AHC: Stalin becomes emperor of theocratic Georgia

CECBC

Banned
Not possible without radically changing Stalin so much he's not Stalin anymore. That wouldn't be possible without a before 1900 PoD.
 
Not possible without radically changing Stalin so much he's not Stalin anymore. That wouldn't be possible without a before 1900 PoD.

True. Might be that you need change his childhood that this could happen.

And even with different Stalin who is unrecognsible for us theocratic empire of Georgia is on borderline of ASB. Indpendent theocratic Georgia is possible but someone guy from very poor conditions as emperor is ASB level thing. Easier is make Stalin as president of communist Georgia.
 
True. Might be that you need change his childhood that this could happen.

And even with different Stalin who is unrecognsible for us theocratic empire of Georgia is on borderline of ASB. Indpendent theocratic Georgia is possible but someone guy from very poor conditions as emperor is ASB level thing. Easier is make Stalin as president of communist Georgia.

Well, he could always declare himself emperor. Sure, no-one would take him seriously, but the Central African Republic used to technically be the Central African Empire so I guess Georgia could be an 'empire'.
 
The title emperor would not be useful. Catholicos-Patriarch of all Georgia on the other hand...

Maybe Stalin pursues the Church career, rises up the ranks, and takes advantage of the chaos of the alt-Russian Revolution Civil War to carve out a Kartvelian state against the Communists, Anarchists, and the Monarchists.
 
You'd need to somehow fracture the the Russian Empire before Stalin went to the seminary.An extreamly nasty and unexpected divergence in the Crimean War is good point to start.Then just let Stalin be Stalin.
 
It's not just that you have to radically change Stalin but you have to radically change Georgia. Georgians were overwhelmingly socialist (mostly Menshevik) in sympathy, not nationalist, let alone imperialist--and not at all theocratic.
 
It's not just that you have to radically change Stalin but you have to radically change Georgia. Georgians were overwhelmingly socialist (mostly Menshevik) in sympathy, not nationalist, let alone imperialist--and not at all theocratic.

The Democratic Republic of Georgia was highly nationalist and imperialist...but still vaguely socialist and very much a republic.

So yeah, not really the proper climate for a theocratic Emperor; nor even for a King of Kings (as the old Georgian monarchs were known).
 
The Democratic Republic of Georgia was highly nationalist and imperialist...but still vaguely socialist and very much a republic.

So yeah, not really the proper climate for a theocratic Emperor; nor even for a King of Kings (as the old Georgian monarchs were known).

The Democratic Republic of Georgia was led by Mensheviks whose interest before 1917 had primarily been in all-Russian Social Democracy. They chose independence only because they really had no choice after the Bolsheviks took control of Russia and the short-lived "Transcaucasian Republic" disintegrated. I would not call a government for which national independence was a last resort "nationalist." As for "imperialist" the most that can be said is that it did have some border disputes--something inevitable under the circumstances. But it's not as though they were trying to restore the borders that existed in the reign of Tamar.
 
The Democratic Republic of Georgia was led by Mensheviks whose interest before 1917 had primarily been in all-Russian Social Democracy. They chose independence only because they really had no choice after the Bolsheviks took control of Russia and the short-lived "Transcaucasian Republic" disintegrated. I would not call a government for which national independence was a last resort "nationalist." As for "imperialist" the most that can be said is that it did have some border disputes--something inevitable under the circumstances. But it's not as though they were trying to restore the borders that existed in the reign of Tamar.

Some border disputes might have been understandable. Still, there's the sheer number of them, and the fact that they all invariably involved Georgia trying to subjugate non-Georgian regions.

The Georgian government was very much infected with the universal nationalist love for ancient borders and so-called "historical rights". I don't know if they specifically used Queen Tamar, but they did constantly try to justify their imperialism by recalling the borders of medieval Georgia, the projects of King Iraklii II and other such relics from the past.

To that we can add
-sealing the borders in front of Armenian refugees (refugees from an area claimed by Georgia, no less), leading to the death of 30,000 of them;
-Blocking the transit of grain to Armenia (which was already suffering extreme starvation) in order to more easily enforce its opportunistic seizure of Armenian territories;
-colonization of Armenian-inhabited lands with Georgians;
-ethnic cleansing against the Ossetian population and colonization of South Ossetia with Georgians
and so on.

A quote David Lang (A Modern History of Georgia), which I strongly agree with: "It is ironic to observe how the Georgian Social-Democrats, whose leaders were working as late as 1918 for the triumph of democratic socialism in a Russia united and undivided, were at length transformed by the force of circumstances into nationalists of chauvinistic fervour...". 'Menshevik' Georgia might not have been born nationalist, but it very quickly descended into a virulent ultranationalism.
 
He originally had Georgian Nationalist leanings and supported an independant Georgia

First of all, even Georgian nationalists at the turn of the century did not advocate Georgian independence:

"The reluctance to break away from Russia was largely motivated by pragmatism rather than by conformism on the part of the Georgian intelligentsia at the time. Incorporation into the Russian empire allowed Georgians to survive physically, offering protection from Ottoman Turkey and Safavid Persia. Russia was also seen as a Christian and hence, European power, which brought to the country not only peace but also development and a degree of Europeanization. Georgia was too weak and insecure to be left alone, exposed to hostile neighbors. Georgians therefore chose to ally with Imperial Russia and seek change for Georgia with Russia rather than against it. According to Jones, “it was clear to the Georgian intelligentsia that Georgia’s fate was inexorably linked to that of Russia. Russia was Georgia’s ‘prison guard,’ but it was also the key to Georgia’s liberation." http://books.openedition.org/ceup/573

Second, it seems pretty dubious to argue from some romantic Georgian-patriotic poems that Stalin wrote at the age of fifteen that he had a serious future as a Georgian nationalist. It was almost inevitable that he would soon come in contact with Social Democracy which was clearly the dominant political current in early twentieth century Georgia. (Stalin was unusual only in eventually becoming a Bolshevik rather than a Menshevik.) Almost all the Duma deputies from Georgia were Social Democrats. The main opposition to the Social Democrats was from the Georgian Party of Socialists-Federalists--but in the first place their following was small and in the second place even they advocated nothing more than autonomt for Georgia within a Russian Federal Republic. https://books.google.com/books?id=smDy35onbtAC&pg=PA18

If the young Stalin had become an advocate of Georgian independence, he would have been totally isolated politically.
 
Top