For Want of a Word – Stolypin endures

[La Rouge Beret]

If the government is prudent then they will conduct a phased draw down of troop numbers, allowing them time to learn a technical skill or trade that is in demand within the civilian economy. Which gives time for the economy to start absorbing large numbers of returned servicemen and, for those servicemen to have more meaningful roles in society. Along with allowing times for the veterans to decompress from their experiences and to start to adapt to civilian life (also providing another issue of civilian clothing, a train ticket, & a small stipend upon separation would help a great deal).

Also with Russia's better performance ITTL did Lord Kitchener survive & this was also a reflection of his organisational ability. Personally I've always felt that K of K would have found common ground with the Russians. Heck Nicky's wife would have liked him from everything that I've read.

 

[Bookmark1995]

If the government is prudent then they will conduct a phased draw down of troop numbers, allowing them time to learn a technical skill or trade that is in demand within the civilian economy. Which gives time for the economy to start absorbing large numbers of returned servicemen and, for those servicemen to have more meaningful roles in society. Along with allowing times for the veterans to decompress from their experiences and to start to adapt to civilian life (also providing another issue of civilian clothing, a train ticket, & a small stipend upon separation would help a great deal).

Also with Russia's better performance ITTL did Lord Kitchener survive & this was also a reflection of his organisational ability. Personally I've always felt that K of K would have found common ground with the Russians. Heck Nicky's wife would have liked him from everything that I've read.

Unfortunately, prudent is NOT a word you can use to describe Nicholas II.

 

[alexmilman]

I think Russia is being both over- and under-sold here. There's no doubt that a Russia that avoids the Civil War, under pretty much any government, will be massively better off than the OTL Soviet Union in the 1920s. Ballpark figures I've seen are that Russian GDP fell by half between the October Revolution (which was partly driven by food shortages) and the creation of the USSR in 1922. TTL, economic conditions in the post-WW1 Russian Empire may be bad, but there won't be famine, or hordes of desperate workers fleeing the cites, or mobs of bandits/patriots/revolutionaries seizing what is left.

That said, Russia is going to have to deal with the same problems that everyone else was facing in the post-war. Huge manpower losses, paradoxically coupled with high short-term unemployment as demobilised soldiers flood the cities. Huge numbers of disabled veterans, widows and orphans. A vast military-industrial complex that isn't good for much in peacetime without a lot of re-tooling. A civilian economy and infrastructure in the aftermath of four years of hard use and minimal investment. An over-stretched and heavily indebted government under pressure to make good on its promises, revert to peacetime tax levels and remove wartime controls. And, globally, trades is down, investment is down, confidence is down. Russia is not going to bounce straight back from this, any more than Britain or France or Germany did OTL. And Russia is going have to face it with significantly lower levels of infrastructure, education and private capital than Western Europe did.

So the Russians can collect on their paid orders from the US. Great - except what can post-war Russia do with shiploads of rifles or artillery shells except stick them in a warehouse in case of next time? In post-armistice France OTL, brand-new tanks and aircraft were being sold for scrap value as they weren't worth the cost of shipping them back from the battlefields. Those railways and locomotives have probably been run into the ground supplying the front and keeping the cities fed. Even a trainload of gold can look pretty silly when you're trying to feed Moscow or re-tool half the factories in Russia.

Reparations/favourable trade with Germany will help, in time. Foreign investment will come back if the Empire looks stable. Even a minimally competent government can do a lot of good by pushing things like electrification, education, industrial expansion and mechanisation of agriculture. But all of these things take time.

Quite agree. But, just as a little bit of a nitpicking, while after the war there may be no further need in the rifles and gunpowder ordered in the US, keep in mind that the US was also supplying the railroad equipment and the cars, items that would be in a high demand in a peace time. As for the rest, the form of collection would surely depend upon contract’s condition and if the order was not delivered in time, there can be monetary compensation.

 

[alexmilman]

Unfortunately, prudent is NOT a word you can use to describe Nicholas II.

That’s true but let’s not fell into the trap of painting him as a complete ultra-reactionary moron incapable of doing anything right. After the RJW there were numerous reforms both in the army and in the country in general, some of them quite fundamental, and Russian economy kept expanding and modernizing (not in an ideal way but still at a reasonably high rate).

