Best time period/POD to wank Russia?

Russia has had a LOT of problems in the past, and has gone through so much, only to end up...well, as they are now. Furthermore, most timelines I've read lately scree Russia to some degree. I've always wondered though, where a point could have changed in the past to make Russia better? How can one wank Russia?

How Russia is wanked is up to you - it could mean they are a true democratic republic, a strong imperial monarchy, or a socialist utopia - but ideally, the POD would result (eventually) in a nation that is at least as powerful as the USSR was. What does Russia do? How do they do it?
 
What century do you want Russia to be wanked in, because this does have effects on how the overall timeline goes.

For example, the big payoff for any POD from the late 18th century onward will be inevitably be in the 20th century, when dominating all of Eurasia is well within the range of possibilities for Russia's future, assuming the previous century went well. Once industrialization takes place, Russia goes from a great power to one of only 2-3 superpowers on the planet, and probably the one with the best resource situation.



1570s: the Livonian War ends differently. There's also a non-zero chance Ivan the Terrible is elected king of Poland. There was actually a party in Poland that wanted to see him on the throne, believe it or not.

1650s: the Poles don't survive the Deluge, and the war ends when the Russian advance is at its peak in late 1655. The Russians then turn on the Swedes and take the Baltic provinces. The result is a Muscovy which obtains access to everything Peter the Great wanted ahead of time and without some of his less utilitarian policies like the forced Westernization of noble dress and decor. That would have some very interesting effects on Russian culture long-term.

1815: the Congress of Vienna collapses, the Russian-Prussian bloc calls the Britons' bluff, and proceeds to rip Austria a new asshole and dominate continental Europe. They crush the revolutionary waves of 1830 and 1848 and focus on catching up with Britain. And that last part isn't OOC either; IOTL, the Russian government had been interested in importing British talent for all sorts of projects since before the Napoleonic Wars, and by the end of the 1810s had realized that Britain was in the lead on new developing technology and became intent on catching up. The main things slowing them down were the economic effects of serfdom, which was also recognized to be a problem in need of a solution as early as Alexander I.

1830s: Nicholas I takes some brave pills and abolishes serfdom early on like he wished to, and suppresses any noble rebellions that might happen as a result. Early emancipation, on any terms, effectively gives Russia several decades of head start on industrialization over OTL, which results in a very different WW1 to put it mildly.

1886: Alexander II isn't assassinated. Not because he was a liberal whose reign would've heralded a constitutional monarchy. No, because one of the first things his successor did IOTL was institute a harsh crackdown on dissidents/rebels/etc that actually ended up massively stoking those very problems by disillusioning a lot of bystanders and innocent people with the government. Really stupid move. Without this, the unrest in Russia would've been considerably lower and the Revolution would've been easily avoided, even if Nicholas II still grew up to be a complete muppet.
 
Last edited:
The best case scenario for Russia is modernising/industrializing sometime between the Napoleonic wars and WWI.

Then, the chaos of the first decades of the 20th century can be avoided.

Today's Russia could be on par with the US population and influence-wise.
 
I think that OP means making Russia much better by 2023. There is some ideas.

Mongols never invade Russian principalities (perhaps Temujin dies as child). Then Russian nations can turn more towards western and industrialise and develope on same speed as the West. Russian nations would unite later.

Ivan the Terrible is not that terrible and he developes the country with better rule. He doesn't kill his son and heir Ivan Ivanovich and he begin long and prosperous reign instead Russia falling to chaos for several years. Russia sees down- and uphills but manages to develope as modern nation during 19th century.

Nicholas I makes some meaningful reforms and abolish serfdom. No Crimean War.

Alexander II's oldest son Nicholas Alexandrovich survives and becomes tsar. Even better if AII is not assassinated.

Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich is killed in Japan during his visit in Otsu on early 1890's and eventually his youngest brother Michael becomes tsar. He was conservative but not such believer to absolutism so he might allow some actual constitution.

Avoid WW1. Russia probably falls to revolution at some point but it should has mostly positive effects.

Entente wins WW1 in 1916. During 1920's tsar is enforced to commit meaningful reforms. Later Russia evolves as developed somehow democratic nation.

Instead deciding continue war Provisional Government decides sue peace (perhaps war goes even worsely for Russia). Windows for Bolshevik revolt is pretty tight and it fails.

