Preventing the rise of Communism

[Tyler Xyroadia]

EDIT
Before reading further I wish to make the following statement. This is something which of course has been done before, however I would like ot think what I have is a far more detailed and in-depth version then what is usually put out. Further, usually such discussions automatically run into "How would this affect WWII?" which usually devolves into people saying that without the iron heel of Stalin, Russia never would have stood up to Hitler.

Please bare in mind that this POD is Massively in the past from WWII, and people should focus more on what changes this may have to WWI. With such a drastic difference, Hitler may not even goto War, or if he does, maybe he dies in battle in WWI. Simply wishing people to keep such things in mind,

Thank you

On 13 March 1881, Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by the revolutionary movement the People’s Will. The initial attack, a bomb hurled at his bulletproof coach, killed the driver and injured guards. Unharmed, Alexander II, concerned for those outside, stepped out of the coach against the protestations of his personal guard. Another assassin threw a second bomb, mortally wounding Alexander II.

Ignoring the who, what, where, and how; let us assume that for whatever reason Alexander either avoided or survived this attack. How might this have changed Russian history? At this time, Imperial Russia had been generally dominated by conservative authoritarian principles. Yet Alexander, partially due to his education, had developed a more liberal, humanist outlook, and in light of coming to power during the Crimea War, had realized the degree of Russia’s backwardness. As a result, Alexander II worked to implement a series of reforms and modernization in an attempt to bring Russia into line with the more advanced Western countries of Europe.

Major Reforms:

Improvement of communication via railway lines – from 600 miles (965 km) to 14,000 miles (22,525 km). Resulted in improved economic conditions for rural areas as well.

Military reforms under Dmitry Milyutin:
• Improvement of military schools
• The Army Statute of 1874: Introduced conscription for the first time, making young men of all classes liable to military service.

The Emancipation Act of February 19, 1861, which led to the abolition of serfdom, despite bitter opposition from landowning interests.
• Pros: Serfs were given modest allotments of land, and it had a great psychological effect.
• Cons: The reform failed in creating an “economically viable class of peasant” and “helped to undermine the already shaken economic foundations of Russia’s landowning class.”

Judicial Statute of 1864:
• Improved and modernized Russia’s judicial system to be comparable with Western nations (modeled somewhat on France’s).
• Established the zemstvos, elective local assemblies that:
o Extended the area of self-government.
o Improved local welfare (education, hygiene, medical care, local crafts, agronomy).
o Helped increase rural literacy.

Other Political/Religious Reforms:
• Release of political prisoners
• Return of Siberian exiles
• Relaxing of disabilities on religious minorities
• Lifting of restrictions on foreign travel
• Relaxing of Russian rule in Poland
• Abolishment of medieval punishments

Overall, the reforms modernized Russia, ended feudalism, reduced class privileges, and spared economic development. While piecemeal, it was extensive.

Despite this, Alexander II was still a firm supporter of the traditional autocratic system and generally against a constitutional or representative government. Increased political unrest in Poland and radical movements in Russia strengthened these conservative views.

However, the so-called Loris-Melikov Constitution, an ukaz that he signed on the day of his death, created a number of consultative commissions that might have been transformed eventually into a representative assembly and constitutional Monarchy. Coupled with additional plans for industrialization and increase reforms for the serfs, it might have kept the rise of Communism from happening at all.

However even with Alexander II living longer, upon his death current history has him succeeded by his son Alexander III, who in a nutshell was an extreme conservative autocrat, opponent of liberalism and representative government, and supporter of orthodoxy, autocracy, and narodnost (belief in the Russian people / Russian nationalism).

THEREFOR, we come to an second Point of departure. Alexander II had an elder son who would have inherited the throne, Nicholas Alexandrovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alexandrovich,_Tsarevich_of_Russia). Nicholas however died at an early age during a tour of Europe. From what little is know, it was said he was an ardent support of his Father's ideals and reported to be very bookish. Ton ensure that his corrupt younger brother does not undo all of his father work, let us say that Nicholas stays home and avoids illness to learn the "family business"

Thus being able to ensure the reforms outlined above.

