N/A

[Admiral Canaris]

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.

Just below the 50 % mark, IIRC.

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.

Perhaps the model for Finland before the Tsar clamped down on them? Separate Grand Duchy with wide-ranging internal self-determination, its own coinage, military, its language (ironically, Swedish at this point) used in the administration.

Poland was also (briefly) treated as a separate Kingdom, with a Parliament and Constitution. After the Tsar was assassinated, his successors did away with that, though. But a more liberal government might perhaps relent. Is it enough? I don't know, but most Polish nationalists back in 1918, like Pilsudski, seem to have fought for autonomy rather than independance, kind of like the Tibetans today.

The Baltic countries were fairly quiet before their independence, IIRC. They may not be so much trouble as IOTL. The Ukraine has no chance of gaining independence, of course; there, the question would be of how they could be integrated the best way, IMHO. No Tsar or mainstream Russian government would see them independent.

 

[Olmeka]

Poland was also (briefly) treated as a separate Kingdom, with a Parliament and Constitution. After the Tsar was assassinated, his successors did away with that, though.

Neither the parliament and consitution was respected, it was abolished not after assasination but after uprising demanding independence years before that.

I don't know, but most Polish nationalists back in 1918, like Pilsudski, seem to have fought for autonomy rather than independance, kind of like the Tibetans today.

Pilsudski definetely fought for independence in 1918, where did you got that information that he only wanted autonomy in 1918 ? Even before WWI his people conducted sabotage, attacks on railways, banks in RE. In 1905 he wanted to form military units alongside Japan against Russia.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

Neither the parliament and consitution was respected, it was abolished not after assasination but after uprising demanding independence years before that.

Is that so? I guess I misremembered, then.

Pilsudski definetely fought for independence in 1918, where did you got that information that he only wanted autonomy in 1918 ? Even before WWI his people conducted sabotage, attacks on railways, banks in RE. In 1905 he wanted to form military units alongside Japan against Russia.

No, OK, my bad again. It was back as late as '16-17, then. It was only with the complete dissolution of Russia that independence became feasible. Even then, the Poles essentially thought that they'd just free themselves from Russian rule and fall under a German one; better, but not perfect.

 

[Olmeka]

Even then, the Poles essentially thought that they'd just free themselves from Russian rule and fall under a German one; better, but not perfect.

I am surprised to that statement. Pilsudski was supporting alliance with Austro-Hungary , Dmowski with Russian Empire, both had seen this as step towards independence later. I don't think they were any Polish organisations supporting German Empire, as to lsudski's men when they were to swear an oath to German Emperor they mutined.

Going back to original question, I would see Russia as huge military run junta with rich oligarchies and figurhead monarch with his coven of followers. The state would be shaked by peasant and worker revolts ended through army, and while some minorities like Finns would receive more rights, others like Ukrainians or Poles would be opposed by military means and deportations to Siberia and Far East.
In the long term the Russian Empire doesn't seem sustainable.

 

[Admiral Canaris]

I am surprised to that statement. Pilsudski was supporting alliance with Austro-Hungary , Dmowski with Russian Empire, both had seen this as step towards independence later. I don't think they were any Polish organisations supporting German Empire, as to lsudski's men when they were to swear an oath to German Emperor they mutined.

This was in the late war years, when it was becoming pretty evident that Russia was going to lose and Austria-Hungary was becoming increasingly unstable. The Polish Legion eventually turned to support the Entente, IIRC, but before that they seem to have been mostly resigned to a German-dominated future.

Going back to original question, I would see Russia as huge military run junta with rich oligarchies and figurhead monarch with his coven of followers. The state would be shaked by peasant and worker revolts ended through army, and while some minorities like Finns would receive more rights, others like Ukrainians or Poles would be opposed by military means and deportations to Siberia and Far East.
In the long term the Russian Empire doesn't seem sustainable.

I don't know, I'd imagine something more like OTL, present-day China. Russia likely wouldn't become a democracy, but t wouldn't be ruthlessly totalitarian either; more like a status quo traditional dictatorship. As prosperity spread and the population became more aware, very gradual liberal reforms might again be a possibility.

The Ukrainian Nationalists would be suppressed, if there were any; probably the Poles as well. The Finns and other smaller minorities might be more tolerated. The Caucasian provinces, of course, would likely be under martial law more often than not.

 

[SeanB]

Obviously I wasn't saying Russia could placate seperatist movements by remaining as it was. It would have to undergo major changes to survive. The ban on native languages would absolutely have to be lifted, and as for their partial autonomy, I would say their regional parliaments would have control of just about everything except the military and foreign policy.

But that is okay, because they have elected representatives in the main Duma in St. Petersburg, and so they can have an affect on the foreign policy of the Empire as a whole. Essentially, I'm proposing Russia adopt a Federal structure almost, and that this, IMHO, will allow them to survive as a democracy.

