DBWI: The Decembrist Revolution fails.

[InfernoMole]

Ah, the Decembrist Revolution: a time of violence and bloodshed. It shaped the modern Russian Empire, and then the Russian Republic. It brought bourgeois, democratic ideals to our country and gave Russia the freedom to rise to glory. I'm asking this question: what if the Decembrist Revolution failed to succeed?

Oh, and another, smaller question. What is your opinion on Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin, one of the first and the most famous and beloved Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of Russia?

 

[B-29_Bomber]

OOC: Some OTL context?

 

[InfernoMole]

OOC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decembrist_revolt

A revolt of 3000 soldiers who protested the assumption of the throne by Nicholas I, a political conservative, after his elder brother Constantine removed himself from the line of succession.

 

[Augenis]

Well, for one, if Russia somehow managed to remain absolutist for an another century (fairly unlikely, though not unfeasible with the right rulers), I suspect it would do quite a lot worse against Germany in the Great War. A retained semi-feudal serfdom based society under an absolute monarchy means a less (if at all) industrialized Russia, and not to mention that a Tsarist Russia would definitely not allow higher autonomy for cultural minorities like Poles and the Baltics like what happened during the January Uprising, so it might as well get ripped apart from the ground up by nationalist revolts and become a some sort of rump state.

Fascist Russia maybe?

Of course, everything depends on the Tsar that takes the reins. Who was the likely successor after Nicholas I?

 

[InfernoMole]

His son, most likely.

 

[Augenis]

His son, most likely.

I'm not sure what his political stances were, though.

 

[Practical Lobster]

A more autocratic Russia might have succumb more totally to the wave of revolutions that swept Europe a generation later. 1846 was the Spring of Nations - what happened there led to the rise of the French Republic, the Koln Accords, and laid the groundwork for the fall of the Hapsburgs. Because, I think, of the Decembrists, Russia avoided the toppling of the old order and was able to chart a more moderate course. I'm sure some will say that's the good thing, but it has also kept Russia from enjoying the prosperity of the European League, brought about by Syndicalist Dirgisme. So all in all definitely a mixed bag.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

A more autocratic Russia might have succumb more totally to the wave of revolutions that swept Europe a generation later. 1846 was the Spring of Nations - what happened there led to the rise of the French Republic, the Koln Accords, and laid the groundwork for the fall of the Hapsburgs. Because, I think, of the Decembrists, Russia avoided the toppling of the old order and was able to chart a more moderate course. I'm sure some will say that's the good thing, but it has also kept Russia from enjoying the prosperity of the European League, brought about by Syndicalist Dirgisme. So all in all definitely a mixed bag.

True, but Syndicalism only came about after the Global War devastated a huge chunk of the continent(there is, after all, a good reason why in Germany, Britain and the former Austria-Hungary & former Ottoman Empire in particular, the period between 1908-18 is regarded as the "Lost Decade"), though, which Russia largely avoided(as they were mainly fighting the Chinese anyhow). Russia's main problem post war was that the Reformists were largely held back during the '20s and '30s mainly due to the anti-Syndicalist fears(although it was a thing here in the U.S., too. Lots of anti-French, anti-Greek, anti-Spanish and anti-Italian prejudice ran rampant amongst a huge chunk of our right wingers back then, especially in the Segregationist South and in certain areas of the Midwest, especially much of Indiana & Ohio. Pennsylvania Dutch Country had a real bad problem with this, too, until about 1945 or so).

 

[Datu Buwan]

Well, for one, if Russia somehow managed to remain absolutist for an another century (fairly unlikely, though not unfeasible with the right rulers), I suspect it would do quite a lot worse against Germany in the Great War. A retained semi-feudal serfdom based society under an absolute monarchy means a less (if at all) industrialized Russia, and not to mention that a Tsarist Russia would definitely not allow higher autonomy for cultural minorities like Poles and the Baltics like what happened during the January Uprising, so it might as well get ripped apart from the ground up by nationalist revolts and become a some sort of rump state.

Fascist Russia maybe?

Of course, everything depends on the Tsar that takes the reins. Who was the likely successor after Nicholas I?

If it ends up as a rump state how much will Europe and Asia be fragmented by the Russian Empire? One idea that comes to mind is the Japanese invading Russia Far East territories for resources and land.

Or worse Fascist/Socialist-Russia.. Someone on the alt-hist forums wrote a great TL about it but some consider it ASB as it was a Russia-Screw.

 

[CaliBoy1990]

If it ends up as a rump state how much will Europe and Asia be fragmented by the Russian Empire? One idea that comes to mind is the Japanese invading Russia Far East territories for resources and land.

Or worse Fascist/Socialist-Russia.. Someone on the alt-hist forums wrote a great TL about it but some consider it ASB as it was a Russia-Screw.

It reminds me of that one David Johnson story published in 1992.....forget the name, but I vividly remember the "Joseph Stalin" character, though.

(That said, though, Japan invading and successfully holding the Siberian East really is almost ASB, TBH-they had a great military for much of the 20th Century but even they couldn't have pulled that off.)

 

[Practical Lobster]

Joseph Steel (-in)? Pulp fiction is just getting sillier and sillier. I hate how often althistory gets these incredibly poor quality novels - purple overwrought prose, sexualized wish-fulfillment, and usually a horrible genocide or two. Why would a Russian man have the last name steel? Why would any of the things he portrayed happen? A Germany who was so "traumatized" by war that instead of vowing to never repeat the experience she decides to take revenge on the whole world, with silly evil dictators wearing skull masks?

The stuff that gets published in the genre is awful - especially compared to the kinds of brilliant works that get published on this site.

But I digress. Pushkin, to answer the OP's question was a solid leader. Even as a staunch Labor-Democrat, I can appreciate his reforms and his vision for the future. He did a lot to lift the peasantry of Russia out of what were totally deplorable conditions. Also, a lot of people don't know him for his plays... but if you can read Russian, they're definitely worth it. Especially the non-political stuff, which really shows a deeper side to the man. I don't think real leftism could have emerged in the Russia of his time, so I don't blame him for sticking in the "realm of the possible" although I do wish he could have tried harder. He left a Russia which even now is dominated by the "fractional elites" or Bourgeois - and those are the people who've divided the world into so many competing Leagues.

 

[InfernoMole]

Joseph Steel (-in)? Pulp fiction is just getting sillier and sillier. I hate how often althistory gets these incredibly poor quality novels - purple overwrought prose, sexualized wish-fulfillment, and usually a horrible genocide or two. Why would a Russian man have the last name steel? Why would any of the things he portrayed happen? A Germany who was so "traumatized" by war that instead of vowing to never repeat the experience she decides to take revenge on the whole world, with silly evil dictators wearing skull masks?

I think that was a nickname, and one particular paragraph describes him as Georgian - but I digress.

But I digress. Pushkin, to answer the OP's question was a solid leader. Even as a staunch Labor-Democrat, I can appreciate his reforms and his vision for the future. He did a lot to lift the peasantry of Russia out of what were totally deplorable conditions. Also, a lot of people don't know him for his plays... but if you can read Russian, they're definitely worth it. Especially the non-political stuff, which really shows a deeper side to the man. I don't think real leftism could have emerged in the Russia of his time, so I don't blame him for sticking in the "realm of the possible" although I do wish he could have tried harder. He left a Russia which even now is dominated by the "fractional elites" or Bourgeois - and those are the people who've divided the world into so many competing Leagues.

Indeed. The issue of Poland and Finland was particularly bad. Nonetheless, Pushkin was a great leader. Though I heard that he had a quarrel with some French soldier named D'Anthès... good thing it didn't end in death.