With this initial layout, how could one keep the reforms of Alexander II and (in theory) his son Nicholas to continue onward toward a Constitutional Monarchy. Following that how might these events work to undo the rise of the Communist party and the eventual October revolution and over-through of the Czars?
i]

[Plumber]

Really you can avoid Communism by a few things late in WWI. Kerensky drops out, Lenin's train crashes, Trotsky dies...

[Jello_Biafra]

This is a more interesting idea though. It's conceit, though, is a lot broader than just avoiding a Bolshevik take over in Russia.

A reformist Vladimir Lenin as the first Social Democratic prime minister of Russia? That'd be interesting to see. The possibilities are endless.

[Plumber]

This is a more interesting idea though. It's conceit, though, is a lot broader than just avoiding a Bolshevik take over in Russia.

A reformist Vladimir Lenin as the first Social Democratic prime minister of Russia? That'd be interesting to see. The possibilities are endless.
Yes, the most flawed thing about this thread is the title. The premise has a lot of promise.

[the sad mafioso]

This is a more interesting idea though. It's conceit, though, is a lot broader than just avoiding a Bolshevik take over in Russia.

A reformist Vladimir Lenin as the first Social Democratic prime minister of Russia? That'd be interesting to see. The possibilities are endless.

Why bother keeping Lenin in the equation if you are going to disarm him of his entire political background and character? Honestly, you would literally need to wipe clear the slate of Lenin's life for that to even be mildly possible, and by then it sort of becomes pointless to drag Lenin's name in this historical situation as it is so separate from the actual Lenin.

[Tyler Xyroadia]

This is a more interesting idea though. It's conceit, though, is a lot broader than just avoiding a Bolshevik take over in Russia.

A reformist Vladimir Lenin as the first Social Democratic prime minister of Russia? That'd be interesting to see. The possibilities are endless.

That was actually one of the possibilities I had hopped for with this timeline. That by the time of Lenin, Russia would have reformed enough for his incredible energy to be put to use further reforming the nation.

Unfortunately with such a dramatic shift in the timeline there is no way of knowing if the same sort of Lenin would come about. After all it was the brutal and corrupt Tzars that molded Lenin into who he was.

That said I tried to make this set up as factual as possible. The genesis for the idea was simply the great list of ills brought about by Communist Russia.
And to do that, you needed to not just "prevent" communism, but ensure a timeline where Russia becomes a stable and progressive nation. With such a nation in place so much bad from history goes away:

The "Cultural Revolution" of China, the take over of Cuba by Castro, the War in Korea and Vietnam. ((Yes I know Vietnam was at war for ages, mostly with the French, but without Communist China America would not have got involved.))
And of course the vast list of dictators WE put into power to try and curb what we thought where Communist leaders in South America and elsewhere.

All of the paranoia and wasted resources of the Cold War would no longer have been. There would be now Red Scare, no Mac Arthury, etc.

Sadly the one thing we would loose to the World in this setup, that TETRIS would not exist:(

[rule_them_all]

Shouldn't this be in before 1900?

[MarshalBraginsky]

EDIT
Before reading further I wish to make the following statement. This is something which of course has been done before, however I would like ot think what I have is a far more detailed and in-depth version then what is usually put out. Further, usually such discussions automatically run into "How would this affect WWII?" which usually devolves into people saying that without the iron heel of Stalin, Russia never would have stood up to Hitler.

Please bare in mind that this POD is Massively in the past from WWII, and people should focus more on what changes this may have to WWI. With such a drastic difference, Hitler may not even goto War, or if he does, maybe he dies in battle in WWI. Simply wishing people to keep such things in mind,

Thank you

On 13 March 1881, Tsar Alexander II was assassinated by the revolutionary movement the People’s Will. The initial attack, a bomb hurled at his bulletproof coach, killed the driver and injured guards. Unharmed, Alexander II, concerned for those outside, stepped out of the coach against the protestations of his personal guard. Another assassin threw a second bomb, mortally wounding Alexander II.