Of course I don't believe they can survive as a brutal Oligarchy, but my scenario involved them evolving and changing to meet the times.

 

[Broz]

so how do you compare a non comunist russia with a comunist china when obviously staljinist terror was one of the few things that kept the empire together
and china is ruthlesly totalitarian
do we ewen know how many regional nations and minorities are brutaly supresed in china, but dont have the media presence like tibet?

a militarily dominated empire, with a quasy/faraonic holy imperial dictatorship heavilly suported by the ortodox churh, and gulags up to wazu, would be the olnly posible way of maitaining a russian empire without comunism, (wich basicaly was a military state with quasy/faraonic father/leader, and gulags up to wazu), that granted the military doesnt revolt and split up every other year cos the conscripts are starving

this all would strain the sistem too much and democratic changes would be inevitable, and as a democratic russia would simply have no way of maintaining the empire, exept perhaps heavy colonisation of siberia by european settlers, but thats not probable, there would now be a number of khasahstan/ukraina sised or ewen smaler states all ower siberia and the caucasus, possibly in some sort of federation, and all kinds of political and economick models would exist, and ucraine, finland, poland, etc. would all be indipendant, at least before the germans would get them

also a large european war was simply inevitable, so no WWI would olnly give the russian empire another few years or so depending on when and where the war would finaly start

still there could be some white russian or tsarist state in the urals or siberia ewen after ewerithing

 

[1940LaSalle]

I could see something akin to a palace revolution taking place sometime about 1915 or so: all it would take is a very simple household accident involving Alexis. It doesn't matter what-it would be something that nearly all kids have happen to them sooner or later-but in his case it would be anything but routine with his hemophilia. His subsequent death would discredit Rasputin, and therefore bring the royal family into obloquy, given that they trusted this charlatan and brought Russia into disrepute.

I could see the Grand Duke Nicholas in concert with Witte and Kerensky (a triumvirate of convenience, if you will) forcing Nicholas and Michael to abdicate in favor of the Grand Duke Nicholas. He would become Nicholas III in a constitutional monarchy designed jointly by Kerensky and Witte. It would take some years for such a government to take root and flourish, and in the interim it might be susceptible to both counterrevolution or revolution from the left. The former might be dealt with by sending Nicholas II and his extended family into exile (perhaps Spain, the Netherlands, or even someplace in South America). The latter would be tougher to deal with, but by the same token, the leaders of the far left were either in exile already (Lenin) or under the watchful eyes of the law (Stalin, Trotsky).

I'd give a constitutional monarchy betting odds to get through the '20s; if there's a worldwide depression, it's difficult to guess how it might be affected and whether it would survive.

 

[CanadianGoose]

Whoa, guys, you possess enormous amount of no-knowledge, as far as Russian history is concerned. I'll comment on a few in no particular order. First off, nobody "banned" local languages as such. They were not allowed to use in courts (although even that is debatable, as main proceedings could be in Russian, but translators were provided for sides who don't speak Russian) or (I'm not sure about that) in official correspondence, but nobody was ever jailed for speaking Polish or Tartar on the street or for writing letter in Yiddish. On the flip side, government certainly tried to make Russian "lingua franca" of business, education, army and civil service.

Then, national relationships in Empire in general. They certainly did not fall into standard Western understanding of the "Colonial Empire" (as in "British" or "French"). Closest comparison will be Austro-Hungary IOTL. Would it be enough to remind you that if "Anglo-British" and "French Algerian" groups become facts of history months after parts of empire became independent, every part of former USSR still have numerous Russian communities. I wouldn't dare to say those communities live in holy peace with constituent ethnic groups, but "locals" see them as legitimate inhabitants.

Then the whole "Russo-Ukrainian" saga. It is actually easy. Children of Ukrainian raised in Russia become Russians 999 times out of 1000. Russians and Ukrainians do have some hairs to split among themselves, but they always played as a single team against "outsiders". So in 99% of situations it would be easier to lump Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians into single "Orthodox Slavs" category. And this category was strong majority in the Russian empire, even if you lump al Turkich-speakers in a single group.

Grand Duchy of Finland. Nobody abolished it until the very last days of the Empire. In fact, amount of independence they had within Russian Empire is unprecedented in the world history. Own currency, customs, army, laws, financial system etc. Generally, Empire had neither interest nor voice in the internal life of Finland, holding it as bullwark against possible invasion into St. Peterburg.

Nationalism in Caucasus and Baltic countries. It was much more anti-Communism (and seizing the opportunity) disguised as nationalism than pure nationalism, directed as splitting from the Russian Empire at any cost (Lithuania's situation is more complicated). As late as 1916 Empire was able to recruit almost as many volunteers in those regions to fight Germans/Osmans as normal conscription would bring, signalling general content with Russian overlordship in those regions.

