WI: Alexander II was not assasinated

[Aphrodite]

How exactly was he guilty in bad weather and cholera? Both had been happening throughout Russian history on a regular basis.

Bad weather wasn't his fault but the famine wasn't caused by bad weather. It was caused because Alexander III had taxed the peasantry and imposed too many other burdens on them. He had failed to do anything to improve cultivation or even expand the land under plow nor had he established the necessary reserves for famine relief or built a sufficient transportation system to transfer supplies.

As for the cholera epidemic: life expectancy in Sweden was 56, Germany 47 and Britain 50 while just 32 because Alexander had done nothing to introduce even the most basic public health measures

But hey, he had stockpiles of gold

And revolutionary movements were heritage of his father. Imperial Russia not being the SU, AIII had been rather limited in his anti-revolutionary options.

He may have dealt with the minor nuisance of the revolutionary movements he inherited from his father but by his death the movements were back in force. You listed this as an accomplishment It was nothing

Like high temp of the industrial growth? By 1900 Russia was on the 1st place by oil production and 2rd place by iron production… yes, truly terrible results…

Chery picking a few industries doesn't make Russia an industrial power house. His economic policies don't produce an industrial society. There were a few industries that prospered but overall the level of economic activity is about a third of Germany's

Taking into an account that the Russian industry during that period had been growing in a fast rate, your statement is rather hard to believe.

Russian industry has sporadic growth and overall he doesn't produce much to brag about. As I noted, Nicholas clings to most of his father's policies so if they were so brilliant, why is Russia not able to catch the Britain of 1900 by 1914?

These are meaningless generalities and, as far as the failures are involved, pretty much all the reign of his father was a costly failure. You can start with the railroads construction of which was so “well” organized that the government ended up paying for the intended inefficiency. Or a great idea to distribute the state contracts to the plants which were built far from the sources of iron and coal.

Not sure what you think your point is here. Railroads were subsidized because they provided general benefits to society. Alexander III spent the money just like his father and son

But this was peanuts comparing to the absurd war which was grossly mishandled due to AIIs personal contribution, cost more than 1,000,000,000 rubles, involved huge human losses and at the end a major international embarrassment.

Or the trifles like genocide on the Caucasus.

Alexander III managed to avoid wars not by design but by luck. He had the good fortune that no one sought one during his reign. His decision to build the Trans Siberian made war with Japan inevitable. That he had appointed his idiot brother to run the Navy and then shortchanged it throughout his reign was a big contributor to the eventual defeat

Russian industry was grossly inadequate for the challenge of WWI but competitiveness was to a great degree due to the welcoming the foreign companies to get involved in building up the Russian industry: this was the whole point in keeping the high tariffs.

But you've been telling me how much it had grown but now its "insufficient".

On tariffs: You are turning every established economic theory on their heads. The tariffs were enormously expensive as Kahan shows. 500 million rubles a year in 1900 is more than Russia spent on her army and navy combined. A sane economic program would have spent the money building up the transportation net. Positive investment that builds over time.

Sorry, this is an idiotic statement. AII started absolutely unwarranted war, screwed it up, then screwed the peace and all that is “natural” while the draught and cholera are personal faults of AIII….

It is well known that policies of Bunge and Wyshnegradsky had been based upon massive foreign investments.

Alexander III decision to withdraw from Bulgaria is what ultimately doomed the Russian Empire and threw away the main accomplishment of his father's war

In a “couple years” nothing of the kind would happen because Russia remained technologically backward as was convincingly demonstrated during WWI.

Funny how the Germans were so convinced of the opposite that they chose to go to war in 1914 rather than risk the continued growth of Russia

 

[alexmilman]

Bad weather wasn't his fault but the famine wasn't caused by bad weather. It was caused because Alexander III had taxed the peasantry and imposed too many other burdens on them.

Actually, the main burden was put on them by AII and his emancipation reform with the mandatory payments which both AIII and NII had been lowering. There was a draught which caused the famine.

He had failed to do anything to improve cultivation or even expand the land under plow nor had he established the necessary reserves for famine relief or built a sufficient transportation system to transfer supplies.

Sorry, you are seriously confused: it was not monarch’s duty to improve agriculture and the land could not be expanded by the click of the fingers. To implement massive resettlement, you needed the infrastructure and construction of the railroads to Russian Asia was taking time. Building transportation system when famine already happened? Are you kidding? The railroads are not being constructed in few days or months. But supplies had been transferred, even if not as much as was needed.