PG has just bit luck and manages crush Bolsheviks completely either during July revolution attempt or on October Rebvolution.

After October Revolution:

Lenin avoids his assassination attempt and takes bit healthier lifehabits (at least sleeps bit more) and lives to 1930's (longer life I think being very implausible). Lenin fix several things and purges Stalin.

Stalin dies before Lenin (perhaps on some battle during RCW) and Lenin is succeeded by collective leadership of Kamenev, Zigoviev and Bukharin. Russia developes somejhow viable socialist state and no purges.

Someone else becomes first post-Soviet Russian president instead Yeltsin. Perhaps Yavlinsky.
 
Mongols never invade Russian principalities (perhaps Temujin dies as child). Then Russian nations can turn more towards western and industrialise and develope on same speed as the West. Russian nations would unite later.
Time and time again, I hear this reason for why Russia didn't industrialize because, off in the distant past before industrialization had even started, Russia was invaded by the Mongols, and the Mongols did... something to change Russia.

1. Apart from torching a bunch of cities and leaving behind several annoying slave-raiding Muslim khanates to deal with, the Mongols did little lasting damage to Russia. They imparted no institutional changes to Russian society, and Russia did not remember the Mongols after they left. In fact, the Tatar Yoke as a concept is about as real as the Norman Yoke and only came about in the late 18th century, promoted by certain Russian historians with the very aim of explaining away Russian conditions as opposed to the rest of Europe.​
2. Contrary to liberal expectations, Russia was not in fact a libertarian paradise prior to the Mongol invasion. Russian society had a multilayered caste system with several different grades of freeman, serf and slave. In the long-term, more and more restrictions were being applied to their status both before and after the Mongol invasions, such that all of them were de facto one class of serfs by 1600. We know this had nothing to do with the Mongols because the exact same process happened in Poland.
3. Basically all the problems Poland had, Russia had some version of them, especially low urbanization rates. No, having Novgorod be the one to unite Russia would not change that. In fact, Novgorod was only a merchant republic because it was located on the shittiest soil in Russia for agriculture and couldn't expand south to get any, so it had to obtain food through trade; if it took over European Russia, it would rapidly become a monarchy dominated by the rural nobility just like all the other Russian states.​

After October Revolution:

Lenin avoids his assassination attempt and takes bit healthier lifehabits (at least sleeps bit more) and lives to 1930's (longer life I think being very implausible). Lenin fix several things and purges Stalin.

Stalin dies before Lenin (perhaps on some battle during RCW) and Lenin is succeeded by collective leadership of Kamenev, Zigoviev and Bukharin. Russia developes somejhow viable socialist state and no purges.

Someone else becomes first post-Soviet Russian president instead Yeltsin. Perhaps Yavlinsky.
At best, all you get is a decaying party oligarchy without the Stalinist dictatorship that interrupted it IOTL. This is a regime that doesn't care for purges or mass executions, because it's too busy plundering the country and quietly enjoying its ill-gotten gains until retirement age.

And the inevitable end result of that regime is that all the local branches of the Party eventually realize that the USSR is going down the shitter and they can squeeze one last wad of money out of it by liquidating it all in one go and collectively fucking off to the French Riviera, just like they did in 1991. Sure, certain branches will step on each others' toes in the process (ref: the Chechen Wars), but the result is the same.

I do not count any version of the Soviet Union that doesn't end up owning or dominating all of Europe to be a real wank, because it's a shittier place to live in than it could otherwise be, its economy is on a slow road to nowhere, and it's effectively on a ticking clock until self-liquidation. The only lasting product the USSR will leave behind is a century-long delay in the liberalization of social mores that came with orthodox Marxism being implemented, and a higher population due to lack of the Stalinist purges and a shorter WW2.

The best case scenario for Russia is modernising/industrializing sometime between the Napoleonic wars and WWI.
Let me introduce you to a professor called Scott W. Palmer, who will introduce you to all the ways in which Russia was doing precisely that.
Start with lecture #12 for the starting details.
 
Last edited:
All fascinating PODs, thank you very much for your input!

Does anyone know of any good Russia-centric timelines that involve any of these PODs?
 
