Communist Britain, Monarchist Russia

I want to write a story set in a TL where Great Britain leads a league of European communist states, Russia is a constitutional monarchy, and the USA is, well, the USA.

I was thinking about a POD. Could one of the Tsars between 1800 and 1850 have become enamoured of liberal Western thought, such as that of Locke and Rousseau. He could travel abroad, catch the liberalism bug, and start use his power to slowly reform Russia.
Also, I think that this TL's George V doesn't manage to update the British monarchy—he's just a hard-ass. This leads to workers' unrest in WWI and the eventual overthrow of the British government.

I'd like suggestions as to potential progressivist tsars and also possible leaders of Communist Britain.
 
With an early enough PoD some of the later Tsars may be completely different.

Alexander II was progressive for a Tsar but he wasn't a progressive. Perhaps if his son Nicholas had lived things may have been different compared to the strong-man Alexander III.

However, if you get an early enough PoD you may be able to get some more liberal Tsars.

Nicholas I was problematic, with his opposition to modernisation.
 
What about Tsesarevich Nicholas not falling ill and subsequently dying in 1865? As far as I know his teachers were rather liberal, while his brother, future Alexander III, was thrown in conservative circles as compensation. Bonus points for liberal Nicholas II.
In the first half of the century only the successful decembrists is an option for reform and liberalization, I think. But I cannot provide a specific POD for that now.
 
What about Tsesarevich Nicholas not falling ill and subsequently dying in 1865? As far as I know his teachers were rather liberal, while his brother, future Alexander III, was thrown in conservative circles as compensation. Bonus points for liberal Nicholas II.
In the first half of the century only the successful decembrists is an option for reform and liberalization, I think. But I cannot provide a specific POD for that now.

Well, if Nicholas lived to introduce his liberal ideas, perhaps the nobility resisted but Nicholas stayed in power by making deals with various leftist forces in Russian politics.
He spends his time as a prince strengthening relations with France and Britain, and even becomes engaged to one of Queen Victoria's daughters. Nicholas takes to the Westminster governmental system and starts to progress towards popular rule when he becomes Tsar. A Russian parliament is founded in the 1890s, which pisses off the nobility a bit, but Nicholas has too much popular support to be overthrown.
Said disgruntled noblemen form the Russian Conservative Party, a party whose level of bull-headed anti-liberalism could only be compared to the modern Republicans.
Other political parties form too, the largest being the Orthodox Whig Party, and the Progressive Party. The latters ranks boast none other than Leon Trotsky.

Perhaps the would-be Bolsheviks become a sizeable force in this TL's Russian politics?
 
Early enough liberal reform would butterfly the strength of any Russian communists no matter how seriously you consider butterflys. Few if any countries where communism had a successful revolt or even serious following had any options besides conform to tyranny or enact revolution. If the option for reform within the system was even just considered possible I'm of of the opinion that only a minority who wanted change would choose any other option. Revolution risks losing literally everything, so unless you think there is 0 chance of betterment will you rebel like that. Communists who are willing to enact violent change are completely disillusioned with the system, and many who follow them have only that in common with them.

Presented with an option for peaceful reform, such as through a parliament with elected representitatives, would give the people enough faith in the system unless it completely and utterly fails. IF we choose a pod that allows Catherine the Great's favored children, Alexander or Constantine, I would imagine greater liberal reform and Russia being able to hold itself together. As long as my college professor for Russian history was accurate, a large part of future Tsars refusing reforms had to do with Paul I, so if Alexander or Constantine took over instead of him perhaps they would have followed closer to their mother's dream.

Honestly making Britain communist just requires butterflies. To generalize, British politicians don't worry about communist revolutions because they are essentially theoretical, and make slightly slower liberal reforms in turn, but largely act otl. Then strikes start and they react like it's silly, and the general strike turns violent. Then revolution.
 
Early enough liberal reform would butterfly the strength of any Russian communists no matter how seriously you consider butterflys. Few if any countries where communism had a successful revolt or even serious following had any options besides conform to tyranny or enact revolution. If the option for reform within the system was even just considered possible I'm of of the opinion that only a minority who wanted change would choose any other option. Revolution risks losing literally everything, so unless you think there is 0 chance of betterment will you rebel like that. Communists who are willing to enact violent change are completely disillusioned with the system, and many who follow them have only that in common with them.

Presented with an option for peaceful reform, such as through a parliament with elected representitatives, would give the people enough faith in the system unless it completely and utterly fails. IF we choose a pod that allows Catherine the Great's favored children, Alexander or Constantine, I would imagine greater liberal reform and Russia being able to hold itself together. As long as my college professor for Russian history was accurate, a large part of future Tsars refusing reforms had to do with Paul I, so if Alexander or Constantine took over instead of him perhaps they would have followed closer to their mother's dream.

Honestly making Britain communist just requires butterflies. To generalize, British politicians don't worry about communist revolutions because they are essentially theoretical, and make slightly slower liberal reforms in turn, but largely act otl. Then strikes start and they react like it's silly, and the general strike turns violent. Then revolution.

I've never bought into the 'dictatorship leaves a nation vulnerable to communism' theory. Remember that the Bolsheviks did not depose the Tsar. He fell to the February revolution in which the Bolsheviks were one faction who gained immense strength after. It was a liberal republic (with socialists in the leadership) that was deposed in the October revolution.

More important is the credibility of institutions. That, not mystical forces of individualism, kept Britain and the U.S. from having powerful communist movements iotl.
 
I want to write a story set in a TL where Great Britain leads a league of European communist states, Russia is a constitutional monarchy, and the USA is, well, the USA.