The peasants had been stuck with the communal property which made improvement of agriculture pretty much impossible and they had been reluctant to get out of that model even during and after Stolypin’s reforms.

Pretty much the same goes for the “reserves”. Which European country had been storing the huge grain reserves “just in case”?

As for the cholera epidemic: life expectancy in Sweden was 56, Germany 47 and Britain 50 while just 32 because Alexander had done nothing to introduce even the most basic public health measures

This is just plain stupid. Russia by the end of AII reign was a backward country with no adequate medical service and not enough doctors and other medical personnel. The doctors do not grow on the trees and AIII was reigning only few years. Which “measures” could he take?

But hey, he had stockpiles of gold

Yes, and the supplies had been bought but it was taking time to ship and distribute them.

He may have dealt with the minor nuisance of the revolutionary movements he inherited from his father

Minor nuisance? Surely, assassination of an emperor was not just a nuisance. There was a reign of terror wholeheartedly supported by the Russian intelligencia. How exactly was he expected to deal with it better than he did?

but by his death the movements were back in force.

So he did stop them. The rest was up to NII and he failed just as AII.

You listed this as an accomplishment It was nothing

Chery picking a few industries doesn't make Russia an industrial power house. His economic policies don't produce an industrial society.

Oh dear. The industrial society can’t be produced out of nothing within few years. The only thing that can help is a protracted period of peace and growth. AIII provided peace and growth but his reign was too short to produce the fundamental change. NII somewhat continued his policies of growth but could not provide peace and by 1914 Russia was not ready to a major war, just as in 1904 it was not ready to a reasonably limited war.

On that I end discussion with you.

 

[Aphrodite]

Actually, the main burden was put on them by AII and his emancipation reform with the mandatory payments which both AIII and NII had been lowering. There was a draught which caused the famine.

Very boring. AIII did nothing to improve their lot and pursued a very damaging deflationary policy which made the redemption payments even harder to maintain.

Sorry, you are seriously confused: it was not monarch’s duty to improve agriculture and the land could not be expanded by the click of the fingers.

Excuse me, the Tsar was the autocrat and responsible for the welfare of his people. A click of the fingers? No but who said anything about that?
From 1905 to 1914, the total land under tillage increased by 20,000,000 desiatinas and projects for another 30,000,000 approved. That would have doubled the peasants land in 1894

To implement massive resettlement, you needed the infrastructure and construction of the railroads to Russian Asia was taking time. Building transportation system when famine already happened? Are you kidding?

oh please. The famine happened in 1891, ten years after the nitcanpoop took over

The railroads are not being constructed in few days or months. But supplies had been transferred, even if not as much as was needed.

see above. Massive gains could be made by local irrigation and drainage works as well

The peasants had been stuck with the communal property which made improvement of agriculture pretty much impossible and they had been reluctant to get out of that model even during and after Stolypin’s reforms.

AIII strengthened the commune. He also rejected Ermolov's proposals which wete essentially the same as Stolypin's

Pretty much the same goes for the “reserves”. Which European country had been storing the huge grain reserves “just in case”?

If you dont have railroads, you need local supplies. Makes more sense rhen stacking gold in the vaults

This is just plain stupid. Russia by the end of AII reign was a backward country with no adequate medical service and not enough doctors and other medical personnel. The doctors do not grow on the trees and AIII was reigning only few years. Which “measures” could he take?

Really? I thought you said his economic policies had transformed the country, Which is it?

Yes, and the supplies had been bought but it was taking time to ship and distribute them.

Why wait till the famine strikes?

Minor nuisance? Surely, assassination of an emperor was not just a nuisance. There was a reign of terror wholeheartedly supported by the Russian intelligencia. How exactly was he expected to deal with it better than he did?

Well political assasination is rampant at the time. See President McKinley, King Umberto, Empress Elizabeth

So he did stop them. The rest was up to NII and he failed just as AII.

Every major terrorist group survived under AIII

Oh dear. The industrial society can’t be produced out of nothing within few years. The only thing that can help is a protracted period of peace and growth. AIII provided peace and growth but his reign was too short to produce the fundamental change. NII somewhat continued his policies of growth but could not provide peace and by 1914 Russia was not ready to a major war, just as in 1904 it was not ready to a reasonably limited war.

Really? There's a reason Japan and Germany struck when they did: the growing might of Russia was making the Russians unassailable

On that I end discussion with you.

What discussion? This is like always- I present facts, cite major works and authors and you make vague unsupported assertions which contradict every theory of economics

 

[ahmedali]

I believe that without the assassination, Alexander II would have died in 1888 or 1890 and would have died at the same age as Catherine II.

