N/A
- Thread starter 037771
- Start date
One of the main reasons why the Tsar was overthrown was due to heavy Russian losses in WWI. One of the reasons why the October Revolution was halted was because the Tsar was able to move troops back to St. Petersburg after the Russo-Japanese War ended. With 1.3 million dead and 4 million taken prisoner, it's hard to maintain order. I think that if war hadn't broken out, Nicholas II or his son Alexei might have been willing to share more power with the Duma, thus creating a more effective constitutional monarchy.
Markus
Banned
There are many threads on WI WWI hadnt had happened. But what would happen to Russia? Would the Tsar be overthrown eventually? Would a new Liberal establishment triumph, with Kerensky at its head? Or would the Kornilov Crisis play itself out, although with no Soviets to stop him (Soviets at the time being workers council)?
Supported by years of solid economic groth and the effects of a major land reform passed shortly before 1914 Russia turns into a modern constitutional monarchy.
Valdemar II
Banned
If I remember correctly Russia had GDP per capita equal to Italy in 1914. It rather likely that continued growth would have transformed Russia to the greatest economical power by 2000, especially without Stalin and the World Wars to reduce Russias population. Of course democratisation was unavoideble with a growing middle class and the steps already taken. So the 20th century become the Russian century.
Russia will modernise and eventually living standards will increase. Its economy in 1913 had all the signs of becoming a monster it was only the World War, which stopped Russia. With more railways and industrialisation and most importantly that foreign investment. Even with Nicholas as Tzar things are looking up for both Russia and its people.
Its his son and heir which is the key here not Nicholas himself. When Alexei becomes Tzar in the 30s that’s the time when Democracy will hit. With increased living standards and pressure for a democratic government I can see Alexei's reign (If he doesn't die) been the transition from an Autocratic to a democratic Russia.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Nicholas was much more autocratic than Wilhelm, since Nicholas was technically Absolute Autocratic of Russia, Wilhelm was never close to that. The Prussian and German crowns had limitations that even Wilhelm observed. Wilhelm also had to deal with an elected Reichstag which had more authority over the national budget than the Duma had
Perhaps Nicholas may send packing the Pauline law to allow GD Olga to succeed in case the tsarevich dies -nothing quite impossible, alàs!
Olmeka
Banned
There still would be enough class differences, corruption and authoritarian rule to spark a revolution. Even if Russia modernises it will be the rule of force rather then rule of law.
I would bet on some form of military coup backed by rich oligarchy, with army exploiting naive young officers and politicians.
Russia would still have problems with its minorities, particulary in Poland, Finland and Caucasus. They would destabilise the country unless their problem would be solved in some way. Either as scapegoats for problems and target of pogroms or by some form of integrating them into Empire-Russia siding with Muslims in Middle East against Colonial Powers or promising Poles autonomy and lands from Austria and Germany in exchange for loyalty.
Either way a Nationalist card would be played.
If it grows to status of being able to dominate continent then new alliances would look interesting.
A German-British-Austro-Ottoman Coalition against Russo-French one would make future war very interesting.
There is also a question of Japan and China and their particular role in future foreign policy of Russia.
Could industralised Russia support modernisation of China against Britain and Japan(allied in early XX century) ?
I am of opinion that a war would happen.
I would bet on some form of military coup backed by rich oligarchy, with army exploiting naive young officers and politicians.
Russia would still have problems with its minorities, particulary in Poland, Finland and Caucasus. They would destabilise the country unless their problem would be solved in some way. Either as scapegoats for problems and target of pogroms or by some form of integrating them into Empire-Russia siding with Muslims in Middle East against Colonial Powers or promising Poles autonomy and lands from Austria and Germany in exchange for loyalty.
Either way a Nationalist card would be played.
If it grows to status of being able to dominate continent then new alliances would look interesting.
A German-British-Austro-Ottoman Coalition against Russo-French one would make future war very interesting.
There is also a question of Japan and China and their particular role in future foreign policy of Russia.
Could industralised Russia support modernisation of China against Britain and Japan(allied in early XX century) ?
I am of opinion that a war would happen.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
I think Russia's economic growth can be overstated. It was also uneven, especially in the distribution of wealth. Also, a lot of it was generated by foreign capital.
I think there were plenty of causes for instability, but it's hard to imagine that things could turn out much worse than they did in OTL!
You would probably see liberal-democratic development in fits and starts, but that will make retention of some of the empire problematic, like for instance Poland.
I think there were plenty of causes for instability, but it's hard to imagine that things could turn out much worse than they did in OTL!