While I'm hardly well versed in Russian matters, I think it's safe to say the reign of Ivan IV was a huge missed opportunity. Perhaps a "nicer" or, more accurately, stable Ivan could negotiate a peace in the Livonain War where Russia, though not taking all of Livonia, is allowed to have control of Narva, Dorpat and Reval, effectively accomplishing Peter the Great's project one and a half century earlier. A shorter LW will probably butterfly the death of his oldest son away, averting or lessening the Time of Troubles. The Oprichnina and the Massacre of Novgorod may be butterflied as well.

As for a POD, my bet would be to prevent the untimely death of Ivan's mother, Elena Glinskaya. As if losing his mother when he was just 8 years old wasn't bad enough, the fact her demise was marked by suspicions of foul play (she was 28) surely fueled the paranoia he manifested as an adult.
 
Last edited:
Time and time again, I hear this reason for why Russia didn't industrialize because, off in the distant past before industrialization had even started, Russia was invaded by the Mongols, and the Mongols did... something to change Russia.
That’s because it is always easier to blame somebody else. 😉


1. Apart from torching a bunch of cities and leaving behind several annoying slave-raiding Muslim khanates to deal with, the Mongols did little lasting damage to Russia. They imparted no institutional changes to Russian society, and Russia did not remember the Mongols after they left.​

Actually, they did rather serious “institutional change”: accelerated creation of the unified Russian state of which they became an integral part (Tatars of Volga and a considerable part of the Russian nobility and top aristocracy). Almost forgot, they seriously re-shaped Russian military system with the impact steadily decreasing but lasting all the way to the GNW. Added few words to the Russian vocabulary and, most impirtant, provided a good explanation to all future problems (see above).
In fact, the Tatar Yoke as a concept is about as real as the Norman Yoke and only came about in the late 18th century, promoted by certain Russian historians with the very aim of explaining away Russian conditions as opposed to the rest of Europe.​

You are seemingly confused: the Norman Yoke was good (them being “Western”) and Tatar Yoke was bad (them being “Eastern”). 😉
2. Contrary to liberal expectations, Russia was not in fact a libertarian paradise prior to the Mongol invasion. Russian society had a multilayered caste system with several different grades of freeman, serf and slave. In the long-term, more and more restrictions were being applied to their status both before and after the Mongol invasions, such that all of them were de facto one class of serfs by 1600. We know this had nothing to do with the Mongols because the exact same process happened in Poland.
And in many other parts of Europe as well. Serfdom was a common practice in most of Europe.


3. Basically all the problems Poland had, Russia had some version of them, especially low urbanization rates. No, having Novgorod be the one to unite Russia would not change that. In fact, Novgorod was only a merchant republic because it was located on the shittiest soil in Russia for agriculture and couldn't expand south to get any, so it had to obtain food through trade; if it took over European Russia, it would rapidly become a monarchy dominated by the rural nobility just like all the other Russian states.​
The most surprising and usually overlooked thing about Novgorod is that during the centuries of it having a direct access to the Baltic coast it did not bother to create a single port there. The Hanseatic ships had been arriving, unloading their goods on a coast, and loading them on the Ngvgorodian boats to be brought to Novgorod and then the same in a reverse order for the exports. On the north the Novgorodians, again, were doing extensive travel by the rivers (looting, trading and collecting tribute) but, AFAIK, did not established any ports. So its trade and western connections did not made it too advanced.

(as a friendly advice, don’t go into the Soviet times in this specific group unless you are itching to be reprimanded by a moderator).
 
I think that OP means making Russia much better by 2023. There is some ideas.

“Better” is a vague term which may mean a lot of different and even contradictory things but let it be.
Mongols never invade Russian principalities (perhaps Temujin dies as child). Then Russian nations can turn more towards western and industrialise and develope on same speed as the West. Russian nations would unite later.
Why would they? In XIII - XVII territory of the European Russia was pretty much geographically isolated from Western Europe and close contacts with the Northern Europe existed mostly within context of the Byzantine trade which pretty much ceased to exist after the 4th Crusade and even before this, by the end of the XII century was dying out due to the nomads of the Black Sea coast: the most senior throne moved to Vladimir in the mid-XII.
Lithuania and Poland still would be on the way to the west and neither of them was the most advanced state in Europe.