 

[CanadianGoose]

So what does CanadianGoose think? Would the palace coup be viable?

Not going into specific (and palace coup is detail of worst kind), I agree that pre-WWI Russia had great deal of potential for development and great deal of problems (most of them social, but national ones also played a role) it had to deal with (too many deals, don't you think? ) . Therefore full range of scenarios could be developed from total Russiawank to total misery. Wankish one includes something similar to OTL Cold War with Russia owning Iran and Northern China and controling rest of the China, Mitteleurope and good part of Mediterranean region and Middle Asia, with Rest of Europe reduced to powerless marionettes of States (Germany, Great Britain) or Russia (France with colonies, Italy, Spain). Miserable one is complete desintegration of the empire with Muscovian and Tver and whatnot republics (about 150 in total) fighting each other and looking for reach foreign masters, either corporate or governmental, to sell themselves to. My personal impression? It could not be much worse for the Russian Empire than it was OTL (Russian history of 20th century seem to be written by ASBs with sadist leaning).

 

[SeanB]

CanadianGoose, do you think Russia could have become a Democratic Constitutional Monarchy with a Federalist structure? And by Federal I mean it still controls all of the territory under its domain, but grants them a certain degree of autonomy. (No more than the states of the USA though, for example). Still one state, in other words, but with a more equal amount of power-sharing between the various ethnicities within the Empire.

 

[Olmeka]

CanadianGoose I don't agree with your vision of Russian Empire that you presented. It comes into conflict with the knowledge I have about that state.

First off, nobody "banned" local languages as such.

Ukrainian and Polish languages were banned. It involved far more then restricting official administrative language to Russian, but also confiscation of books, ban on printing and ban on teaching the languages.
See Ems Ukaz for secret order by Tsar against Ukrainian language.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-186278/Ems-Ukaz

but nobody was ever jailed for speaking Polish

People were imprisoned for teaching and learning Polish language as well as history in Russian Empire. Even children as young as 9 years old were sent to Siberia as punishment for this.
This was portrayed in books and painting:
See

Students on their way to Siberia as punishment for learning Polish language, literature, history.

Closest comparison will be Austro-Hungary IOTL.

Completely can't agree. Austro-Hungary had a developed parliament system and separate governance for many local minorities, Jews enjoyed relative tolerance, local languages were mostly respected and not banned in way comparable to Russian ban on Lithuanian Press, Ukrainian books, Polish language etc. Also AH was a multiethnic empire ruled by Austrians and Hungarians, later mixed with increasing influence of Poles, while RE was clearly for Russians only. In AH you even had a Pole as Prime Minister, can you imagine such situation in Russian Duma ? Seems very hard. Also Russia had more harsh rule-Katorga system(proto-Gulag), Siberia, massacres of whole disobedient cities(Praga Massacre, Ismail). In short AH was a relatively liberal monarchy with parliament, while RE was still deeply in system serving the oppressive Tsars who viewed themselfs as absolute rulers. And we didn't even touch the whole "Third Rome" visions or legacy of Tatar yoke on political system.

Would it be enough to remind you that if "Anglo-British" and "French Algerian" groups become facts of history months after parts of empire became independent, every part of former USSR still have numerous Russian communities.

This discussion was about RE not about USSR ? Russian Empire had different territory from USSR, it had Poland, Finland, while it had not a large part of Ukraine which was in AH.

I wouldn't dare to say those communities live in holy peace with constituent ethnic groups, but "locals" see them as legitimate inhabitants.

I don't think Baltic states see Russians as very legititmate inhabitants, I also doubt that in case of many Ukrainians. However this was about RE-as far as I know Russians weren't seen as inhabitants of legitimate status and symbols of their presence were eradicated-for example Alexander Nevski Cathedral in Poland.

Children of Ukrainian raised in Russia become Russians 999 times out of 1000.

Can you give any source of that statistic, or is it just made up ?

Russians and Ukrainians do have some hairs to split among themselves, but they always played as a single team against "outsiders"

What about Ivan Mazepa, Petlura, Orange Revolution, Bandera ? All Ukrainians and their Ukrainians fellowers who allied with Poles, Swedes, Germans, West Europeans, USA against Russian influence.
Doesn't seem right that sentence about single team.

So in 99% of situations it would be easier to lump Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians into single "Orthodox Slavs" category.

Seems a very utopic vision, considering they are seperate nations. Historically Ukrainians don't regard their nation as identical to Russia, especially since for centuries they were in large part outside of it(Western Galicia in PLC later AH). In RE they were several important Ukrainian organisations pushing for seperate Ukrainian identity.
And even if that would be true, they were millions of other nationalities in RE, concentrated in regional areas, so the majority of Orthodox Slavs(which by itself is not a identity that goes above Ukrainian or Russian Identity) wouldn't stop seperatist tendencies.

