AH Challenge: Best-case scenario for 20th Century Russia....

Since the OTL 20th Century was obviously the worst that could happen, what could be the best-case scenario for the Russians, with Russowank excluded? The Tsarist Empire was bound to fall once *WWI begins, and to delay it only buys time for Nicholas II. POD can be pre-1900, but the emphasis is on the post-1900 era.

One scenario I can see that would be better would be if the Russo-Japanese War can be removed. Perhaps Japan and Russia negotiate, or alternately the Japanese take a bigger bite out of China. Either way, the challenge is to have Russia and the Russians end up with the best-case scenario.

Whether or not the Bolsheviks end up in power is up to you. If the POD is early enough, by Nicholas II's time, Russia is a very different place indeed.
 
Weird I have no real idea without a Russian almost wank. If they do really good during the Russo-Japanese war they end up with Korea. They do really well during ww1 and they end up with large chunks of the Austrian empire large chunks of the German empire and large chunks of the Ottoman empire.
 
If the Mensheviks had been in majority rather then the Bolsheviks, Russia would have fared much better.
None of Lenin's purges against the Bund. No Stalin. No possibility of Hitler double crossing Russia, because there would be no Stalin. Therefore Russia would have fared better in WWII.
While Russia would still not have mega corporations like the US, they would have smaller privately owned businesses.
The Mensheviks would have saved the Russian people a lot of heartache.
 
Since the OTL 20th Century was obviously the worst that could happen, what could be the best-case scenario for the Russians, with Russowank excluded? The Tsarist Empire was bound to fall once *WWI begins, and to delay it only buys time for Nicholas II.


I don't quite follow: with increased Russian industrialization, and increasing problems for the German military in getting bigger funding out of an increasingly fractious parliament, Russian chances of surviving a *WWI get better with time. One of the reasons many in the German military were happy to see WWI break out when it did was that they felt their chances of winning a war would be rather worse in a few years time.

(admittedly, as long as Czar "pointyhead" Nicholas is on the throne, a transition to democratic rule that _doesn't_ involve violent revolution is iffy.)

One scenario I can see that would be better would be if the Russo-Japanese War can be removed. Perhaps Japan and Russia negotiate, or alternately the Japanese take a bigger bite out of China.


OTOH, the Russo-Japanese war help highlight some serious problems in the Russian military. Perhaps sans the R-J war the Russians are _less_ prepared than OTL when *WWI breaks out and get PWNd harder?

Whether or not the Bolsheviks end up in power is up to you. If the POD is early enough, by Nicholas II's time, Russia is a very different place indeed.


Best-case? A war or economic crisis serious enough to topple the Czarist regime, but not messy enough to give the real kooks take over. Given some smart politiking, it should be possible to hold onto the Ukraine and the Belorussians in some sort of federative union - heck, possibly the Armenians and the Georgians if there's a large and scary enough Turkish state next door.

Holding onto Poland will probably require force and not be compatible with democracy - holding onto Azerbaijan and Central Asia by force is actually less of a problem in that ruling over Swarthy Peoples without their permission is considered okeedokee for a democracy at least until the 1950's in a no-WWII TL, but is probably not feasible in the long run due to the rather substantial cultural differences. (The Balts and Finland I'm not sure of: perhaps some sort of autonomous arrangement is possible, the Finns OTL being fairly happy at first to work with the Provisional Government, IIRC).

Given capitalism, Russian economies of scale and certain advantages in being a "late starter" in industrial development - the few big Russian industrial concerns before WWI were probably quicker off the mark to develop US-type mass production techniques than the Germans or the British, which had a pre-existent "craftsman" tradition - Russian economic development has fair prospects over the 20th century.

The biggest problem will be the peasant economy, which may remain mired in Latin American backwardness for a long time without major reforms, and the impoverished peasant masses may well be a source of radical political movements of either the left or the right - or they may be denied a political voice by urban-centered political parties fearful of exactly such radicalism. Things will be further complicated as industrialization grows the cities, which will then suck in people from the overpopulated countryside. Russia was pretty rural at the start of the 20th century, but I suspect it won't remain so (alt-Moscow as Mexico City?). Sans the revolution, Stalin, and WWII, there will be a lot more Russians by the 1950's, although economic development will probably bring down population growth rates to the extent that the Russian population by 2008 will be US-large rather than India-large.