As for the “industrialization” in its early form it was pretty much enforced in Russia by the mid-XVIII well ahead of many European states (being one of the major exporters of cast iron probably implies certain degree of “industrialization”).

Ivan the Terrible is not that terrible and he developes the country with better rule.

How exactly he is “developing” it in the terms of specific items?
He doesn't kill his son and heir Ivan Ivanovich and he begin long and prosperous reign instead Russia falling to chaos for several years.
He was succeeded by his son Feodor with a capable administrator as a power behind the throne. Chaos started later after few years of a terrible weather and resulting famine. Nothing good is known about Ivan Jr.

Russia sees down- and uphills but manages to develope as modern nation during 19th century.
Well, it was reasonably “modern” in the XIX century all the way to a serious pretense to the dominance in continental Europe.

Nicholas I makes some meaningful reforms and abolish serfdom.
Which “reforms” exactly?

As for the serfdom he was seriously planning its abolishment: his heir to the throne was a chairman of commission working on the plan. The problem was so complicated that when the former chairman and now the emperor decided to go ahead with it, the result was a fundamental screwup in pretty much each and every aspect.

No Crimean War.
This had nothing to do with the serfdom and everything with the Russian imperial ambitions.
Alexander II's oldest son Nicholas Alexandrovich survives and becomes tsar.
And the miracle happens overnight …. The only things known about NA are: (a) very good memory, (b) excessive eagerness to please everybody, (c) complete absence of his own opinions and (c) weak health.

Even better if AII is not assassinated.

Is “Even better” an irony? Something along the lines of a couch of a losing team saying “next time we will play even better”?

Let’s see. By the time of AII’s assassination:
  • Peasantry was crushed by the taxes and emancipation payments.
  • Landowning nobility was mostly financially destroyed by the way the process was handled.
  • Manufacturing/industrialization was not going anywhere because free trade policy made the fledgling Russian companies uncompetitive.
  • Adopted system of the railroad development was plagued with corruption, most of the equipment was bought abroad and the the government had been under obligation to pay the railroad companies for exploitation of their railroads (only under AIII Witte was able to get rid of this practice).
  • Due to the combination of the lousy situation in agricultural sector and an absence of manufacturing, there was a high level of poverty: the pauperized peasants simply could not get a descent work anywhere.
  • Final “pacification” of the Caucasus resulted in genocide of the Circassians.
  • War with the Ottomans was screwed up, made Russia first a laughingstock of Europe and then pariah of Europe.
  • Paper ruble was in almost free fall (to be fair, normalization started by the end of AII reign but it took the whole reign of AIII to finish the process).
  • Military reform was in general good thing but it involved numerous bad decisions and resulted in a terrible practice which spanned all the way to WWI saddling Russian army with the generals incapable of taking decisions.
  • Opening more universities was a good idea but these universities were producing mostly lawyers and “philosophers” and all the way to the end had been centers of anti-government activities.
  • Judicial reform was, in theory, a good idea but in practice the jurors and judges had been acquitting the terrorists and the district attorneys tended to consider themselves a part of the defense team in the political cases. The result was almost unrestricted “reign of a terror” (and those responsible for emperor’s security were clearly and obviously incompetent).
  • Presumably most benefitting class, intelligencia, was anti-government as a matter of principle.
  • Cherry on the top of the cake, he managed to turn a routine case of having a mistress (his father, uncle and grandfather had them without causing any family problems) into a major scandal which broke family apart.
Sorry, RE simply could not afford more of AII and Perovskaya, Zelyabov & Co had to get the state awards … before being hanged.


Tsarevich Nicholas Alexandrovich is killed in Japan during his visit in Otsu on early 1890's and eventually his youngest brother Michael becomes tsar. He was conservative but not such believer to absolutism so he might allow some actual constitution.
His murder would require war with Japan which Russia at that time could not win: Far East was absolutely undeveloped. As for Michael, he simply did not want to rule. As for the constitution, NII granted it in 1905 and the following decade demonstrated that the clowns in Duma were not better than those in bureaucracy (which at least produced Witte and Stolypin). And when in February 1917 Russia became democratic, incompetence of the leading democrats had been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Avoid WW1.
That’s for sure.

Russia probably falls to revolution at some point but it should has mostly positive effects.
Revolutions tend to produce the bloody effects before they start producing something else. But without a war revolution in RE seems unlikely. Unlike evolution.

