pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on Apr 4, 2016 2:02:50 GMT
What if the February Revolution never happened and the Tsars remained in power? What changes would be needed to make this happen? How would history be altered? Would Nazi Germany still emerge? Would there be a different World War II and a different Cold War? How would Russia develop in this alternate history? What if?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 4, 2016 3:12:56 GMT
What if the February Revolution never happened and the Tsars remained in power? What changes would be needed to make this happen? How would history be altered? Would Nazi Germany still emerge? Would there be a different World War II and a different Cold War? How would Russia develop in this alternate history? What if? I would think that World War II is butterflied away completely (or at least WWII as we know it since the Nazis will probably remain a small none important party).
|
|
pericles
Warrant Officer
Posts: 266
Likes: 23
|
Post by pericles on Apr 4, 2016 5:07:50 GMT
OK. Any idea on how the keep the Tsars in power?
Russia might be a more rural society, or at least industrialize slower(though also have millions more people) without Stalin's brutal, fast industrialization.
WWII, if it still happens, would be very, very different.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 4, 2016 13:36:14 GMT
OK. Any idea on how the keep the Tsars in power? Russia might be a more rural society, or at least industrialize slower(though also have millions more people) without Stalin's brutal, fast industrialization. WWII, if it still happens, would be very, very different. If there a reforms before the February Revolution outbreak in 1917 the Tsars might be allowed to become something like their British counterparts, during the 1918 to 1939 period the Russian Empire being more democratic can have a large army who will not have the problem of Stalin purges.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Apr 15, 2016 17:41:17 GMT
Pericles
Possibly the best way to avoid the rebellion would be that, presuming WWI still occurs, the allies do significantly better. So that if the war is still going on Russia is in a markedly better state and on the verge of a clear victory.
Some reform would still be necessary in Russia else there would be continued unrest. Probably not until Nicholas died but possibly then.
Such an event would greatly alter the post-WWI world. The peace treaty might be harsher, because the allies have an overwhelming victory, or less extreme because France especially no longer fears German revanchment with a powerful Russia to their east. Also if Russia insists on maintaining its position in Poland while it would probably have some territorial gains Germany might keep more land in the east because no Poland exists. You might even see a rump Hapsburg state surviving.
Presuming Russia sees at least limited reform and probably a continuation of the substantial industrial expansion then Germany is unlikely to fall to the Nazis as they will be too worried about the Russian colossus to the east. There is likely to be concern in all European powers about the 'threat' from Russia although because its not a radical communist state hostility won't be as deeply set.
Steve
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,966
Likes: 49,370
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 15, 2016 17:57:34 GMT
Pericles Possibly the best way to avoid the rebellion would be that, presuming WWI still occurs, the allies do significantly better. So that if the war is still going on Russia is in a markedly better state and on the verge of a clear victory. Some reform would still be necessary in Russia else there would be continued unrest. Probably not until Nicholas died but possibly then. Such an event would greatly alter the post-WWI world. The peace treaty might be harsher, because the allies have an overwhelming victory, or less extreme because France especially no longer fears German revanchment with a powerful Russia to their east. Also if Russia insists on maintaining its position in Poland while it would probably have some territorial gains Germany might keep more land in the east because no Poland exists. You might even see a rump Hapsburg state surviving. Presuming Russia sees at least limited reform and probably a continuation of the substantial industrial expansion then Germany is unlikely to fall to the Nazis as they will be too worried about the Russian colossus to the east. There is likely to be concern in all European powers about the 'threat' from Russia although because its not a radical communist state hostility won't be as deeply set. Steve Hitler was anti-Jewish, maybe this could be a anti-Jewish who dominating Russia hat for him, a Nazi Germany versus a democratic Russia, that would be cool to see happening.
|
|
|
Post by empresspenguine on Jun 12, 2016 0:41:18 GMT
OK. Any idea on how the keep the Tsars in power? Russia might be a more rural society, or at least industrialize slower(though also have millions more people) without Stalin's brutal, fast industrialization. WWII, if it still happens, would be very, very different. Well, there are a lot depending on how far back and how big you want to go. Some would be very minor For example, letting the Imperial Russian Air Force contracts six months earlier would have meant that the East Prussian Front had recon aircraft. Rennemkampf and Sazanov would have known about the move of the 8th German Army. Rennemkampf would have fallen on the rear and baasically won the war Earlier, the Russians could easily have won the Russo-Japanese War with some minor changes. That could easily butterfly away World War I. franz Joeseph dying a two and a half years earlier might have done it as well Bigger ones would be the reform of agriculture, elimination of the high tariffs and the gold standard. Depends on how you want to go.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 14, 2016 20:36:17 GMT
If you want to strengthen the Russian state before WWI, you can have the 1905 revolution succeed in liberalizing the empire. It would increase its legitimacy among the Russian people and make the appeal of Bolshevism less potent.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 14, 2016 23:11:23 GMT
If you want to strengthen the Russian state before WWI, you can have the 1905 revolution succeed in liberalizing the empire. It would increase its legitimacy among the Russian people and make the appeal of Bolshevism less potent. I think you really need to remove Nickolas II for that to happen. He was so reactionary that such a boost to reform is going to meet his fanatical opposition. Possibly if there's some accident [as an assassination is only likely to harder the stance of the reactionaries] which kills him or forces him to resign. Think his brother, was it Grand Duke Michael, was a lot more intelligent and aware of the state of the world and he would probably have been the regent for Nickolas's son.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 14, 2016 23:23:09 GMT