During his reign a number of the important labor laws had been introduced: 1897 - law regulating working hours and mandatory holidays with the special provisions for the women and teenagers and compensation for overtime (which could not be forced upon the workers); 1903 - law regarding compensations to the workers and their families in the cases of work-related accidents; 1912 - 4 laws regarding illness/injury insurance. Could these laws be defined as “prudent”?

Neither was he a complete idiot in selecting his ministers because if he was, it would be rather hard to explain Witte and Stolypin or even Trepov.

 

[The Galaxy]

So I have read until page 2 and here are my suggestions which I often make for Russia in ww1

Do land reform, that is what the people wanted, split the land of the 250,000 larger landowners and give it to the people. Right there lots of political tension will be lost and loyalty of 10s of millions of people will be gained, guaranteeing for one generation election victories. 250,000 will be unhappy, and 10s of million will be happy, easy to win an election.

If done during the war, do so sensibly where one geographic area is done at a time, where you call back the people from that area, distribute the land, then they go back, and then the next area.

Forgive all the debts that the peasants had. This will add to the gratitude and will also add to the electoral victory for one generation of the party that does so.

Install complete democracy, equal rights for all, freedom of religion, universal suffrage etc etc etc


If one continues the war then have it be constant defense and never attack, just pullback. The Russians only need to hold out until at most nov 1918, and there is no way the central power can occupy all of Russia in that time. The Russian government can keep on retreating and pulling back, to the Urals or even Vladivostok if so needed. But it is highly unlikely the central powers will even get to the Urals. Do not do the Kerensky offensive in the summer of 1917, without that offensive, the Russian government may have survived in the original timeline, and in this alternative timeline the chance would increase even more.

Even if the Russian army is pushed back during the whole war, the Russian government only needs to have about half a million soldiers to be able to defeat any faction that might rise up after the war is done, no faction will be able to oppose the Russian government if the government has half a million soldiers or more.

The Russians ordered something like 3,3 million Mosin Nagants to be made in America during the war, only about half a million were delivered before the communist revolution. In this scenario however the Russian government will receive these weapons, 2,8 million extra rifles will be more than enough to defeat any faction, if there even is one.

In the original timeline the whites were not able to hold on to many area, because the whites would promise land reform, the people would side with the whites, and once the whites got in power the talk of land reform faded so the people went to the communists.

In this scenario however land reform has already be promised and started to be delivered so even if somehow there is a communist faction or other factions they wont have enough manpower and definitely not enough fire power.

On the food situation, what the Russian government should do is ask the allies to help repair and increase the Russian transport system, and have the allies ship and deliver equipment and tools that can increase this, instead of delivering weapons that were stuck in warehouses.

If a warehouse is filled with weapons and other military equipment and there is no way to get this equipment out, then instead of getting more military equipment, the allies should send equipment and personal to expand transportation and food.

More cities are to be used to docked at, so that these cities can be given food by the allies and also have their transport capacity expanded, so that nearby villages and other cities also can get food. This will help locally in lowering the food problems where this is done.

China is to asked to help as well. Using allied production and also local Chinese production the Chinese are to help expand as much transport capacity they can in the border area with Russia. China can provide a huge amount of laborers who can do the work, and also food is to be delivered where it is possible to do so.

All of this will help the food situation, it wont fix it everywhere, but it will decrease the food shortages in local areas. For example Vladivostok and should not have any food problems what so ever. Many of the border towns would probably not have it as well, and neither would many coastal cities that are in the East and maybe in North as well. Archangel and Murmansk should be able to be supplied with enough food, and even have their local transport capacity increase so that they can deliver food to nearby towns and villages and perhaps even further.


The money for this is to come from loans for the Americans, but it is the central power who have to cover the loans, so Russia does not need to pay any of the loans, the central powers will need to do that.


On the political side, if any faction that rises up, except the communists. will most likely be nationalistic and against land redistribution, so that means if it even manages to rise up it will have the people against it, making it far easier for the Russian government to defeat that faction.

 

[marathag]

nd can’t be a major consideration for the foreign investors: with the reparations in goods what prevents Russia from getting thousands of the German and Austrian trains, besides those bought in the US?

Standard vs Broad gauge, for starters.

 

[alexmilman]

Standard vs Broad gauge, for starters.