Entente wins WW1 in 1916. During 1920's tsar is enforced to commit meaningful reforms.
Again “meaningful reforms”. What does this mean? Russia Empire already had a comprehensive set of the labor laws and modern judicial system. It needed not the reforms but a prolonged period of a peaceful development with a minimal disturbances coming from a government (generally known as the “reforms’).


Later Russia evolves as developed somehow democratic nation.
Just as a pure curiosity, why “somehow democratic” is by default considered an universal benefit uniformly benefitting all cultures regardless their specifics? This is pretty much like the Marxist theory that all societies have to pass through prescribed set of the forms to end up with a communism. The Marxist theory was created in a blissful ignorance regarding non-european history and did not work out as expected. So perhaps the same applies to other similar one size fits all theories? It is not about “good vs. bad” but about possibility of more than one path of a social development.

Instead deciding continue war Provisional Government decides sue peace (perhaps war goes even worsely for Russia). Windows for Bolshevik revolt is pretty tight and it fails.

PG has just bit luck and manages crush Bolsheviks completely either during July revolution attempt or on October Rebvolution.

PG was a bunch of the well-educated idiots who could not find their own posteriors with both hands in a broad daylight. The only thing they demonstrated convincingly is that in Russia intelligencia should not be allowed anywhere close to the government. 😂

Someone else becomes first post-Soviet Russian president instead Yeltsin. Perhaps Yavlinsky.
Yeah, sure. See above about the PG. 😜
 
What would have been downstream effects of no Miracle of the House of Brandenburg?
That is, Elizabeth I lives slightly longer and goes further ahead in crushing Prussia. Austria and France are Russian allies and participate in partitioning of Russia. East Prussia had already sworn alliance to her.

What would be the internal domestic effects if the German parts of Russia are expanded from Estonia and Livonia (only the ruling minority German, commoners Estonian and Latvian) to Prussia (more German ruling minority, but also a mass of German commoners)?

How would European diplomacy be affected by partition of Prussia?
 
The problem with destroying Prussia is that, even if we leave Peter III's Prussiaboo tendencies aside, Prussia is actually the perfect ally against Austria, which is ultimately Russia's main rival in the Balkans, and the perfect partner-in-crime for partitioning Poland with. Even in the 19th century, it wasn't guaranteed that Prussia would've allied with Austria over Russia, given their rivalry with Austria over the German Question.

Having a strong Austria dominating Germany with no one to ally with against them except France is not really a good thing for Russia, especially since France has a historic alliance with Poland. It also isn't the most reliable ally because it has a pro-Austrian faction at court which might get an Austro-French alliance going.
 
Russia has had a LOT of problems in the past, and has gone through so much, only to end up...well, as they are now. Furthermore, most timelines I've read lately scree Russia to some degree. I've always wondered though, where a point could have changed in the past to make Russia better? How can one wank Russia?

How Russia is wanked is up to you - it could mean they are a true democratic republic, a strong imperial monarchy, or a socialist utopia - but ideally, the POD would result (eventually) in a nation that is at least as powerful as the USSR was. What does Russia do? How do they do it?
Just avoid world war I and that is all that is needed. What many people gloss over is the fact that the Russian empire after the start of world war 1 began to Industrialize much faster and the speed at which it industrialized was so fast that the country began to break a part at it's fabric, metallurgy production was up by 50 percent and the chemical industry expanded by as much as 100 percent and there were other manufacturing Industry that did expand at the same rate too. The Industrialization of Russian empire from 1914-1916 was as stressful if not more stressful than the Stalinist industrialization. My point here is Russia was poised to rapidly Industrialize and modernize from 1914 well in the late 30s at the rate of 6 to 7 percent per Anum, without the stress of war or soviet socialism. And I suspect the population of this alternate Russia would be half a billion or so, since the country would modernize economically and technologically but would still be "behind" in terms of women's rights and other social issues.

If the Great war did happen I think I did start a discussion thread somewhere along these lines.....where I made Lenin more like Ataturk, the discussion ended with Lenin being replaced by a Russian Nationalist along the lines of Ataturk and I feel such a leader would be the second best thing that could happen.
 
