Earlier Reform in Russia?

[srv fan]

First of all, hello to everyone. I am a long-time lurker who finally decided to start posting.

My main question is, how do you guys think Tsarist Russia could have reformed economically and politically earlier (before the Soviet Union)? Russia really didn't get on the ball industrially until the Soviet Union imo- almost all of the growth in the 1890's and 1900's was foreign-controlled. Russia was still essentially a huge unindustrialized peasant mass until the 5 year plans. What do you all think could have spurred on earlier economic modernization? My best guess is an earlier Witte. What are the effects of this growth?

As for political reform... do you think there is a viable way for the Tsarist regime to modernize its political and bureaucratic institutions and stave off their collapse? The 1905 Revolution brought about limited success in getting checks on the Tsar's power, but it was too little too late. I am thinking of something along the lines of an earlier Duma as set up in 1905. Its not democracy, or even close to it, but such a setup could soothe the anger of the peasants, and act as a balance against a particularly destructive and megomaniacal Czar, which Russia seemed to produce at an astronomical rate.

Basically... how can Russia become comparable, if not equal, to the rest of Europe with respect to industrialization, good government, etc. before the Soviet Union? What are the effects?

Just as an aside, if Russia does modernize earlier, WW1 is going to be a LOT different...

 

[Straha]

have that liberal czar who was shot in 1881 not die.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

have that liberal czar who was shot in 1881 not die.

Alexander II was too little too late. He was too old upon ascension to the throne.

Perhaps Russia never allies with Napoleon, and we have no Dekembrist revolt, and Nicholas is a bit more lax, giving Alexander II more to work with.....

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Alexander II was too little too late. He was too old upon ascension to the throne.

Perhaps Russia never allies with Napoleon, and we have no Dekembrist revolt, and Nicholas is a bit more lax, giving Alexander II more to work with.....

He have a point... If I remember well, the assassination of the tsar by radicals (anarchists?) gave a fright to his successor, and kind of made him a more severe, conservative guy, stopping his ideas of reformation.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

He have a point... If I remember well, the assassination of the tsar by radicals (anarchists?) gave a fright to his successor, and kind of made him a more severe, conservative guy, stopping his ideas of reformation.

Exactly, Alexander III cracked down on all the student groups, including the one that included Lenin's brother.

Nicholas did the same thing after the Dekembrist Revolt. You need to give Alexander II a base to work with before he starts his reforms, because as it was, they had slowed down by the late 1860s, because frankly, he was too old to be spending his days and nights pouring over law codes and charts. He would hit walls that were simply to tough to overcome in as little time as he had.

He was assassinated precisely because the pace of reform was too slow for the anarchists that did it......make Nicholas more liberal, even slightly, and Alexander II will be far more successful.

 

[srv fan]

I think we are on to something with a more liberal Nicholas. Perhaps another factor could be a more severe loss for Russia in the Crimean War? If they were truly humbled and perhaps stripped of some territory ( I'm thinking Poland), there could be some impetus for reform. The revealed inadequecy of the current system could spur a top-down effort at modernizing Russia so they could never be beaten badly again. Also, if you remove Poland, there is less need for harsh measures to keep rebellious nationalists down, creating a less hostile and polarized domestic situation.

Another idea is a more successful zemstvo system. Ideally, it would give peasants a voice in government and reduce the power of the nobles. If there was a way to get zemstvo closer to that ideal, instead of being simply a tool for the Tsar to crush nobles and stay in power (as in OTL), we could see further democratic institutions, as well as get rid of the nobles who insisted on staying with an outdated, purely agricultural economy.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

I think we are on to something with a more liberal Nicholas. Perhaps another factor could be a more severe loss for Russia in the Crimean War? If they were truly humbled and perhaps stripped of some territory ( I'm thinking Poland), there could be some impetus for reform. The revealed inadequecy of the current system could spur a top-down effort at modernizing Russia so they could never be beaten badly again. Also, if you remove Poland, there is less need for harsh measures to keep rebellious nationalists down, creating a less hostile and polarized domestic situation.