Not an issue: before the war the trains crossing the border were routinely passing through the gauge change. Actually, in 1915 the Russian military had been planning to refit 100 locomotives and 2,500 train cars captured from the Austrians in Galicia but decided against this in expectation that the offensive will continued.

The locomotives purchased in the US and delivered had been functioning in OTL Russia.

 

[The Galaxy]

The simple problem Russia has faced throughout its history is this: Reforming society is always, always, always one of the most dificults things a leader can do. For one thing, you are not always rewarded for reforming society, because you have to contend with angry elites who don't want their priveleges taken away, and angry revolutionaries who want more than what you promise.

Secondly, your reforms might do more harm than good.

And Russia is not alone in this.

In America, the end of slavery required a horrible, World War style conflict. And Lincoln himself would die with a bullet in his head because of the caprices of one angry Confederate sympathizer. While you can't condone the antebellum politicians for compromising with slavery, it is understandable why they would be hardpressed to deal with it.

In the second-half of the 20th century, the Democratic Party came to priortize the rights of its minority populations. And how were they rewarded? They were derpived of the once solid south. LBJ's own Texas Democratic Party would become a nonentity by the end of the 20th century, and he knew this too, despite putting all his legislative chops into the Civil Rights Act.

The Shah of Iran sought a secular society, but in the end, he pleased no one by being too secular for the clerics, too capricious for liberal reformers, and too out of touch for the common man.

Russia's history reflects how "reform" is always a slippery concept.

Ivan the Terrible wanted to reform Russian society. But living amidst the corruption of the boyars gradually warped his mind to the point where he killed his son in an argument.

Peter the Third wanted a more modern Russia, and he paid for it by being overthrown and cast in history as a selfish manchild, although there is some truth to those assertations.

Catherine the Great sought a more modern Russia, with more Enlightenment. But when those Enlightenment ideals led to the execution of a king, she was disgusted with the concept of modernity.

Paul I wanted to reform Russia's army, and was himself overthrown in a coup by his own son, who in turn would also try and reform Russia, only to turn away from liberalism after some Corsican upstart ravaged his country.

Tsar Alexander II wanted to reform Russia, and was rewarded with a bomb to the face. And Alexander III saw this as proof that liberalism was a poison.

Khrushchev wanted to reform Soviet society, and he found himself under house arrest and practically blacklisted and unpersoned from Soviet society.

Despite presiding over an era of stagnation, Brezhnev is well regarded in Russia for presiding over an age of stability.

His successor, Gorbachev, would try and reform this lumbering giant...only to be caught up between conservatives on one side, and reformists and nationalists on the other side. And in the end, Gorbachev would see the USSR crumble, and become heavily despised in his own country for destroying Russia's geopolitical power for the drunken incompetence of Yeltsin.

The tragedy of all of Russia's leaders is none of them have been able to properly thread the needle, and reform society in a way that benefits everyone.

Will the person after Putin be able to do this? Or will Russians find themselves longing for Putin one day?

The answers is easy and the same as always.

Install real democracy, many countries around the world have democracies, and people from all over the world move to these nations, people from Russia for example move to for example Denmark and these same Russians function just fine in Denmark.

It is the rules, laws and the institutions that matter.

If one were to install the same rules and the same laws in any country one would get similar results.

For example lets say hypothetically Denmark takes over Russian tomorrow and installs the same laws as in Denmark, in such a scenario the average quality of life of most Russians would increase and there would be less problems in Russia.

Rules, laws and institutions.

 

[The Galaxy]

Well, this was always my favorite scenario, especially the part regarding the motherland (to be closer to the Russian terminology ) demagoguery.

To start with, the OTL offensives had been often started on the request of the Allies who did not really care about situation on the Russian side and just looked for their own interests. Of course, a complete static defense is not quite practical but as a general policy it could save lives and resources and small-/medium-scale offensives at the weak spots could help keeping enemy off balance. Actually, the Turkish front would be a good area for the offensive actions because even with the relatively small force engaged the Ottomans are being beaten and this can be used for propaganda purposes.