In fact, amount of independence they had within Russian Empire is unprecedented in the world history. Own currency, customs, army, laws, financial system etc. Generally, Empire had neither interest nor voice in the internal life of Finland, holding it as bullwark against possible invasion into St. Peterburg.

Oh come on, you know this completely wrong. There was an extensive russification of Finland in later XIX century, which resulted in massive protests, assasination of Russian administrator of the region, abolishing of autonomy and rise of independence movement. Also you know that Finland was a special case in RE.
Wikipedia has a short overview of this development, since I can't see any obvious bias in that article, here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

As late as 1916 Empire was able to recruit almost as many volunteers in those regions to fight Germans/Osmans as normal conscription would bring, signalling general content with Russian overlordship in those regions.

Without exact details as to the conscription process, and ethnic volunteers this rather rash assumption.

So basically Russian Empire was far more conflicted state then you portray, much more authoritarian and ridden by ethnic conflicts. I noticed as well that the Polish minority in your post was not covered, and it formed the most problematic and resistive element of the major ethnic groups in Russian Empire. Especially as its counterparts in neighboring countries could provide financial and material support, and depending on political situation in Europe it formed an attractive fifth column material for states engaged in conflict with Russia.

Polish Legion eventually turned to support the Entente, IIRC, but before that they seem to have been mostly resigned to a German-dominated future.

Pilsudski believed that there is need for CP to defeat Russia, then defeat CP by Entente, it is in his pre-war writings somewhere. If anything however then PL were allied with AH, not with GE.

 

[Grey Wolf]

To be honest I think the original question is only half a question because its corollary has to be "What happens if there is no WW1 ?" and to me the answer to THAT ties in very importantly to the answer to what happens to Russia ?

To give an example, if instead of WW1, Russia pre-empts war with the Ottoman Empire and makes a grab for the Straits in c1920...this is a great deal different than 1914 conditions continue somehow in a stasis for 10 more years

Potential flare ups aside, Russia's relations with countries such as Serbia, Bulgaria and Rumania could also bring in tensions, pan-Slavism playing off against power-based politics, with revolutionaries and hotheads in the Balkans gambling on and off on Russian involvement or non-involvement...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[nolafia]

I think that Trotski, and the other major soviet revolution leaders would die. Because of the fact that the other monarchies (Britain, France etc.) would support the white forces (imperialist Russians) in order to maintain the "balance of power". If Russia weakened, the Ottoman empire could take Crimea and parts of the Caucasus and Germany could take Poland, disrupting the balance and shifting the power towards the central powers. So my guess is that Russia would keep it's monarchy. And plus, the war itself provided quite a bit of fuel for Trotski and the Soviets' anger to initiate their rebelions.

 

[DrakonFin]

Oh come on, you know this completely wrong. There was an extensive russification of Finland in later XIX century, which resulted in massive protests, assasination of Russian administrator of the region, abolishing of autonomy and rise of independence movement. Also you know that Finland was a special case in RE.
Wikipedia has a short overview of this development, since I can't see any obvious bias in that article, here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

I pretty much think that if the post-1890 Russification measures could have been avoided and Finland kept the rights and liberties that the people considered an intrinsic part of the justification of Russian rule in Finland, the Grand Duchy could have been kept as a loyal part of any more-or-less federalist Russian state.

Finland reaped many benefits from its position, not least the access to a huge, developing Russian market and a privileged position for exploiting that access. Then, as well as during the Cold War, this was a crucial factor to Finnish economic development and industrialisation. The Finnish elites were, for the most part, reluctant to cut ties with Russia: it was mainly the oppressive actions of the Russian state that created the momentum for the rise of a independence movement. Without that, it would have been business as usual in the small border state.

Allowing a relative amount of freedom and autonomy could have kept Finland in the fold well into the twentieth century. Curtailing the notions that the Finnish state was on a historical trajectory towards full independence would have created a perpetual problem for St. Petersburg/Petrograd/Moscow, but I guess that was nothing creative statecraft and a judicious application of the stick and the carrot could not have solved.

I'd think a similar policy, suitably modified, might have been successful to pacify the other troublesome minorities in the Russian sphere. But I guess Russia, as a nation, never really grasped that honey, rather than vinegar, is the key to attracting flies.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I think Russia would probably slowly modernize, while Nikolai get older, the duma would start to get more power. However Russia would never cecome a complete democracy, the Czar would still possess the right o veto any decisions made in the duma, and he would have the right to name the government (and thus ignore election results when Mensheviks and Left SR do well). For the minorities, they'll be handled different. All would be seen as Russian subjects, but I could see Finland and Poland gradually gain some momentum and become autonomous. The Baltics, the Ukraine, the Caucasus etc, would still be under the heavy fist of St. Petersburg.