You would probably see liberal-democratic development in fits and starts, but that will make retention of some of the empire problematic, like for instance Poland.
separatism would be a large problem
almoust constant war and the sheer sise of the red army stoped most attepts of sucesfull separation of colonised nations from the russian empire
without comunism and staljinist terror to keep the peoples in line the tsarists would have to invent something similar, and spend huge amounts on the army, with gulags springing up all over sibiria just like in OTL
rasism would be a big problem too, as well as a tendency to controll people through ortodox fundamentalism wich saw little diference between state and church as the tsar was also officially the head religious leader, or second to it, a holy figure ider way, leading to fundamentalism and backwardness
also it is questionable if any tsar could repeat the staljinist stile industrial leap, especialy since a world war was inevitable, it was olnly a question of when, and the longer the peace of the bell epoque lasted the more powerfull and tehnologically adwanced the european armies would of become, the more dewastating the war for all nations, and how the russian imerial army with their single shot mossin nagats and oldfashioned officer comand would do in such a conflict would probably not differ much from OTL
unless enough time passed for the germans use diplomacy and realpolitics to ally the russians to the CP, as was past Wiliam I politics of joining up against the british and making more aliances, but this would meen a more rational politician is in charge of germany instead of Wiliam II
even if a comunist revolution would of been avoided civil war would still be a verry serious possibility, especially with reforms, since the ones that would opose them most in a feudal society would be the ones controling the army and the capital
an interesting dewelopment would be possible howewer if the course of things went similar to italy, a "march on st.petersburg" bi some rising socialist/generic/militarist party similar to the fashists or an beter organised anarchist/socialist movement, remember futurism and constructivism were as important as they were strong in russian subculture of the time, almost as much as in italy
almoust constant war and the sheer sise of the red army stoped most attepts of sucesfull separation of colonised nations from the russian empire
without comunism and staljinist terror to keep the peoples in line the tsarists would have to invent something similar, and spend huge amounts on the army, with gulags springing up all over sibiria just like in OTL
rasism would be a big problem too, as well as a tendency to controll people through ortodox fundamentalism wich saw little diference between state and church as the tsar was also officially the head religious leader, or second to it, a holy figure ider way, leading to fundamentalism and backwardness
also it is questionable if any tsar could repeat the staljinist stile industrial leap, especialy since a world war was inevitable, it was olnly a question of when, and the longer the peace of the bell epoque lasted the more powerfull and tehnologically adwanced the european armies would of become, the more dewastating the war for all nations, and how the russian imerial army with their single shot mossin nagats and oldfashioned officer comand would do in such a conflict would probably not differ much from OTL
unless enough time passed for the germans use diplomacy and realpolitics to ally the russians to the CP, as was past Wiliam I politics of joining up against the british and making more aliances, but this would meen a more rational politician is in charge of germany instead of Wiliam II
even if a comunist revolution would of been avoided civil war would still be a verry serious possibility, especially with reforms, since the ones that would opose them most in a feudal society would be the ones controling the army and the capital
an interesting dewelopment would be possible howewer if the course of things went similar to italy, a "march on st.petersburg" bi some rising socialist/generic/militarist party similar to the fashists or an beter organised anarchist/socialist movement, remember futurism and constructivism were as important as they were strong in russian subculture of the time, almost as much as in italy
Change is ineveitable
Every nation that industrialises suffers the same problem that the power and wealth is moving to "Undesirable People". The initial response is to either take it from them though using force and then taxes.
However when that does not work a compromise is slowly reached that enables everybody to claim success and everybody can prosper.
It is never easy and conflict would occur but as long as the Army is not destroyed in WW1 the monarchy will continue
Every nation that industrialises suffers the same problem that the power and wealth is moving to "Undesirable People". The initial response is to either take it from them though using force and then taxes.
However when that does not work a compromise is slowly reached that enables everybody to claim success and everybody can prosper.
It is never easy and conflict would occur but as long as the Army is not destroyed in WW1 the monarchy will continue
Admiral Canaris
Banned
It seems as if it usually does, eventually, even if the process might be uneven and subject to periodical backlashes. Look at China; even they have more freedom now than they did before.
Olmeka
Banned
Perhaps crushed but still active in case of Finland, Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine. To keep those states in Empire, would require steps going against democratic rule. So either democracy and breakup or authoritarian rule.
Caucasus I would see having seperatism movement later, after rise of independent Islamic states in the Middle East.
Olmeka
Banned
How do you see it happening and in which way ? Finland is possible in my view on its own, but it would encourage others. Ukraine impossible to my knowledge, as it was perceived as Russia with Ukrainians named Little Russians by Russian state. Even more with Poland, although by XX century the Polish provinces were seen as source of numerous problems, none of the solutions possible would satisfy both sides.
Well, obviously the old Aristocratic elite would need to have a severe reduction in their powers, and likely would lose them entirely eventually. After that, the minorities could be given semi-autonomy perhaps. Have their own regional parliaments in Poland, the Ukraine and Finland, while each still having seats in the main parliament in St. Petersburg. Quite a reasonable compromise.
Again, no doubt that this would alienate the extremist Russian nationalists, but they'd have to be dealt with anyway for a successful democratic Russian Empire to flourish.
Again, no doubt that this would alienate the extremist Russian nationalists, but they'd have to be dealt with anyway for a successful democratic Russian Empire to flourish.
Olmeka
Banned
However it would contain much more minorities, I think Russians in Russian Empire were less then 50% of population.
Unlike Chechnya the regions of Ukraine, Finland, Poland, Baltic States have more easy access to arms and Europe, plus a larger diaspora, sometimes right across the border as is the case of Ukrainians and Poles.
It would much harder to supress the resistance then in Chechnya.
What powers would such regional parliaments have ? Remember that even in 1914 regional language was forbidden in public so that would be a huge step away from RE's policies.
And what happens if the population there(which is likely) would elect people wanting independence ? RE would need to ban several parties; effect ? No satisfaction of minorites and resistance.