Now, as far as situation in the army is involved, in this TL Stolypin is presumably addressing one of the important factors at the front: food supply. According to Brusilov, food situation at the front was steadily deteriorating with the increasing number of the meatless days per week and understandable negative impact upon the morale. Then, if (as more or less hinted by author) a competent administrator is in charge, there should be noticeable improvements in the weapons/ammunition production. Otherwise, the whole idea of this TL does not make too much sense: what's the point of having Stolypin in power if he performs as the OTL nincompoops? Intelligent distribution of the orders for military production and keeping the professional workers working at the plants instead of being sent to the front could make a LOT of difference. The same goes for more efficient handling of the supplies coming from the allies: in OTL a big part of them had been just accumulating in the ports of entry.
So, if the soldiers are well-fed, have enough ammunition and are not being wasted in the pointless offensives, the spirit of the frontline troops is higher than in OTL and they can hold for a longer time.

The last component, the demagoguery part, had been really badly handled in OTL and the soldiers were not motivated. Combination of the lies about the evil Germans planning to occupy European Russia and to grab their land could provide some motivation and the empty promise of the land reform (the nobility already owned only few percentages of agricultural land and percentage was steadily shrinking) also could be helpful.

That is misleading, the nobility may or may not have owned a few % of the land, but the peasants themselves did not own it, also many peasants had loans to the landbank which was owned by the nobility and charged high interest rates for those loans.

90% of the land was owned by the ww1 "Kulaks", not to be confused with Stalins term.

"The Russians that prospered the most during the war were peasant land-owners: Kulaks. Cunning muzhiks bribed local officials to prevent conscription and saw a field of opportunity open up during the war. While more and more peasants were sent to their deaths on the front lines, kulaks grabbed up their land in a free-for-all. By 1917, kulaks owned more than 90% of the arable land in European Russia, where once the majority or arable land had been in the hands of peasant communes. "

It hardly matters if the nobility or some other group owns the land, as long as it is not the peasants you have a problem.

And then that you want to backstab and take away any land reform, the Russian civil war showed what happened. The whites would promise land reform, an area / city would join the whites, the whites would then take back their promise, and the people were unhappy and joined the reds.

By betraying the people, you are setting up a system where there will be constant strife. Also who do you think is going to stop the soldiers from taking the land by force?

In the OTL many deserters went home with their guns, shot the local land owners and took the land. The provisional government wanted to send in soldiers to stop this, but the soldiers refused.

You are just setting yourself up for constant political strife and problems, by making sure that the ww1 Kulaks own the land and the peasants are treated like sh*t. Instead of simply giving the peasants the land.

 

[jessicajsscjs]

The simple problem Russia has faced throughout its history is this: Reforming society is always, always, always one of the most dificults things a leader can do. For one thing, you are not always rewarded for reforming society, because you have to contend with angry elites who don't want their priveleges taken away, and angry revolutionaries who want more than what you promise.

Secondly, your reforms might do more harm than good.

And Russia is not alone in this.

In America, the end of slavery required a horrible, World War style conflict. And Lincoln himself would die with a bullet in his head because of the caprices of one angry Confederate sympathizer. While you can't condone the antebellum politicians for compromising with slavery, it is understandable why they would be hardpressed to deal with it.

In the second-half of the 20th century, the Democratic Party came to priortize the rights of its minority populations. And how were they rewarded? They were derpived of the once solid south. LBJ's own Texas Democratic Party would become a nonentity by the end of the 20th century, and he knew this too, despite putting all his legislative chops into the Civil Rights Act.

The Shah of Iran sought a secular society, but in the end, he pleased no one by being too secular for the clerics, too capricious for liberal reformers, and too out of touch for the common man.

Russia's history reflects how "reform" is always a slippery concept.

Ivan the Terrible wanted to reform Russian society. But living amidst the corruption of the boyars gradually warped his mind to the point where he killed his son in an argument.

Peter the Third wanted a more modern Russia, and he paid for it by being overthrown and cast in history as a selfish manchild, although there is some truth to those assertations.

Catherine the Great sought a more modern Russia, with more Enlightenment. But when those Enlightenment ideals led to the execution of a king, she was disgusted with the concept of modernity.

Paul I wanted to reform Russia's army, and was himself overthrown in a coup by his own son, who in turn would also try and reform Russia, only to turn away from liberalism after some Corsican upstart ravaged his country.

Tsar Alexander II wanted to reform Russia, and was rewarded with a bomb to the face. And Alexander III saw this as proof that liberalism was a poison.

