Though Alexander II has the reputation of a reformer, that doesn't mean he (or his court) were enthusiastic about the reforms. They just came to realize how precarious their situation actually was. I think the best opportunity is an earlier POD (though that may seem too obvious): have Alexander I bungle things terribly against Napoleon, thus diminishing his political power and frustrating his attempts to turn Mikhail Speransky into a scapegoat. Speransky continues to institute liberal reforms in Russia, freeing the serfs and beginning the conscription of an army akin to that of France whilst Napoleon's army freezes and pushes the French out of a new Russia with a burgeoning tradition of centralized constitutional liberalism. This avoids the inefficiency and cruelty of serfdom throughout the majority of the 19th century as well as Nicholas' idiotic 30-year censure (assuming the liberals maintain power. There is no guarantee of this of course.)Hmm...IMO be a challenge if the POD is in the 20th century. The POD I’m thinking of is Alexander II doesn’t get assassinated in 1881, gets more political reforms done in however many years he has to live. Alexander III doesn’t see his father get killed and doesn’t reverse the reforms.
By the time we get to Nicholas II, Russia is either a constitutional monarchy or is too far down the road towards it. Maybe Russia would do better or make better decisions with a constitutional monarchy rather than an autocracy.
What if Nicholas I ends up dead early, meaning he can't rule???Though Alexander II has the reputation of a reformer, that doesn't mean he (or his court) were enthusiastic about the reforms. They just came to realize how precarious their situation actually was. I think the best opportunity is an earlier POD (though that may seem too obvious): have Alexander I bungle things terribly against Napoleon, thus diminishing his political power and frustrating his attempts to turn Mikhail Speransky into a scapegoat. Speransky continues to institute liberal reforms in Russia, freeing the serfs and beginning the conscription of an army akin to that of France whilst Napoleon's army freezes and pushes the French out of a new Russia with a burgeoning tradition of centralized constitutional liberalism. This avoids the inefficiency and cruelty of serfdom throughout the majority of the 19th century as well as Nicholas' idiotic 30-year censure (assuming the liberals maintain power. There is no guarantee of this of course.)
Well...
They were ruthless in their tactics and methods but that isn’t uncommon among leaders especially in Russian history. Also they were not as insane or as paranoid as Stalin. They were brutal at times but smart in many regards. They knew how to do their jobs even those many don’t agree with their methods. Lenin lived his ideology and was a hard worker. Trotsky knew how to run the military first hand. I rather have Trotsky running the military over Stalin any day if the Nazis invaded. Trotsky and Lenin would not purge the military like Stalin or mismanage collectivization and industrializations programs like Stalin did. These programs might be imposed in a harsh matter from a moral perspective but they would be done in a more economically productive matter if Trotsky or Lenin ran it. It is not economically smart to kill large numbers of your people like Stalin did. Stalin stole a lot of Trotsky and Lenin plans for the USSR but didn’t implement them in the best ways. We aren’t always talking about moral character when we talk about leaders. Some of the best leaders in history are terrible people. We also have to look closely at Russian history when talking about this. The Tsar regime was arguably more brutal and oppressive in many ways compared to the Soviets. Many Eastern Jews and some Russian women back then would say that. The Tsar used gulags too. A white regime could be a continuation of the Tsar rule in many ways. That could honestly leave Russia behind in industrialization and probably weaker military wise in the long run which hurts them very badly if the Nazis or Germans still invade them in this world. The communist have the benefit of not dealing with the old elites unlike the whites. Once the communist won they could do any radical ideas or program they thought was needed which is helpful when your industry is far behind and you need to catch up fast because you don’t have the old elites trying to stop or hinder it. A communist regime is probably better politically too because a communist nation in theory at least is supposed to be racially and ethnically unbiased which helps a diverse nation the Soviet Union had. Stalin was Georgian. Trotsky was Jewish. A white regime probably be less accepting of that which means more possible unrest and less utilization of their population. The whites probably would not arm non-Russians, non-Slavs, or women as much as the Soviets did if the mainland was invaded. I don’t even agree with communism but I think it was the best choice for Russia if Stalin didn’t take control.Why people still assume, than Lenin or Trotsky would be any better than Stalin? They were bloodthirsty monsters too.