If you want to strengthen the Russian state before WWI, you can have the 1905 revolution succeed in liberalizing the empire. It would increase its legitimacy among the Russian people and make the appeal of Bolshevism less potent. I think you really need to remove Nickolas II for that to happen. He was so reactionary that such a boost to reform is going to meet his fanatical opposition. Possibly if there's some accident [as an assassination is only likely to harder the stance of the reactionaries] which kills him or forces him to resign. Think his brother, was it Grand Duke Michael, was a lot more intelligent and aware of the state of the world and he would probably have been the regent for Nickolas's son. How about if he dies in chaos brought about by 1905?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2016 9:37:43 GMT
I think you really need to remove Nickolas II for that to happen. He was so reactionary that such a boost to reform is going to meet his fanatical opposition. Possibly if there's some accident [as an assassination is only likely to harder the stance of the reactionaries] which kills him or forces him to resign. Think his brother, was it Grand Duke Michael, was a lot more intelligent and aware of the state of the world and he would probably have been the regent for Nickolas's son. How about if he dies in chaos brought about by 1905? Possibly if its seen as a side issue. I.e. he has an heart attack or something like that. However if its as a direct result of actions by radicals then the reactionaries, of which there are a hell of a lot, will go ape-shit and you are likely to see much harsher persecution. Possibly even the country falling into civil war although I doubt that reformist forces would be strong enough for that. Much better if he dies of an illness or say in a train accident or something like that. The latter might be useful if it also took out his wife who was also very reactionary and a lot stronger a personality by most accounts than him. That would both remove a major obstacle to reform [and the proper education of the children] and generate sympathy for the royal family and especially the orphaned children.
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 15, 2016 12:58:47 GMT
How about if he dies in chaos brought about by 1905? Possibly if its seen as a side issue. I.e. he has an heart attack or something like that. However if its as a direct result of actions by radicals then the reactionaries, of which there are a hell of a lot, will go ape-shit and you are likely to see much harsher persecution. Possibly even the country falling into civil war although I doubt that reformist forces would be strong enough for that. Much better if he dies of an illness or say in a train accident or something like that. The latter might be useful if it also took out his wife who was also very reactionary and a lot stronger a personality by most accounts than him. That would both remove a major obstacle to reform [and the proper education of the children] and generate sympathy for the royal family and especially the orphaned children. That is quite true. Leftism, though, has long had a presence in Russia. The way you describe seems like it would stabilize the monarchy, but would the country be at risk of Bolshevik-esque terrorism?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Jun 15, 2016 17:53:05 GMT
Possibly if its seen as a side issue. I.e. he has an heart attack or something like that. However if its as a direct result of actions by radicals then the reactionaries, of which there are a hell of a lot, will go ape-shit and you are likely to see much harsher persecution. Possibly even the country falling into civil war although I doubt that reformist forces would be strong enough for that. Much better if he dies of an illness or say in a train accident or something like that. The latter might be useful if it also took out his wife who was also very reactionary and a lot stronger a personality by most accounts than him. That would both remove a major obstacle to reform [and the proper education of the children] and generate sympathy for the royal family and especially the orphaned children. That is quite true. Leftism, though, has long had a presence in Russia. The way you describe seems like it would stabilize the monarchy, but would the country be at risk of Bolshevik-esque terrorism? Sorry not quite with you? When you say the way I describe it do you mean with Nickolas removed and a more stable and forward looking leadership? I thought that was the idea to avoid the revolution? Extremist groups like the Bolsheviks would still be a problem as their entire aim is to destroy rather than reform the existing system so they would become increasingly desperate. However if we get more stability and steady reform their going to be little more than a fringe group that will be increasingly sidelined. Steve
|
|
spanishspy
Fleet admiral
Posts: 10,366
Likes: 1,587
|
Post by spanishspy on Jun 15, 2016 20:46:49 GMT
That is quite true. Leftism, though, has long had a presence in Russia. The way you describe seems like it would stabilize the monarchy, but would the country be at risk of Bolshevik-esque terrorism? Sorry not quite with you? When you say the way I describe it do you mean with Nickolas removed and a more stable and forward looking leadership? I thought that was the idea to avoid the revolution? Extremist groups like the Bolsheviks would still be a problem as their entire aim is to destroy rather than reform the existing system so they would become increasingly desperate. However if we get more stability and steady reform their going to be little more than a fringe group that will be increasingly sidelined. Steve I was not clear; I was describing what you discuss in your second paragraph. That's what I meant; a more stable monarchy but with Bolsheviks a perennial thorn in their side.
|
|
futurist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 837
Likes: 12
|
Post by futurist on Jun 16, 2016 17:39:15 GMT
1. OK. Any idea on how the keep the Tsars in power? 2. Russia might be a more rural society, or at least industrialize slower(though also have millions more people) without Stalin's brutal, fast industrialization. 3. WWII, if it still happens, would be very, very different. 1. Yes--for one, you can try finding some way to make the 1915 Gallipoli Campaign successful. Of course, having both Lenin and Trotsky die in two separate accidents in 1916 or earlier would certainly also help in regards to this. 2. Agreed. After all, unlike Stalin's Soviet Union, Tsarist Russia appears to have been very reliant and dependent on foreign loans to industrialize. 3. Agreed.
|
|