Khrushchev wanted to reform Soviet society, and he found himself under house arrest and practically blacklisted and unpersoned from Soviet society.

Despite presiding over an era of stagnation, Brezhnev is well regarded in Russia for presiding over an age of stability.

His successor, Gorbachev, would try and reform this lumbering giant...only to be caught up between conservatives on one side, and reformists and nationalists on the other side. And in the end, Gorbachev would see the USSR crumble, and become heavily despised in his own country for destroying Russia's geopolitical power for the drunken incompetence of Yeltsin.

The tragedy of all of Russia's leaders is none of them have been able to properly thread the needle, and reform society in a way that benefits everyone.

Will the person after Putin be able to do this? Or will Russians find themselves longing for Putin one day?

What about Deng? Was he an exception?

 

[The Galaxy]

The problem with the land was that it was not too much of it physically available in the European Russia. The same goes for the “landless peasants”: there were not too many of them (except for those totally incapable of the independent activities). The real problem was in the communal ownership with the resulting “cherespolositsa” and physical impossibility to improve agricultural methods and increase efficiency. Majority of the Russian (not to be confused with the Ukrainian or Baltic) peasants still had a communal mentality so in the real terms not too much could be done except for promoting mass migration into the Southern Siberia and the suitable parts of the Russian Far East. Of course, with most of its active part leaving for the new areas, the Russian village communities could get some land and, with the addition of few bought out estates and perhaps the land owned by Romanov family there can be enough to conduct at least some pretense of a meaningful reform to maintain for a while a low-efficiency agriculture in European Russia.

OTOH, objectively, government would be interested in attracting the new workers to the industrial plants (of course, capital would be needed) and this can be achieved by continued improvement of the labor laws. Actually, they were already quite extensive so this would be just a logical continuation of what was already there. The industrial workers did not really have to worry about security of their places because of the shortage of skillful workers. But the state pensions for the wounded, etc. would definitely be a nice touch (not sure if they did or did not exist).

No all that is wrong

In the original timeline the land was given to the peasants, so your whole statement is wrong, based on what happened in the real world.


All of this is wrong

"The real problem was in the communal ownership with the resulting “cherespolositsa” and physical impossibility to improve agricultural methods and increase efficiency"


Obviously anything can be improved and changed.



Before the war the peasants were working the land and living, but the profits of their labors were not going to them but the land owners.

Just turn over these very same land the very same peasants were working before the war.

By not having to give anything to these now former land owners the peasants lives will improve.

 

[alexmilman]

That is misleading, the nobility may or may not have owned a few % of the land, but the peasants themselves did not own it, also many peasants had loans to the landbank which was owned by the nobility and charged high interest rates for those loans.

In 1916 89.3% (100% in Siberia) of the agricultural land had been owned by the people who had been holding less than 50 "десятин": units of 80x30 "саженей". "Сажень" is 2.16 meters. Social status of these "estate owners" having more than 50 "десятин" changes nothing and your idea about the problem being solved by confiscating property of 250,000 estate owners is not working: this would not produce enough land. BTW, most of the remaining big estates had been in Ukraine producing the sugar beets.

http://istmat.info/files/uploads/32868/russkoe_selskoe_hozyaystvo_pered_revolyuciey_m._1928_g.pdf

The "landbank" ( Крестьянский поземельный банк) was a state institution, not "nobility-owned", created with the explicit purpose of buying nobility-owned lands and selling them to the peasants. In 1883—1915 more than a million peasant households bought through it more than 15,900,000 "десятин". Bank was charging interest varying between 7,5% and 8,5%, hardly a high interest. In 1905—1907 bank bought 2.7M "десятин" from a nobility and in 1906 lands of the imperial family and part of the state-owned lands had been transferred to it as well.

Only approximately 10% of the peasants had been renting the land or working as the hired hands.

IIRC, we already discussed this issue and you are not saying anything new. Don't see any sense in re-addressing the same issue, especially taking into an account that your main argument is "it is all wrong" without any credible support.

 

[Bookmark1995]

What about Deng? Was he an exception?

No.

Deng nearly died during the cultural revolution, his son was thrown from a balcony, and Tianamen Square led to a retreat from power.

EDIT: Sticking his neck out nearly got him killed several times.

 

[jessicajsscjs]

No.