Russia in 2008: cold Mexico with 3 times the population and nuclear weapons, or a near-equal to the US with at least lower-end western European living standards? I'm not sure, myself - there seem to be so many ways for a country to scew up it's economy. My gut feeling is that in spite of it's worse-than-Latin-American backwardness in 1914 (yes, poorer per capita than Mexico - by a fair margin), a more-or-less democratic Russia has some advantages in it's prospects for modernization - vastly greater resource base, massive economies of scale, a formidable if relatively small intellectual elite, close economic association and easy cultural exchange (at least at elite levels) with Europe: but I'm not sure which of these is the _likelier_ outcome, even if we assume a successful transition from the Czarist regime to something which is at least lawful and representative of a fair slice of the population.

Bruce
 

Hnau

Banned
If the Russians did well in the Russo-Japanese War, they might actually lose more in the long run. The failure RJW caused the military to notice a lot of their mistakes and begin a reform of their tactics and organization. Also, without such a failure, there wouldn't be a Revolution of 1905. The Tsar would feel confident in his regime without the loss and would refuse to liberalize at all, even more than OTL when he just provided an ineffectual Duma and a liberal prime minister. There wouldn't be so many arrests of dangerous radicals. This could lead to revolutionary pressures being much stronger.

Success in the RJW might give Manchuria over to Russia and deny the Japanese complete rule over Korea, but the Germans might very well knock Russia out of the Great War by 1916.

I've done a lot of research on how to realistically make Russia stronger in the long run. The Communists are not the answer, nor anything with a monarchy: a democratic federation like the one that exists today would be the most beneficial for the Russian economy and stability. Even then, a democratic federation could cause secessionist movements to gain in power. What one needs is a Russia that is democratic and shares power with its regions, but is strong and radical enough to subdue states that want to leave such a country.

To Each According, my focus timeline right now, follows such an idea, with the POD being the infant death of Vladimir Lenin. I'm not focusing on giving Russia the most realistic wankage possible, but rather just the effects of the POD, and so far Russia is turning out quite well. A more wankish person might make some changes to my timeline: keeping Russia in the war long enough to go to Versailles and demand Poland, Galicia, the Baltics, and the Turkish Straits. That's the best I can imagine for it.
 
If the Russians did well in the Russo-Japanese War, they might actually lose more in the long run. The failure RJW caused the military to notice a lot of their mistakes and begin a reform of their tactics and organization. Also, without such a failure, there wouldn't be a Revolution of 1905. The Tsar would feel confident in his regime without the loss and would refuse to liberalize at all, even more than OTL when he just provided an ineffectual Duma and a liberal prime minister. There wouldn't be so many arrests of dangerous radicals. This could lead to revolutionary pressures being much stronger.

Success in the RJW might give Manchuria over to Russia and deny the Japanese complete rule over Korea, but the Germans might very well knock Russia out of the Great War by 1916.

I've done a lot of research on how to realistically make Russia stronger in the long run. The Communists are not the answer, nor anything with a monarchy: a democratic federation like the one that exists today would be the most beneficial for the Russian economy and stability. Even then, a democratic federation could cause secessionist movements to gain in power. What one needs is a Russia that is democratic and shares power with its regions, but is strong and radical enough to subdue states that want to leave such a country.

To Each According, my focus timeline right now, follows such an idea, with the POD being the infant death of Vladimir Lenin. I'm not focusing on giving Russia the most realistic wankage possible, but rather just the effects of the POD, and so far Russia is turning out quite well. A more wankish person might make some changes to my timeline: keeping Russia in the war long enough to go to Versailles and demand Poland, Galicia, the Baltics, and the Turkish Straits. That's the best I can imagine for it.

When you say Monarchy, does that also, in your opinion, include a democratic Constitutional Monarchy? I personally always thought that would be best, as it might provide at least some symbol of Russian unity for a state with so many different cultures...
 

Hnau

Banned
A monarchy would be impossible after the reign of Nicholas. He gave the royal family too negative of an image. If there was a more liberal tsar instead, then a constitutional monarchy would probably work better than a democratic federation, but with Nicholas... I would say no.

Maybe that's all that is needed: a liberal tsar who makes Russia a constitutional monarchy, which leads to land reform and efficient industrialization and transition into capitalism. They trounce the Germans, claim some nifty territories (including a warm water port) and then become a world superpower.
 
Top