Composition of a democratic Superpower Russia?

The hard part is that Russia has been an autocracy for a very long time; it also lacked the growing middle class that pretty much jump-starts democratic reforms.
Not true. At the start of the 20th century Russia actually had a relatively large, growing and very active middle class, problem was that it was mostly Jewish, not ethnic Russian. And that naturally resulted in a host of social tensions and problems.
 

Old Airman

Banned
Acctually Finland's end goal was independence, but with a relative stable situation in Petrograd they opted to push for wider autonomy first, but the goal was independence.
No objection from me here. Independence as the end goal can be achieved through some time being autonomous within the Russian Republic. It actually depends on minor events, not grand political considerations. Would course of events offer Finns total independence, they would jump at opportunity, would autonomy be a safer bet (i.e., would it be more autoritarian Russian regime within the republic), they would take it. I was trying to draw the border between situations in Grand Duchy and Kongresuvka (where only Russian bayonets or threat of thereof could keep Poland from declaring independence).

New question:
If Russia become democratic republic in 1918 ( if were no October revoluton ) but if they suceeded to return Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus ( with Poland and Finland and Baltic countries goeing away )- would St. Petersburg remain capital?
It is incorrect to talk about "Returning Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus" if your POD is "no Bolshevist Coup". Whole Caucasus and majority of teo other territories were loyal members of Russian Republic as of Summer 1917. As well as whole Estonia and half of Latvia. Speaking about capital, the decision would depend on political wind of the moment. They might want to divorce from BOTH "imperial legacy of Petrograd" AND "czarist legacy of Moscow" and opt for Nizhny Novgorod, for example, "craddle of people's power in Russia". After all, "Citizen Minin" lore was one of founding myths of Russian democrats.
 

abc123

Banned
It is incorrect to talk about "Returning Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus" if your POD is "no Bolshevist Coup". Whole Caucasus and majority of teo other territories were loyal members of Russian Republic as of Summer 1917. As well as whole Estonia and half of Latvia. Speaking about capital, the decision would depend on political wind of the moment. They might want to divorce from BOTH "imperial legacy of Petrograd" AND "czarist legacy of Moscow" and opt for Nizhny Novgorod, for example, "craddle of people's power in Russia". After all, "Citizen Minin" lore was one of founding myths of Russian democrats.

I meant if Brest-Litovsk Treaty was signed as OTL. Except that, here we are in a uncharted territory, nobody knows what territories Russian Republic would have.

But, I find Nizhny Novgorod as capital a intresting solution.;)
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
No objection from me here. Independence as the end goal can be achieved through some time being autonomous within the Russian Republic. It actually depends on minor events, not grand political considerations. Would course of events offer Finns total independence, they would jump at opportunity, would autonomy be a safer bet (i.e., would it be more autoritarian Russian regime within the republic), they would take it. I was trying to draw the border between situations in Grand Duchy and Kongresuvka (where only Russian bayonets or threat of thereof could keep Poland from declaring independence).

Of course the Finns were preparing themselves to fight if they had to, why else would they have sent the Jägers to Germany for military training.
 
Mensheviks!!!

I would say it would have to involve the Mensheviks coming to power rather than the Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks were more democratic and less radical than the Bolsheviks. But it's unlikely the Mensheviks would have industrialised as much as the Bolsheviks. So, they prob wouldn't lead Russia to superpower status.
 
Ooh, please, Miss! Please, Miss!

* Jumps up and down in desk, waving right hand in the air *

"Can we have the Beer Party, Miss?"
 
Lots of interesting ideas here. To the actual question, I can only say that it depends on when and why. A PoD in 1917 is one thing, a PoD hundreds of years earlier that eventually happens to create a democratic Russia quite another. There is no rule saying that the Latvians and Estonians have to want independence: they will or they won't, depending on how they and Russia generally have developed, not to mention what's going on in the rest of the world (sometimes being part of Russia might be preferable to being part of somewhere else: IIRC, Georgian troops in Batum held out against the Turkish nationalist forces for some days so they could surrender to their Bolshevik allies instead).

All I can say with certainty is that it's mistaken to think that very large multi-ethnic countries never hang together of their own accord. India is a good example, but Iran is also a long way from being a national state. Our modern (western) ideas about democracy implying "self-determination" and national states were by no means ordained, and they might never have caught on at all.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I would say it would have to involve the Mensheviks coming to power rather than the Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks were more democratic and less radical than the Bolsheviks. But it's unlikely the Mensheviks would have industrialised as much as the Bolsheviks. So, they prob wouldn't lead Russia to superpower status.
I call your Mensheviks and raise my SOCIALIST REVOLUTIONARIES! Much more democratic than both the "viks".
 
Top