There would be Alexander IIIThere were a number of unsuccessful attempts on his life from 1866 onwards.
What if any of them succeeded?
Well if Alexander II dies you don’t get the Duma and Russia doesn’t industrialize in the late 19th century (because you have no duma to push for laws to modernize the country). Russia could fall under a fascist regime, but would never become socialist like some other nations...
Saving the monarchy is a bit much; Fascism did historically have a strain evidenced in Kodoha Japan of Absolute Monarchism, so the Stars could have rallied around that. To be fair, the Yamato Dynasty have an element central in Japanese culture that the Roman's just don't for Russia, but its not impossible. I mean, we know from history how the American-backed Republic of Japan went...Agree. AII's reforms towards parliamentarism probably saved monarchy. Just imaginate how badly Alexander III and Nicholas II would had managed things if them would had have absolute power. AIII just tried sabotage all what duma was doing and Nicholas II was just weak religious ruler who couldn't stand with parliamentarism. Fortunately his son Alexei II* was able learn his role in democratic and parliamentarist Russia.
*OOC: ITTL Alexei II hasn't hemophilia so it helps much.
Agree. AII's reforms towards parliamentarism probably saved monarchy. Just imaginate how badly Alexander III and Nicholas II would had managed things if them would had have absolute power. AIII just tried sabotage all what duma was doing and Nicholas II was just weak religious ruler who couldn't stand with parliamentarism. Fortunately his son Alexei II* was able learn his role in democratic and parliamentarist Russia.
*OOC: ITTL Alexei II hasn't hemophilia so it helps much.
Well, without Russia to save their bacon on land, I imagine the German puppets would've invested more in their army, less in the navy. So you get less embarrassing German defeats in the early months against the French in the Elzass, and less embarrassing British defeats against the Germans in the North Sea.Without Russia industrializing when it did OTL, World War 1 could have gone very differently than it did OTL. How does this affect the rest of Europe? Specifically which countries go faciast and which go communist?
British-USA? The USA sold weapons to the British and French but never joined WW1. And in WW2 they actually joined the Central Allies (lead by Germany and Russia) against the commune (which was lead by Britain and the Turks)Well, without Russia to save their bacon on land, I imagine the German puppets would've invested more in their army, less in the navy. So you get less embarrassing German defeats in the early months against the French in the Elzass, and less embarrassing British defeats against the Germans in the North Sea.
But in the end, Germany and Russia together are bound to beat France and its continental allies eventually, so you still get essentially the same Germano-Russian versus British-USA blocks, plus or minus a few colonies (and who knows, the British might keep Iberia in their orbit if they don't fear actually losing at sea - they never did, but those early defeats caused several invasion scares).
The United States of America was politically Anglophile in alignment up until the Long presidency, it was the British Revolution and the growing influence of the German-American and Irish-American voting bloc that persuaded America to join the Central Allies in WW2. Even after WW2 the Americans were strongly opposed to Germany and Russia's dismantlement of Britain and for a long time continued to push the claim of the British government-in-exile.British-USA? The USA sold weapons to the British and French but never joined WW1. And in WW2 they actually joined the Central Allies (lead by Germany and Russia) against the commune (which was lead by Britain and the Turks)
Given the Pan-German policies pursued by Wilhelm II onwards I'm not sure how long such an alliance would last until Germany attempts to turn on its ally especially after it becomes apparent that Austria-Hungary is a paper tiger.Would it be possible for Germany to pick Austro-Hungary as an ally if Russia was significantly weaker? Without the nascent industrialisation Russia too may fear the German industry enough to start a tariff war, which wouldn't let the Russo-German industrial machine to grow into existance.
Thank you for the clarification. I was just confused a littleThe United States of America was politically Anglophile in alignment up until the Long presidency, it was the British Revolution and the growing influence of the German-American and Irish-American voting bloc that persuaded America to join the Central Allies in WW2. Even after WW2 the Americans were strongly opposed to Germany and Russia's dismantlement of Britain and for a long time continued to push the claim of the British government-in-exile.
Well, what does Austria-Hungary have to offer? For starters you have to butterfly Wlhelm II’s ambition for Austria and the Sudetenland. Without his ambitions being butterflies away you just have Germany wanting German lands, and Russia wanting Slavic lands leading to the same alliance OTL. But if you manage to get Austria-Hungary instead of Russia on Germany’s side you can add the Ottomans because whatever side Russia is on they are probably going to be on the opposite side (due to Russia wanting Constantinople, and the Turks wanting land in Russia) This also could mean no collapse of the Ottoman Empire with Russia not being strong enough to defeat them along with being occupied fighting against Germany.Would it be possible for Germany to pick Austro-Hungary as an ally if Russia was significantly weaker? Without the nascent industrialisation Russia too may fear the German industry enough to start a tariff war, which wouldn't let the Russo-German industrial machine to grow into existance.
The main thing is that Austria would have been utterly dependent on Germany, to the point where it could have been reduced to a de-facto puppet state. While initially Russia was the weaker partner in the Russo-German Alliance, that had definitely changed by the 20s.Well, what does Austria-Hungary have to offer? For starters you have to butterfly Wlhelm II’s ambition for Austria and the Sudetenland. Without his ambitions being butterflies away you just have Germany wanting German lands, and Russia wanting Slavic lands leading to the same alliance OTL. But if you manage to get Austria-Hungary instead of Russia on Germany’s side you can add the Ottomans because whatever side Russia is on they are probably going to be on the opposite side (due to Russia wanting Constantinople, and the Turks wanting land in Russia) This also could mean no collapse of the Ottoman Empire with Russia not being strong enough to defeat them along with being occupied fighting against Germany.
True. Especially since Russia had to grow it’s navy to secure control over the Bosporus. Also without russia’s Navy helping the Germans you would have had no B-Day (especially with the PRC* still attacking New York bringing the US into the war)The main thing is that Austria would have been utterly dependent on Germany, to the point where it could have been reduced to a de-facto puppet state. While initially Russia was the weaker partner in the Russo-German Alliance, that had definitely changed by the 20s.
(especially with the PRC* still attacking New York bringing the US into the war)