I was thinking about a POD. Could one of the Tsars between 1800 and 1850 have become enamoured of liberal Western thought, such as that of Locke and Rousseau. He could travel abroad, catch the liberalism bug, and start use his power to slowly reform Russia.
Also, I think that this TL's George V doesn't manage to update the British monarchy—he's just a hard-ass. This leads to workers' unrest in WWI and the eventual overthrow of the British government.

I'd like suggestions as to potential progressivist tsars and also possible leaders of Communist Britain.

You could save Russia with an early enough POD; maybe Alexander II lives a little longer and/or goes further with his liberalism. Britain going Communist is a little harder to do, though-maybe they get really hit hard during a World War, so much so that the country's government becomes essentially broken? The loss of a popular monarch or Prime Minister might help do the trick, at least if the entry into this war was considered unnecessary(as some did in WWI IOTL, although this was more of an American thing as well).

Of course, I suppose one could look at "Fight And Be Right", although I can't remember any specifics; it's been quite a while since I've read that TL.
 
Didn't this happen in 'fight and be right'?

In FABR, I believe that the revolutionary government was syndicalist, not communist. However, it's still a leftist revolutionary government, so it may qualify for the OP.

As for Russia, I believe that Germany beats them in the Great War, but Russia liberalizes and a scientific religious order emerges.

I think the best qualifier for the OP is FABR despite the British government being syndicalist rather than communist.

As for where to find it, Google "Fight and Be Right" and the PDF is one of the top results.
 
You could save Russia with an early enough POD; maybe Alexander II lives a little longer and/or goes further with his liberalism. Britain going Communist is a little harder to do, though-maybe they get really hit hard during a World War, so much so that the country's government becomes essentially broken? The loss of a popular monarch or Prime Minister might help do the trick, at least if the entry into this war was considered unnecessary(as some did in WWI IOTL, although this was more of an American thing as well).

Of course, I suppose one could look at "Fight And Be Right", although I can't remember any specifics; it's been quite a while since I've read that TL.

Perhaps in this TL, the Americans join WWI on Germany's side; they give Germany and Austria-Hungary a crap-ton of loans, as well as engaging the Royal Navy in the Atlantic.
The German-American pact manages to squeeze war reparations out of Great Britain and France. After 1918, both countries are broke. Britain falls to communism, and France falls to militant nationalism.
WWII is Commie Britain/America/Germany/Russia vs. France/Italy/Japan.
The British set up a puppet state in France and Belgium, and Italy is divided in half.

Could it happen?
 
Perhaps in this TL, the Americans join WWI on Germany's side; they give Germany and Austria-Hungary a crap-ton of loans, as well as engaging the Royal Navy in the Atlantic.
The German-American pact manages to squeeze war reparations out of Great Britain and France. After 1918, both countries are broke. Britain falls to communism, and France falls to militant nationalism.
WWII is Commie Britain/America/Germany/Russia vs. France/Italy/Japan.
The British set up a puppet state in France and Belgium, and Italy is divided in half.

Could it happen?

The US would have never fought against Britain in a recognizable WWI. Relations were too good between them.
 
Perhaps in this TL, the Americans join WWI on Germany's side; they give Germany and Austria-Hungary a crap-ton of loans, as well as engaging the Royal Navy in the Atlantic.
The German-American pact manages to squeeze war reparations out of Great Britain and France. After 1918, both countries are broke. Britain falls to communism, and France falls to militant nationalism.
WWII is Commie Britain/America/Germany/Russia vs. France/Italy/Japan.
The British set up a puppet state in France and Belgium, and Italy is divided in half.

Could it happen?

Well, If you're working with a Point of Departure in the 1800's, It is possible for the United States to be opposed to Great Britain for the timeline's WWI equivalent. However, having the U.S. acting antagonistically towards Britain would change the nature of the shifting alliances that lead up to WWI.

Before communism happened, Russia was America's best friend when it came to foreign relations. Both nations were rising powers that had no real conflicting interests with each other, and conflicting interests with the British Empire. The Russians and Americans will only grow closer and closer if the British never cool down the tensions between themselves and the U.S.

Personally, I see the WWI equivalent in any timeline where the British are hostile to the U.S. having an alliance system more like this:

Russia, Germany, and The United States.
VS.
France, Austria-Hungary (Assuming it survives the butterflies), The British Empire, and maybe the Ottoman Empire.
 
Well, If you're working with a Point of Departure in the 1800's, It is possible for the United States to be opposed to Great Britain for the timeline's WWI equivalent. However, having the U.S. acting antagonistically towards Britain would change the nature of the shifting alliances that lead up to WWI.

Before communism happened, Russia was America's best friend when it came to foreign relations. Both nations were rising powers that had no real conflicting interests with each other, and conflicting interests with the British Empire. The Russians and Americans will only grow closer and closer if the British never cool down the tensions between themselves and the U.S.

Personally, I see the WWI equivalent in any timeline where the British are hostile to the U.S. having an alliance system more like this:

Russia, Germany, and The United States.
VS.
France, Austria-Hungary (Assuming it survives the butterflies), The British Empire, and maybe the Ottoman Empire.

Too true. If the Russians formed a parliament in the 1890s and reached near-universal suffrage in the 1920s, America would definitely grow closer to them.
Your alliance system makes sense. The British, Austrians, and Turks would all feel threatened by a rising Russo-American alliance.
And the Germans and Americans might have colluded to weaken the British Empire, with were America expanding in the Pacific and Germany in Africa.

Thank you for this. Your WWI scenario would probably lead to a Central Victory, because America has more money than any of the other belligerents. That fits into my idea of an economic collapse in Britain and France.
 
Top