DBWI 1905 russian revolution doesn't succede

[West]

After the failed Russian Japanese war Russia erupted into revolution on January 22.

Some say it was the Czars stubborn decision to not create a Duma that led to his loss, some say it was the incompetent generals who he appointed to be in charge of the Russian army, Some say it was his order to kill any and all revolutionaries.

But the result was a blood bath, and after the Czar and his family were killed in 1907 the country collapsed as nationalist groups managed to successfully win their freedom from Russian rule and warlords tore the country apart.

But what if the Czar had been more reasonable what would our look like if the Russian empire didn't collapse so openly and horrifically?

 

[The Uchronian]

After the failed Russian Japanese war Russia erupted into revolution on January 22.

Some say it was the Czars stubborn decision to not create a Duma that led to his loss, some say it was the incompetent generals who he appointed to be in charge of the Russian army, Some say it was his order to kill any and all revolutionaries.

But the result was a blood bath, and after the Czar and his family were killed in 1907 the country collapsed as nationalist groups managed to successfully win their freedom from Russian rule and warlords tore the country apart.

But what if the Czar had been more reasonable what would our look like if the Russian empire didn't collapse so openly and horrifically?

Honestly, just preventing the assassination of the Czar's brother Michael in Apr. 1904 might help put things off for a while.....but a delayed revolution might also have some really unfortunate consequences, as could a surviving Empire, not just immediately, but in the long run too. (For one, OTL's Cold War between America & allies, versus China ad the Intermarium + associates was tense enough as is. With an Imperial....or maybe even Radical Communist Russia.....it could get downright nasty!)

 

[Dr.Kafka]

or maybe even Radical Communist Russia.....it could get downright nasty!)

What makes you say that? The success of the Socialist Labor Party in the United States would seem to suggest quite the opposite. Looking at the Menshevik platform, it doesn't seem that much more radical than what Seidel was running on back in the party's infancy. The adoption of sewer socialism may have moderated the party a bit, but it's still recognizably communist. Why would there be a cold war between communist Russia and the United States when states like Montana and Oklahoma were busy sending the SLP to Congress?

The Intermarium was destined to be a rival to the United States because of the autocratic nature its government. If the SLP has shown us anything, it's that communism is—by its very nature—a democratic ideology that closely aligns with American values. I think a communist Russia would have been an obvious ally to the United States by the middle of the 20th century.

China might be a persuasive counterpoint to this thesis, but I think geography made a rivalry with China inevitable regardless of its government. No matter how democratic country is, it's still trying to claim territory that belong to the United States and its allies.

 

[The Uchronian]

What makes you say that? The success of the Socialist Labor Party in the United States would seem to suggest quite the opposite. Looking at the Menshevik platform, it doesn't seem that much more radical than what Seidel was running on back in the party's infancy. The adoption of sewer socialism may have moderated the party a bit, but it's still recognizably communist. Why would there be a cold war between communist Russia and the United States when states like Montana and Oklahoma were busy sending the SLP to Congress?

I'm referring, of course, to folks like the Bolsheviks, the Red Guard and the like-the SLP was downright moderate compared to the Bolshies in particular.....and even the Menshies thought they were "too soft on capital'.(Though many historians would dispute that claim, of course.)

The Intermarium was destined to be a rival to the United States because of the autocratic nature its government. If the SLP has shown us anything, it's that communism is—by its very nature—a democratic ideology that closely aligns with American values. I think a communist Russia would have been an obvious ally to the United States by the middle of the 20th century.

Not all Communism, sadly. The Bolshies were actually pretty nasty, in fact; their paramilitary arm murdered a couple hundred thousand people in 1933-38 before they were put down.

China might be a persuasive counterpoint to this thesis, but I think geography made a rivalry with China inevitable regardless of its government. No matter how democratic country is, it's still trying to claim territory that belong to the United States and its allies.

China is barely democratic these days, TBH. It kinda was immediately after the Revolution, sure, but those idealistic and hopeful days of the 1990s are long gone at this point-the Triads, sadly, reemerged around 2000 and have been slowly subverting the country since then.