Collectivization would kill millions no matter who ordered to do it. It was simply bad, bad idea. Trotsky and Lenin, if given time and opportunity, would indeed not resemble Stalin, who was less ideology-driven and more pragmatic. They would rather resemble Mao/Pol-Pot, with their "good intentions" to improve humanity.They were ruthless in their tactics and methods but that isn’t uncommon among leaders especially in Russian history. Also they were not as insane or as paranoid as Stalin. They were brutal at times but smart in many regards. They knew how to do their jobs even those many don’t agree with their methods. Lenin lived his ideology and was a hard worker. Trotsky knew how to run the military first hand. I rather have Trotsky running the military over Stalin any day if the Nazis invaded. Trotsky and Lenin would not purge the military like Stalin or mismanage collectivization and industrializations programs like Stalin did. These programs might be imposed in a harsh matter from a moral perspective but they would be done in a more economically productive matter if Trotsky or Lenin ran it. It is not economically smart to kill large numbers of your people like Stalin did. Stalin stole a lot of Trotsky and Lenin plans for the USSR but didn’t implement them in the best ways. We aren’t always talking about moral character when we talk about leaders. Some of the best leaders in history are terrible people. We also have to look closely at Russian history when talking about this. The Tsar regime was arguably more brutal and oppressive in many ways compared to the Soviets. Many Eastern Jews and some Russian women back then would say that. The Tsar used gulags too. A white regime could be a continuation of the Tsar rule in many ways. That could honestly leave Russia behind in industrialization and probably weaker military wise in the long run which hurts them very badly if the Nazis or Germans still invade them in this world. The communist have the benefit of not dealing with the old elites unlike the whites. Once the communist won they could do any radical ideas or program they thought was needed which is helpful when your industry is far behind and you need to catch up fast because you don’t have the old elites trying to stop or hinder it. A communist regime is probably better politically too because a communist nation in theory at least is supposed to be racially and ethnically unbiased which helps a diverse nation the Soviet Union had. Stalin was Georgian. Trotsky was Jewish. A white regime probably be less accepting of that which means more possible unrest and less utilization of their population. The whites probably would not arm non-Russians, non-Slavs, or women as much as the Soviets did if the mainland was invaded. I don’t even agree with communism but I think it was the best choice for Russia if Stalin didn’t take control.
I would not call Stalin pragmatic in any sense. He let emotions get the best of him a lot. This caused him to do many stupid things. Lenin was ideologically driven but was still the most pragmatic out of them. That why he worked with other left wing groups somewhat and made peace/work with the Germans even those they represented the ideas he hated. Trotsky is the most incline to act on ideology. That why I think Lenin would be the best option at leading while Trotsky and Stalin stay as some of his top men. Have Trotsky run the military and have Stalin run internal policing and propaganda. Lenin was the most willing of them when it came to discussing stuff. He was ok with different socialist and communist discussing solutions to things. He just thought once a decision was made and agreed on that was it. Lenin also modest and would not build up a cult of personality like Stalin did. I’m not saying it going to be all nice and humane but that probably the best possible regime Russia could have in the 1900s. Lenin would build up leaders within the party to take his place after he dies unlike Stalin who feared any possible rival. This means the Soviet Union will have abled leaders and not brown noses after Lenin dies. The country would probably become a hybrid like regime by the 50 or the upper 40s. Maybe more democratic then modern Russia but the top communist parties still have veto like power and final say. Also a Lenin Soviet Union would be very liberal in many social regards especially in relationship to women rights.Collectivization would kill millions no matter who ordered to do it. It was simply bad, bad idea. Trotsky and Lenin, if given time and opportunity, would indeed not resemble Stalin, who was less ideology-driven and more pragmatic. They would rather resemble Mao/Pol-Pot, with their "good intentions" to improve humanity.