(The average age of the Russian emperor is less than his European counterparts, especially the British king, the German tsars, and the Austrians, who live relatively long lives)

The constitutional reform proposed by Miliukov will have been signed, and although it is a weak thing, it will represent an improvement and will begin to develop little by little.

Ermolov's proposals will be implemented and it will be good for Russia

But with regard to the Balkans, the best scenario was to avoid the war of 1877-1878 or turn it into an Ottoman victory

(The first would ensure that Russia avoided war spending and a potential source of population.)

The second would restore Alexander II's impulse for reform

Ironically, it would be better for the Ottomans and the Russians, as well as for the Balkans themselves


Because the first constitutional era is not completed and Abdul Hamid the second does not become reactionary

Thus Christian grievances would be dealt with by the much better democratic Ottoman Empire

(There was a suggestion about the formation of a dual kingdom between Bulgaria and the Ottomans on the lines of Austria-Hungary)

If copied for the rest of the empire, it would be much better than the Balkans being a hotbed of fanaticism and war

And their economies are not destroyed by extremist national aspirations

 

[AndyWho]

I must say the historical information tension between Alex and Aphrodite is quite intense. *grabs popcorn*

That being said, Alexander II living longer is a good start in order to establish some form of slow reform. However, Alexander III would be key for any industrialization for the country. Ideally, the best case I could see is AIII being recognized as a Defense Minister for the Cabinet in lieu of any reforms and maintaining some form of their retention.

The Catch 22 is that AIII's death only occured during is reign via a train explosion. Take out AII's assassination and that may butterfly the trip altogether, allowing AIII to live longer and take the throne. Any reforms, unless guided well by AII and forced to maintain under AIII (or Nicholas II if grandpa decides to skip a generation and cause a ruckus), would be on life support.

 

[ahmedali]

I must say the historical information tension between Alex and Aphrodite is quite intense. *grabs popcorn*

That being said, Alexander II living longer is a good start in order to establish some form of slow reform. However, Alexander III would be key for any industrialization for the country. Ideally, the best case I could see is AIII being recognized as a Defense Minister for the Cabinet in lieu of any reforms and maintaining some form of their retention.

The Catch 22 is that AIII's death only occured during is reign via a train explosion. Take out AII's assassination and that may butterfly the trip altogether, allowing AIII to live longer and take the throne. Any reforms, unless guided well by AII and forced to maintain under AIII (or Nicholas II if grandpa decides to skip a generation and cause a ruckus), would be on life support.

In fact, if Alexander II lived and avoided his assassination in 1881, but met his death in the train accident in 1887, six additional years of Alexander II would make a difference.

The reform of the Duma, and its color is not strong, will be important, and Ermolov's reforms on land reform may be carried out by the tsar.

The survival of Alexander II means the survival of Alexander Battenberg as ruler of Bulgaria (neither the revolution in Plovdiv, which the Russians deliberately ignited, nor the coup that led to his expulsion, but it will only delay the Bulgarian-Russian hostility more)

(The marriage of Alexander of Battenberg to Princess Victoria of Prussia will happen because the Russians, led by a person friendly to the Germans, who is Alexander II, will not provoke them to marry, and this means that Bismarck, Wilhelm II and Wilhelm I will not oppose marriage)

This means that Ferdinand does not become Tsar of Bulgaria (you will have to search for a throne for him and choose for him any throne you want).

His second wife, Catherine Dolgorukova, will become empress, and this means adding his children from her to the line of succession (something that will anger Alexander III very much, but his brothers will accept it easily).

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

If Alexander II lives longer, Konstantin Pobedonostsev probably doesn't become Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod.

That means the May Laws are not likely to be implemented, because the driving personality behind them is not in office.
Also, the wave of pogroms that followed Alexander II's assassination doesn't happen, which means times are generally better for Jews in Russia.

 

[ahmedali]

If Alexander II lives longer, Konstantin Pobedonostsev probably doesn't become Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod.

That means the May Laws are not likely to be implemented, because the driving personality behind them is not in office.
Also, the wave of pogroms that followed Alexander II's assassination doesn't happen, which means times are generally better for Jews in Russia.