Another idea is a more successful zemstvo system. Ideally, it would give peasants a voice in government and reduce the power of the nobles. If there was a way to get zemstvo closer to that ideal, instead of being simply a tool for the Tsar to crush nobles and stay in power (as in OTL), we could see further democratic institutions, as well as get rid of the nobles who insisted on staying with an outdated, purely agricultural economy.

Poland is actually the grounds on which I think we could most likely establish a Russia capable of competing with the rest of Europe.

Perhaps Napoleon beats Russia. He can't hope to occupy it, or establish his own cronies there, but instead, try and force Russia to join the Continental system. As with the Crimean War, this might well spur a wave of reform in Russia under Nicholas or Constantine. If they feel the need to modernize in order to compete, as Alexander II did after Crimea, then Russia may well be an industrial powerhouse by 1914.

 

[srv fan]

Poland is actually the grounds on which I think we could most likely establish a Russia capable of competing with the rest of Europe.

How so? I'm not really disagreeing with you, as my "Poland Option" was more of a thought exercise as opposed to something I really considered, but I would be interested in what reasoning is behind your opinion.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

One thing that might help is to somehow make Russia's agriculture more productive. Modernization started from an agricultural base in most countries but Russia's agriculture was uniquely ineffective and incapable of feeding even her own population let alone producing export. This was partly due to climate and poor soils and partly to Russian farming practices, which largely emphasised getting more land and putting even more poor practices onto poorer and poorer soils in dryer and dryer areas.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

One thing that might help is to somehow make Russia's agriculture more productive. Modernization started from an agricultural base in most countries but Russia's agriculture was uniquely ineffective and incapable of feeding even her own population let alone producing export. This was partly due to climate and poor soils and partly to Russian farming practices, which largely emphasised getting more land and putting even more poor practices onto poorer and poorer soils in dryer and dryer areas.

The servage system of medieval Russia (who evolved into a drastic control of farming) was said to be peculiarly anti-progress in agricultural sciences and mediocrely productive, I heard. It is one of the things to change - enable reform in teh countryside, the weak point of any 'revolutions' in history.

 

[DuQuense]

I think first whe have to decide if there is room for More

When the Serfs were freed in 1860 they revolted, Demanding that the degree be resinded. Whe see Serfs Bound to the land. they saw the land Bound to them. When the same degree was reissued in 1904, everyone yawned. so many Serfs had moved to the Cities to work in the new Factories, that the Serf laws were meaninless.

Remember, russia produced more War materials [planes, guns, uniforms etc.] between 1914-1917 then all the other european combatants combined. Only the US out produced her, and that was in 1917-18 while the trobles were going on.

One thing that might help is to somehow make Russia's agriculture more productive. Modernization started from an agricultural base in most countries but Russia's agriculture was uniquely ineffective and incapable of feeding even her own population let alone producing export.

Pre GW the Ukraine was the Bread Basket of Europe, exporting large ammounts of Grain to Germany and France, it was the richness, and sufification, of these Farmers, that gave the USSR such problems when they first tryied to Collectionize, the Ukraine.

 

[S. Amir]

What if serfs are freed a lot earlier? Maybe a hundred years earlier?

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

How so? I'm not really disagreeing with you, as my "Poland Option" was more of a thought exercise as opposed to something I really considered, but I would be interested in what reasoning is behind your opinion.

Poland got a constitution before Russia. If they try and decentralize the Empire, to give more autonomy to the regions, then Russia is less likely to fragment at the slightest show of weakness.

It keeps a large segment of the population loyal to Russia. Further, if we give Russia a constitution, as Russia did for Poland, earlier, we might manage to avoid the Dekembrist revolt, which would give us a more moderate Nicholas I.

 

[srv fan]

Intriguing... if i don't have too much work (damn basketball and midterms), expect a Russian TL fairly soon incorporating some of the ideas discussed here.

 

[MarkA]

I think the important point here is why Russia after Peter and Catherine, for example, failed to capitialise on the opportunities these rulers presented for the country. In other words why did Russia not take advantage of these more 'liberal' rulers?

Perhaps the answer lies in why western Europe did take advantage of similar opportunities. The answer to this is that the real driving force in the west was not from the top but from the bottom and the middle. Rich farmers and richer merchants owed alligence to their cities not to the monarch. They drove reforms, they opposed local nobles and they received concessions from the king.