with conservative military men to crush the communists.
If Tsar Nicholas II and Russia hadn't been overthrown by the Bolsheviks, and the Russian monarchy is ongoing...
Which side do you think Russia would be on during World War 2? The Allies or Axis? Or do you think they would stay neutral?
Without Soviet intervention, Franco takes over Spain just as easily as Mussolini and Hitler took over their countries. Therefore, not having been drained by years of civil war Spain enters WWII on the Axis side and invades France from the south/west. The Germans invade from the north/east but has many more resources to send to the Russian Front, no matter who is in charge of Russia.
The Romanovs spoke French at home and were related to the British royal family. Russia has always been at odds with Germany (analagous to the China-Japan rivalry) and therefore I think it's unlikely that they would have allied themselves with Hitler. The Romanovs may have tried some non-aggression pact but it would have ended up like Stalin's gamble did.
True, without Stalin's 1930's purges the Russian military would have been able to put up more resistance early on, but the added German resources thanks to Spain's involvement in France offsets that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