And of course not for Poland (the Russian tsars, regardless of their differences, they hate Poland)

Unless you get Alexander II to be saved by a Pole from being assassinated, this might make him restore freedoms to Poland

 

[Lalli]

And of course not for Poland (the Russian tsars, regardless of their differences, they hate Poland)

Unless you get Alexander II to be saved by a Pole from being assassinated, this might make him restore freedoms to Poland

I don't think that someone Pole saving AII would change his mind. Only way is that there passes much longer time and Russian government decides sometimes in 1920's that perhaps they can give new chance to Poland. Only risk is that Poland begin demand full independence.

 

[ahmedali]

I don't think that someone Pole saving AII would change his mind. Only way is that there passes much longer time and Russian government decides sometimes in 1920's that perhaps they can give new chance to Poland. Only risk is that Poland begin demand full independence.

Alexander II allowed the Finns to remain a separate duchy by their constitution because of their loyalty

I don't see Alexander II not doing this to the Poles if someone saved him

But the Poles are passionately anti-Russian and want independence since 1795, so either iron and fire or let them go.

Iron and fire are a favorite choice for the Russian tsars

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

Iron and fire are a favorite choice for the Russian tsars

It was in 1863 when the Polish nobility revolted over the possibility that he was going to extend emancipation of the serfs into Poland. The end result was that they got crushed and their serfs were freed on the spot, unlike Russian serfs who would basically be stuck in debt-slavery to their masters in order to buy their freedom.

Best thing he ever did for Poland.

 

[ahmedali]

It was in 1863 when the Polish nobility revolted over the possibility that he was going to extend emancipation of the serfs into Poland. The end result was that they got crushed and their serfs were freed on the spot, unlike Russian serfs who would basically be stuck in debt-slavery to their masters in order to buy their freedom.

Best thing he ever did for Poland.

But before him the rebellion of 1830 had been suppressed with equal cruelty and was not centered around the nobility

It may be good, but later measures such as Russification, persecution of Catholicism, and persecution of the Polish language are not good

 

[mcdnab]

How does AII living longer lead to Nicky getting a different wife? And out of curiosity, who do you think he ends up with?

I think from memory it is quite unlikely - he was pretty determined to marry Alix despite the fact his parents weren't keen. They'd met when she was 12 at her sister's wedding to Nicholas' uncle. She herself had been pressured to marry her cousin Albert Victor which their grandmother Queen Victoria wanted but she turned him down. Later visits to Russia and her sister confirmed their feelings. She did hesitate over religion but eventually accepted Nicholas' proposal - his parents had effectively given in (and AIII's declining health played a role in that).

 

[isabella]

I think from memory it is quite unlikely - he was pretty determined to marry Alix despite the fact his parents weren't keen. They'd met when she was 12 at her sister's wedding to Nicholas' uncle. She herself had been pressured to marry her cousin Albert Victor which their grandmother Queen Victoria wanted but she turned him down. Later visits to Russia and her sister confirmed their feelings. She did hesitate over religion but eventually accepted Nicholas' proposal - his parents had effectively given in (and AIII's declining health played a role in that).

True. Alex II himself had married for love to a wife less suitable than Alix (and I talk about Marie who was the illegitimate daughter of her mother but acknowledged by her official father) so I can NOT see him denying a love match to his grandson… unless butterflies made Elisabeth of Hesse marrying differently (as she had a lot of admirers and Alix also had her own)

 

[Thomas Lloyd]

A lot of the time its hard to make objective predictions because it depends on your own views. Free trade is well established to be beneficial for all parties for hundreds of years, but many still believe protectionism is a good for developing a rural country by protecting it from foreign competition, others think a strong hand is better than reforms to adress the root causes of problems. So, it depends on what your beliefs are. In my opinion, Alexander II has proven himself to be a great ruler because he was willing to make the hard decisions of taking on powerful aristocrats and delegating parts of his authority.

 

[alexmilman]

A lot of the time its hard to make objective predictions because it depends on your own views. Free trade is well established to be beneficial for all parties for hundreds of years, but many still believe protectionism is a good for developing a rural country by protecting it from foreign competition, others think a strong hand is better than reforms to adress the root causes of problems. So, it depends on what your beliefs are. In my opinion, Alexander II has proven himself to be a great ruler because he was willing to make the hard decisions of taking on powerful aristocrats and delegating parts of his authority.

The hard decisions are not always the best ones. And the same goes for the good intentions. Otherwise Peter III and Paul I will count as the great rulers. 😉

Not quite sure about the “powerful aristocrats” as an uniform class of the reactionaries and even the landed nobility was, as a class, not as powerful as anticipated: you can’t be too powerful and independent when your property is heavily mortgaged to the state. And it was not heavily represented in either bureaucracy or army since early XIX.