Ignoring the who, what, where, and how; let us assume that for whatever reason Alexander either avoided or survived this attack. How might this have changed Russian history? At this time, Imperial Russia had been generally dominated by conservative authoritarian principles. Yet Alexander, partially due to his education, had developed a more liberal, humanist outlook, and in light of coming to power during the Crimea War, had realized the degree of Russia’s backwardness. As a result, Alexander II worked to implement a series of reforms and modernization in an attempt to bring Russia into line with the more advanced Western countries of Europe.

Major Reforms:

Improvement of communication via railway lines – from 600 miles (965 km) to 14,000 miles (22,525 km). Resulted in improved economic conditions for rural areas as well.

Military reforms under Dmitry Milyutin:
• Improvement of military schools
• The Army Statute of 1874: Introduced conscription for the first time, making young men of all classes liable to military service.

The Emancipation Act of February 19, 1861, which led to the abolition of serfdom, despite bitter opposition from landowning interests.
• Pros: Serfs were given modest allotments of land, and it had a great psychological effect.
• Cons: The reform failed in creating an “economically viable class of peasant” and “helped to undermine the already shaken economic foundations of Russia’s landowning class.”

Judicial Statute of 1864:
• Improved and modernized Russia’s judicial system to be comparable with Western nations (modeled somewhat on France’s).
• Established the zemstvos, elective local assemblies that:
o Extended the area of self-government.
o Improved local welfare (education, hygiene, medical care, local crafts, agronomy).
o Helped increase rural literacy.

Other Political/Religious Reforms:
• Release of political prisoners
• Return of Siberian exiles
• Relaxing of disabilities on religious minorities
• Lifting of restrictions on foreign travel
• Relaxing of Russian rule in Poland
• Abolishment of medieval punishments

Overall, the reforms modernized Russia, ended feudalism, reduced class privileges, and spared economic development. While piecemeal, it was extensive.

Despite this, Alexander II was still a firm supporter of the traditional autocratic system and generally against a constitutional or representative government. Increased political unrest in Poland and radical movements in Russia strengthened these conservative views.

However, the so-called Loris-Melikov Constitution, an ukaz that he signed on the day of his death, created a number of consultative commissions that might have been transformed eventually into a representative assembly and constitutional Monarchy. Coupled with additional plans for industrialization and increase reforms for the serfs, it might have kept the rise of Communism from happening at all.

However even with Alexander II living longer, upon his death current history has him succeeded by his son Alexander III, who in a nutshell was an extreme conservative autocrat, opponent of liberalism and representative government, and supporter of orthodoxy, autocracy, and narodnost (belief in the Russian people / Russian nationalism).

THEREFOR, we come to an second Point of departure. Alexander II had an elder son who would have inherited the throne, Nicholas Alexandrovich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alexandrovich,_Tsarevich_of_Russia). Nicholas however died at an early age during a tour of Europe. From what little is know, it was said he was an ardent support of his Father's ideals and reported to be very bookish. Ton ensure that his corrupt younger brother does not undo all of his father work, let us say that Nicholas stays home and avoids illness to learn the "family business"

Thus being able to ensure the reforms outlined above.

With this initial layout, how could one keep the reforms of Alexander II and (in theory) his son Nicholas to continue onward toward a Constitutional Monarchy. Following that how might these events work to undo the rise of the Communist party and the eventual October revolution and over-through of the Czars?
i]

So a different Nicholas II would have become the Tsar instead of the well-known OTL Tsar Nicholas II, right? Would a different Nicholas II (Nicholas Aleksandrovich) actually be able to avoid the Russo-Japanese War and transition Russia to a decent constitutional monarchy?