Deng nearly died during the cultural revolution, his son was thrown from a balcony, and Tianamen Square led to a retreat from power.

EDIT: Sticking his neck out nearly got him killed several times.

He nearly got killed before his rise to power.

 

[aap5454]

No all that is wrong

In the original timeline the land was given to the peasants, so your whole statement is wrong, based on what happened in the real world.


All of this is wrong

"The real problem was in the communal ownership with the resulting “cherespolositsa” and physical impossibility to improve agricultural methods and increase efficiency"


Obviously anything can be improved and changed.



Before the war the peasants were working the land and living, but the profits of their labors were not going to them but the land owners.

Just turn over these very same land the very same peasants were working before the war.

By not having to give anything to these now former land owners the peasants lives will improve.

You’re making some pretty big claims, and just flatly staying “you’re wrong, it’s all wrong” comes off as slightly rude (not saying it’s your intention). Do you have sources?

 

[Bookmark1995]

He nearly got killed before his rise to power.

That is my point.

 

[Bookmark1995]

That’s true but let’s not fell into the trap of painting him as a complete ultra-reactionary moron incapable of doing anything right. After the RJW there were numerous reforms both in the army and in the country in general, some of them quite fundamental, and Russian economy kept expanding and modernizing (not in an ideal way but still at a reasonably high rate).

During his reign a number of the important labor laws had been introduced: 1897 - law regulating working hours and mandatory holidays with the special provisions for the women and teenagers and compensation for overtime (which could not be forced upon the workers); 1903 - law regarding compensations to the workers and their families in the cases of work-related accidents; 1912 - 4 laws regarding illness/injury insurance. Could these laws be defined as “prudent”?

Neither was he a complete idiot in selecting his ministers because if he was, it would be rather hard to explain Witte and Stolypin or even Trepov.

Yes, Nicholas wasn't a total failure in his policies.

But he had a clear obsession with divine right, and this led him to basically ignore a report of the February Revolution as "nonsense."

 

[alexmilman]

Yes, Nicholas wasn't a total failure in his policies.

But he had a clear obsession with divine right, and this led him to basically ignore a report of the February Revolution as "nonsense."

Yes, he was seemingly quite obsessed with the divine right but, to be fair, he was trying to keep himself more or less within the existing legal framework. OTOH, Alix did not know the Russian laws and was consistently pushing himself into “you are the owner of Russia” paradigm.

As far as the February revolution is involved, I think that his reaction was not due to the divine right perception but rather to the perception that “the people” are overwhelmingly loyal to the regime or at least to the idea of a monarchy. But this is strictly my impression.

 

[The Galaxy]

In 1916 89.3% (100% in Siberia) of the agricultural land had been owned by the people who had been holding less than 50 "десятин": units of 80x30 "саженей". "Сажень" is 2.16 meters. Social status of these "estate owners" having more than 50 "десятин" changes nothing and your idea about the problem being solved by confiscating property of 250,000 estate owners is not working: this would not produce enough land. BTW, most of the remaining big estates had been in Ukraine producing the sugar beets.

http://istmat.info/files/uploads/32868/russkoe_selskoe_hozyaystvo_pered_revolyuciey_m._1928_g.pdf

The "landbank" ( Крестьянский поземельный банк) was a state institution, not "nobility-owned", created with the explicit purpose of buying nobility-owned lands and selling them to the peasants. In 1883—1915 more than a million peasant households bought through it more than 15,900,000 "десятин". Bank was charging interest varying between 7,5% and 8,5%, hardly a high interest. In 1905—1907 bank bought 2.7M "десятин" from a nobility and in 1906 lands of the imperial family and part of the state-owned lands had been transferred to it as well.

Only approximately 10% of the peasants had been renting the land or working as the hired hands.

IIRC, we already discussed this issue and you are not saying anything new. Don't see any sense in re-addressing the same issue, especially taking into an account that your main argument is "it is all wrong" without any credible support.

You are wrong on every issue, but first before any of that.

Are you aware that before the war that peasants worked land in Russia?

Are you aware of that?

 

[dunHozzie]

You are wrong on every issue, but first before any of that.

Are you aware that before the war that peasants worked land in Russia?

Are you aware of that?

Can you please add some facts and sources? Your posts are a little light on them