His emancipation program was done really badly destroying both landed nobility and the peasants: nobility got not money but the certificates which they rushed to convert to money and this could be done at the discount (the fact that a mass of them just wasted the money was their fault) and the peasants had been saddled with the high payments to the state and communal model which pretty much prevented innovations (not that the majority of peasants had surplus money for that).

The military reform was another example: the idea was good but the big parts of implementation were quite lousy producing long-term negative consequences and the Russian army in 1877 was in a lousy shape on all levels and you can trace the systematic problems all the way to RJW and WWI.

The railroads construction was a good and necessary idea but implementation was quite bad and expensive to the state.

Zemstvo and trial by jury were good ideas but did not produce loyalty to the regime among educated classes: look at Zasulich process.
Expansion of the universities was good and necessary but they became the hotspots of the anti-governmental sentiments and activities.

Now, about across the board benefits of the free trade, this notion is well established by the developed countries (you can check what Disraeli said about FT and the Ottoman Empire) but Russia was not one and its industry was not actively developing during the reign of AII but started growing fast during the reign of AIII.

 

[ahmedali]

True. Alex II himself had married for love to a wife less suitable than Alix (and I talk about Marie who was the illegitimate daughter of her mother but acknowledged by her official father) so I can NOT see him denying a love match to his grandson… unless butterflies made Elisabeth of Hesse marrying differently (as she had a lot of admirers and Alix also had her own)

This is if Alexander II standing by his grandson against his son (especially if Alexander III is in good health and the fact that his grandson’s bride is a Princess of Hesse like his wife) does not lead to a break between Alexander II and his son.

After the pressure that will happen in their relationship

Ironically, it may make Nicholas II more liberal to spite his father (without seeing his grandfather killed) and his grandfather decides to deprive his father of his right to the throne.

I have a question, how will Alexander II deal with the Ottomans and Abdul Hamid II, and will he be more enthusiastic about another war after the Hamidian massacres?

 

[RedSword12]

The decree he was about to sign was really of little significance and would never had led to much.

A surviving Alexander II is an interesting timeline though. If he survives a little more than a decade the whole disastrous reign of Alexander III is avoided.

This means keeping to more sensible economic policies of free trade and a fiat paper currency rather than hoarding huge amounts of gold.

Papa was far more moderate towards Jews than his successors which would be another positive though he wasn't going to be kind to them.

Then there's his plan to coronate his second wife which could have many interesting ramifications.

Foreign policy is difficult to asses as Tsars made it up as they went along.

A Nicholas II who doesnt have his father's bad example to follow would have many positives

On the other hand, he ordered the Circassian Genocide, so who knows how actually liberal his influence would pan out to be in the end? Frankly I doubt much good would come of Alexander living longer.

 

[alexmilman]

On the other hand, he ordered the Circassian Genocide, so who knows how actually liberal his influence would pan out to be in the end? Frankly I doubt much good would come of Alexander living longer.

Actually, there was not just Circassian Genocide. Conquest of Chechnya also was a cruel affair and so was conquest of the CA. All these episodes tended to be forgotten. His liberalism did not prevent him from being one of the most “imperialistic” Russian monarchs in the terms of acquired square footage (don’t forget huge territories on the Far East at China’s expense).

Also keep in mind that too often referenced project of Loris-Melikov by the author’s own acknowledgement had nothing to do with “parliamentarism”: it was just expansion of the State Council by adding carefully vetted elected representatives of certain social and professional groups. When implemented in 1905 as a part on NIIs constitution, was completely unnoticed because State Council had very little power even comparing to Duma.

 

[alexmilman]

This is if Alexander II standing by his grandson against his son (especially if Alexander III is in good health and the fact that his grandson’s bride is a Princess of Hesse like his wife) does not lead to a break between Alexander II and his son.

There was a rumored danger of him legitimizing his marriage to Dolgorukova based on her ancestry while delegitimizing his first marriage based upon questionable parentage of his first wife. This would create a dynastic mess of the fundamental proportions.

After the pressure that will happen in their relationship

Ironically, it may make Nicholas II more liberal to spite his father (without seeing his grandfather killed) and his grandfather decides to deprive his father of his right to the throne.

I have a question, how will Alexander II deal with the Ottomans and Abdul Hamid II, and will he be more enthusiastic about another war after the Hamidian massacres?

Another war? How it would be financed? One of 1877-78 cost over 1 billion and put Russian finances in a huge trouble. IIRC, financial situation was still lousy by the time of his death.