What would have been downstream effects of no Miracle of the House of Brandenburg?
That is, Elizabeth I lives slightly longer and goes further ahead in crushing Prussia.

Was not going to happen: on the last stage pretty much the only operation on the Prussian territory was siege of Kolberg to provide easier supply by the sea. Most of the army stood in the PLC and East Prussia and did not move regardless Elizabeth’s orders: relations with the Austrian high command had been seriously broken and opinion in the army was that Russia accomplished enough and the Austrians are trying to win by the Russian efforts without contributing enough themselves.

Austria and France are Russian allies and participate in partitioning of Russia. East Prussia had already sworn alliance to her.

What would be the internal domestic effects if the German parts of Russia are expanded from Estonia and Livonia (only the ruling minority German, commoners Estonian and Latvian) to Prussia (more German ruling minority, but also a mass of German commoners)?

How would European diplomacy be affected by partition of Prussia?
To sum it up, under EI and CII Russia could not manage the territory it had in an orderly fashion and adding regions with a completely foreign population and culture was adding to the general disorder (opinion expressed by Paul who was quite right on that).
 
Another early alternative to 'wank' Russia in territorial quantity, if not 'quality': Lithuania becomes Orthodox and becomes the central state, ingathering all the Rus Principalities and expanding into Asia while defending, and, if needed, expanding, the western/southern border.
 
Time and time again, I hear this reason for why Russia didn't industrialize because, off in the distant past before industrialization had even started, Russia was invaded by the Mongols, and the Mongols did... something to change Russia.
Didn't they end up shifting Russia's centre of gravity north? A Russia based further south, in OTL's Ukraine, might be able to support a higher population, and would probably be better placed to extend its control into Eastern Europe and the Balkans, increasing its potential carrying capacity even further.
Just avoid world war I and that is all that is needed. What many people gloss over is the fact that the Russian empire after the start of world war 1 began to Industrialize much faster and the speed at which it industrialized was so fast that the country began to break a part at it's fabric, metallurgy production was up by 50 percent and the chemical industry expanded by as much as 100 percent and there were other manufacturing Industry that did expand at the same rate too. The Industrialization of Russian empire from 1914-1916 was as stressful if not more stressful than the Stalinist industrialization. My point here is Russia was poised to rapidly Industrialize and modernize from 1914 well in the late 30s at the rate of 6 to 7 percent per Anum, without the stress of war or soviet socialism. And I suspect the population of this alternate Russia would be half a billion or so, since the country would modernize economically and technologically but would still be "behind" in terms of women's rights and other social issues.
Instead of avoiding the war altogether, it might be best to simply avoid Russian involvement. Then Russia could be an equivalent of OTL's US after WW2, that is, the only major country that hasn't had its homeland completely wrecked, leaving it to take a position of hegemony almost by default.
 
Russia has had a LOT of problems in the past, and has gone through so much, only to end up...well, as they are now. Furthermore, most timelines I've read lately scree Russia to some degree. I've always wondered though, where a point could have changed in the past to make Russia better? How can one wank Russia?

How Russia is wanked is up to you - it could mean they are a true democratic republic, a strong imperial monarchy, or a socialist utopia - but ideally, the POD would result (eventually) in a nation that is at least as powerful as the USSR was. What does Russia do? How do they do it?
I wonder if Russia could somehow keep all the land it occupied in the PLC during the Deluge.
 
Didn't they end up shifting Russia's centre of gravity north? A Russia based further south, in OTL's Ukraine, might be able to support a higher population, and would probably be better placed to extend its control into Eastern Europe and the Balkans, increasing its potential carrying capacity even further.
Yes, there was depopulation of the south, but the bigger-scale effect of that was actually after the Golden Horde disintegrated, because now suddenly there was a Ottoman-backed khanate in Crimea that began raiding the area for slaves and depopulating it. And since there was basically nothing productive that the Crimeans could do with their land, slave-raiding was basically their only industry. This had a lot more to do with the northward shift than the initial Mongol advance did. If the Mongols burn down a kingdom one year and receive tribute from it the next, they won't attack it again unless the new prince decides to rebel, whereas the Crimeans are incorrigible slavers, so they'll come back time and time again and they can't be bought off with tribute. Due to this, the area south of the Dnieper river became almost uninhabited and would only start being resettled during Catherine II's reign and onward.
 
Top