Lenin living longer wouldn't have been pretty, but it would butterfly away some uniquely Stalinist elements of the USSR(and certain important people wouldn't be dead in the 40's).I would not call Stalin pragmatic in any sense. He let emotions get the best of him a lot. This caused him to do many stupid things. Lenin was ideologically driven but was still the most pragmatic out of them. That why he worked with other left wing groups somewhat and made peace/work with the Germans even those they represented the ideas he hated. Trotsky is the most incline to act on ideology. That why I think Lenin would be the best option at leading while Trotsky and Stalin stay as some of his top men. Have Trotsky run the military and have Stalin run internal policing and propaganda. Lenin was the most willing of them when it came to discussing stuff. He was ok with different socialist and communist discussing solutions to things. He just thought once a decision was made and agreed on that was it. Lenin also modest and would not build up a cult of personality like Stalin did. I’m not saying it going to be all nice and humane but that probably the best possible regime Russia could have in the 1900s. Lenin would build up leaders within the party to take his place after he dies unlike Stalin who feared any possible rival. This means the Soviet Union will have abled leaders and not brown noses after Lenin dies. The country would probably become a hybrid like regime by the 50 or the upper 40s. Maybe more democratic then modern Russia but the top communist parties still have veto like power and final say. Also a Lenin Soviet Union would be very liberal in many social regards especially in relationship to women rights.
Not entirely. It had introduced a really excellent educational system. When the Smiths of Moscow returned to the UK after the Russian Revolution they found that the education system in Russia was superior to that in Britain, certainly in terms of mathematics and physics. Moreover Tsarist Russia maintained a higher level of economic growth than under Lenin and at least as high as that under Stalin (the Imperial Russians were probably not falsifying statistics to quite the same extent as the Stalinist and post Stalinist USSR). And Tsar Nicholas' regime was responsible for around 30 executions in any given year whereas Lenin or Stalin was responsible for around 30,000. What the Tsarist regime was fairly bad at was military organisation.The Tsarist regime was terrible
Stalin created Good Times?
Their military and policing was bad but those executions numbers are probably more even with each other if you count pogroms deaths. That something the USSR did do good at stopping. One thing I give the USSR they usually killed most people equally. Most victims were usually political opponents. I see a Tsarist or White regime being more fond of ethnic cleansing. In the USSR you could stay alive if you made yourself look loyal to communism and the USSR. They usually aren’t killing you for being a certain ethnic group like other regimes.Not entirely. It had introduced a really excellent educational system. When the Smiths of Moscow returned to the UK after the Russian Revolution they found that the education system in Russia was superior to that in Britain, certainly in terms of mathematics and physics. Moreover Tsarist Russia maintained a higher level of economic growth than under Lenin and at least as high as that under Stalin (the Imperial Russians were probably not falsifying statistics to quite the same extent as the Stalinist and post Stalinist USSR). And Tsar Nicholas' regime was responsible for around 30 executions in any given year whereas Lenin or Stalin was responsible for around 30,000. What the Tsarist regime was fairly bad at was military organisation.
It seems, that you have never heard about Polish Operation of NKVD in the years 1937-1938?In the USSR you could stay alive if you made yourself look loyal to communism and the USSR. They usually aren’t killing you for being a certain ethnic group like other regimes.
I would stay they did somewhat after Poland revolted against them and they retook it during the congress of Poland years. I’m pretty sure they killed a large number of the polish population during that revolt and immediately after.It seems, that you have never heard about Polish Operation of NKVD in the years 1937-1938?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD
Tsarist Russia was never exterminating Poles for being Poles.
There is not comparision!I would stay they did somewhat after Poland revolted against them and they retook it during the congress of Poland years. I’m pretty sure they killed a large number of the polish population during that revolt and immediately after.
What you said is a great example of why a Tsar regime isn’t better then a Soviet one. I don’t know why so many people think the Tsar and whites would have been a better alternative over the reds. No matter the regime Russia and leaders usually always eventually do some very brutal stuff.There is not comparision!
When Tsarist Russia planned and organized extermination of whole Polish families for such crimes like having Polish surname? Tsarist Russia presecuted Poles for rebellions, but the ones, who conspired and fought against Russia were imprisoned or executed, not civilians, not children.
Scale of repression is absolutely not comparable.
Also you seems to forget how many loyal followers of the Party were killed by Stalin, ekh... Sure, be loyal Communist and no one would harm you in USSR...
So victims of Soviet regime could be blamed for their deaths, their own actions cased their suffering? Really?