I'm guessing that Nicholas Aleksandrovich being Tsar would butterfly the hemophiliac Alexei, the quest for where's Anastasia and Rasputin in general.

[Tyler Xyroadia]

So a different Nicholas II would have become the Tsar instead of the well-known OTL Tsar Nicholas II, right? Would a different Nicholas II (Nicholas Aleksandrovich) actually be able to avoid the Russo-Japanese War and transition Russia to a decent constitutional monarchy?

I'm guessing that Nicholas Aleksandrovich being Tsar would butterfly the hemophiliac Alexei, the quest for where's Anastasia and Rasputin in general.

Essentially correct, in this TL, Alexanders son survives and prevents his younger son from taking the throne and repealing the reforms put in place by his farther. This unfortunately causes a massive Butterfly effect as it essentially ends the line of Tsars and people born as we currently know it to exist.

All the heirs of Alexander III would never come into being as he does not assume the throne.

[MarshalBraginsky]

What kinds of massive butterflies are we talking about here? I mean, with a different Nicholas II, Russia certainly wouldn't collapse a lot sooner. Can it?

[Roger II]

I think you could legitimately keep Lenin in the timeline if you think his upringing* and pre-PoD development(he's 11 so some stable personality traits are likely to have emerged) indicates that he's likely to go on to notable things IOTL. If the data is sufficient for that judgement, it's probably enough information to estimate how he'd develop TTL.

[Jello_Biafra]

Why bother keeping Lenin in the equation if you are going to disarm him of his entire political background and character? Honestly, you would literally need to wipe clear the slate of Lenin's life for that to even be mildly possible, and by then it sort of becomes pointless to drag Lenin's name in this historical situation as it is so separate from the actual Lenin.
Well, that's kind of the point of alternatehistory literature.

You build a story off allohistorical allusions, presenting something that is known for one thing as something else. There are compelling narrative reasons for keeping as many real world characters involved as possible, even when it might be a bit implausible.

With a surviving one-nation conservative type Tsar as opposed to the usual reactionary fare, Lenin's life is going to be quite a bit different. There'd be no compelling need for anyone to be an underground revolutionary, so Nikolai Illyich Ulyanov is effectively a blank slate.

That said, the royal family tree is totally thrown out the window.

[the sad mafioso]

Well, that's kind of the point of alternatehistory literature.

You build a story off allohistorical allusions, presenting something that is known for one thing as something else. There are compelling narrative reasons for keeping as many real world characters involved as possible, even when it might be a bit implausible.

With a surviving one-nation conservative type Tsar as opposed to the usual reactionary fare, Lenin's life is going to be quite a bit different. There'd be no compelling need for anyone to be an underground revolutionary, so Nikolai Illyich Ulyanov is effectively a blank slate.

That said, the royal family tree is totally thrown out the window.

Who is to say Lenin doesn't just graduate from the Imperial University of Kazan with his degree in law and happily practice it for the entirety of his life then? That is a far more likely outcome, actually. But of course you just want to derive a bit of fun from skewering the legacy of Lenin, so that would be to miss the point of this whole squalid affair I suppose.

[MarshalBraginsky]

OK, so a skewered legacy for Lenin then. I assume that Trotsky would have been exiled, or assassinated by the Okhrana. Stalin would either be killed off early, or he'd have a different life if his upbringing was decent.

[The Ubbergeek]

Wasn't Trotsky a Menchevik at first, not Communist/Marxist at first, but one who 'converted' to it later?

[the sad mafioso]

Wasn't Trotsky a Menchevik at first, not Communist/Marxist at first, but one who 'converted' to it later?

He was a member of the Russian Social Democratic party who was more a Bolshevik in ideological content, but who also did not support a full split in the party until the Menshevik's and their support of Kerensky's provisional government became incompatible with his aims. I would hardly say he converted to it so much as he saw it as a necessary step in the creation of a proletariat revolution in Russia.

[Roger II]

Because the story will be somewhat enriched by using him as a character in an interesting way? And I don't see Lenin becoming a liberal politician as all that implausible-"bright liberal gets a law degree, decides to go into politics, and does well for himself" is a perfectly plausible thing to have happen.
Ubbergeek: I think you are right about Trotsky being a Menshevik(he'd probably stay that TTL too) although both him and Stalin are young enough at this point that the TL author can do more or less what they please with them. Although it would tickle many here if you can use these: http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4721686&postcount=5163

[the sad mafioso]

Because the story will be somewhat enriched by using him as a character in an interesting way? And I don't see Lenin becoming a liberal politician as all that implausible-"bright liberal gets a law degree, decides to go into politics, and does well for himself" is a perfectly plausible thing to have happen.
Ubbergeek: I think you are right about Trotsky being a Menshevik(he'd probably stay that TTL too) although both him and Stalin are young enough at this point that the TL author can do more or less what they please with them. Although it would tickle many here if you can use these: http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4721686&postcount=5163

Lenin showed absolutely no interest in bourgeoisie political structures. You are fabricating that notion upon a framework deprived of any historical truth.

[The Ubbergeek]

Lenin showed absolutely no interest in bourgeoisie political structures. You are fabricating that notion upon a framework deprived of any historical truth.

You guys keep calling this 'bourgeois democracy'... but it was a system defended by plebians, too, and worked for it.

Are QS traitors to their - moderate, social-democratic - roots? The small communists parties at federal and provincial in canada? the Eurocomunnists in France and Italy, and the french relatively new and far-left 'Anti-Capitalist Party'?

[Jello_Biafra]

Who is to say Lenin doesn't just graduate from the Imperial University of Kazan with his degree in law and happily practice it for the entirety of his life then? That is a far more likely outcome, actually. But of course you just want to derive a bit of fun from skewering the legacy of Lenin, so that would be to miss the point of this whole squalid affair I suppose.
Hon, I'm AH.com's resident ultraleftist. "Skewering the legacy of Lenin" happened in OTL. You may have heard of a man named Joseph Stalin. If any timeline skewer's Lenin's legacy, it's our own.

[Elfwine]

I think - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - but the idea is that Lenin, himself, saw it as "bourgeois democracy" and rejected it entirely.

And I kind of have to agree that having a person who is like Lenin in name only just to have Lenin as a character makes about as much sense as having Vespucci to allow me to be lazy about the name of the contintent/s of the New World in my medieval-POD TL.

Maybe more, but not that much more. It won't be a real world character, it'll be someone who shares the same name.

And speaking as a writer, I do not see the point. The whole idea of an alternate world is that it is just that. Familiar places will be different. People we know from OTL will not show up in TTL and vice-versa.

I don't know or much care if it skewers his legacy, but it doesn't add anything and doesn't make enough sense to be accepted on the grounds of being "familiar".

[Jello_Biafra]

I think - and someone correct me if I'm wrong - but the idea is that Lenin, himself, saw it as "bourgeois democracy" and rejected it entirely.

And I kind of have to agree that having a person who is like Lenin in name only just to have Lenin as a character makes about as much sense as having Vespucci to allow me to be lazy about the name of the contintent/s of the New World in my medieval-POD TL.

Maybe more, but not that much more. It won't be a real world character, it'll be someone who shares the same name.

And speaking as a writer, I do not see the point. The whole idea of an alternate world is that it is just that. Familiar places will be different. People we know from OTL will not show up in TTL and vice-versa.

I don't know or much care if it skewers his legacy, but it doesn't add anything and doesn't make enough sense to be accepted on the grounds of being "familiar".
Lenin wasn't even born by the time of the POD. The life of any child of Illya Nikolaiyevich Ulyanov and Marie Alexandrovna Ulyanova is completely up for grabs. All we know, is that given Russian naming patterns, Illya Ylyanov is going to probably name a son after his father, and so there will probably be a Nikolai Illyich Ulyanov.