Europe's Political Evolution without World War I

NoMommsen

Donor
First, strikes are a normal part of inzustrial life. They do not mean revolutionary situation.
You're truly ... vitalizing. :biggrin:

Sure, strikes are a normal part of how employee/employer relations are handeled. ... Today, after World War 1 ended with all its changes of workers right especially in Germany (how far "workers rights" were ralized in the SU during and after the civil war ... ... ...).
Prior to World War 1 strikes were often if not to say common, but always on the brink of criminality, sometimes even rendered criminal and let to hard fights between employees, employers and police.

They were far from "normal" as an allowed, somehow regulated mean to settle work-life disputes.

...
There was no revolutionary movement left a d certainly no violence in the countryside where the Stolypin reforms had releaved the pressures
...
Well, Stolypins reforms were soo successfull. that he was actually assasinated in 1911 ...

From 1919 - 1913 : 13.000 farmers upheaveals all over the country
From 1907 - 1909 : more than 26.000 political trials with 5.086 death sentences
April 1912 : strikes on the Lena-goldfields lasted 8 months => 170 workers killed, 196 "vanished", 18.000 workers and their families "moved"
1910 : strikes all over the country : 222
1912 : strikes all over the country 466
1913 : strikes all over the country 1.971 (from january to september)

(main and first source : https://marx200.org/blog/die-sturmflut-den-jahren-1911-bis-1913-russland )

Yep, really a "pacified", well prospering and developing country.:winkytongue:



There is no reason to believe that the Empire would dissolve. Certainly far less than the remote possibility that austris-Hungary would
True, neither dissolution is a given.

Though IMO to "hold" them in both cases there would be rather intellignet. clever and sometimes daring decisions to be made.
Properties I somehow have problems to recognize by the "leading" politicians of both empires.
 
Though IMO to "hold" them in both cases there would be rather intellignet. clever and sometimes daring decisions to be made.
Properties I somehow have problems to recognize by the "leading" politicians of both empires.

Laughing out loud I nod my head. To get these things I try to find a way for the bright bulbs to stumble backwards upon it and get dragged into them by other events. The great minds and leaders of this era are rather good at picking the bad out of any bunch of good. To echo Churchill, they only do the right thing after they try everything else?
 
The lack of World Wars would also stifle the Civil Rights movement in the U.S, delaying it by decades.
A considerable influence to the movement was the experiences of black military personnel in Europe, particularly in the UK.
The experiences of being treated like actual human beings, and even being defended by the white population, went a long way to driving forward the call for equality in the 50s and 60s
 
You're truly ... vitalizing. :biggrin:

Sure, strikes are a normal part of how employee/employer relations are handeled. ... Today, after World War 1 ended with all its changes of workers right especially in Germany (how far "workers rights" were ralized in the SU during and after the civil war ... ... ...).
Prior to World War 1 strikes were often if not to say common, but always on the brink of criminality, sometimes even rendered criminal and let to hard fights between employees, employers and police.

They were far from "normal" as an allowed, somehow regulated mean to settle work-life disputes.

Well, Stolypins reforms were soo successfull. that he was actually assasinated in 1911 ...

From 1919 - 1913 : 13.000 farmers upheaveals all over the country
From 1907 - 1909 : more than 26.000 political trials with 5.086 death sentences
April 1912 : strikes on the Lena-goldfields lasted 8 months => 170 workers killed, 196 "vanished", 18.000 workers and their families "moved"
1910 : strikes all over the country : 222
1912 : strikes all over the country 466
1913 : strikes all over the country 1.971 (from january to september)

(main and first source : https://marx200.org/blog/die-sturmflut-den-jahren-1911-bis-1913-russland )

Yep, really a "pacified", well prospering and developing country.:winkytongue:



True, neither dissolution is a given.

Though IMO to "hold" them in both cases there would be rather intellignet. clever and sometimes daring decisions to be made.
Properties I somehow have problems to recognize by the "leading" politicians of both empires.

Other than demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of Russian history, I see nothing in your post

Strikes are not a harbinger of revolution especially short run affairs about working conditions

It' actually a sign that the labor market was tightening due to prosperity

And, no, strikes were not illegal in 1914 Russia. They indicate nothing on that front

The simple truth is that Russia was calm, the revolutionary movement isolated and broken which is why almost all of them were living in exile

Sorry to dispel another of your germanowanks but facts are facts
 
Yes, I've seen a figure of 80 million less Russians today than without the wars.
OTOH Ukrainians and Central Asians are also more numerous without 1920s and 1930s famines. And there are still millions of Poles and Finns within borders of Russia. Balts would note be decimated by stalinist deportations, German immigration to Russian Empire also would likely continue and Jews would avoid Holocaust, although would still suffer discrimination, so emigration of Russian Jews also would continue, but their population would note fell so dramaticaly, still numbering several millions. Although with faster modernization Russian population would face demographic transition earlier, there still would be much more people there without 20th Century bloodbaths.
 
Assuming the Ottomans can hold on to their territory in the Persian Gulf, they'll be getting a manna from heaven once oil is discovered in 1934. And now that they've got the money, they'll be out for revenge
Maybe a greater Ottoman state would also bring more stability to the middle east? Something that would allow for more development of the area, giving the residents higher living standards?

Also intresting is how it would affect the zionist project.
 
By 1910s, "United States of Austria" project was dead, and Franz Ferdinand abandoned it for simple centralization of Dual Monarchy, which in practice meant revoking some autonomy from Hungary.
 
All industrialising countries suffered from strikes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Even Britain and the USA had numbers of large strikes but these were primarily to do with pay and conditions. The emergence of a political movement representing working people in Britain, the Labour Party, was accelerated by WW1 and the catastrophic failure of the Liberals but would have happened anyway.

It's highly possible by 1930 (without a WW1) you'd see Labour or Social Democratic parties challenging for or in Government across much of Europe. They wouldn't be Marxist though they would contain some Marxists but would be more akin to politicised Union movements pushing hard on welfare, pay and conditions.

Beyond that, as industrialisation moves into post-industrial societies from say 1950 onward (earlier in the UK and perhaps Germany) you'd see these parties coming under pressure from the emerging middle class whose politics would be very different. It COULD have rescued or revived Liberalism across Europe unless the Social Democrats could re-invent themselves away from their working class roots.

Broadly speaking, you'd have the Conservative Parties of the wealthy, landowners and many business owners. Then there would be the Liberal parties of the managerial classes and higher wage earners and the Labour/Social Democrat parties of working people and these three blocks would compete for political control.
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Really? What happened?

Franz Ferdinand was never even a big proponent of the possibility; it was merely a few of his academic advisors who happened to strongly prefer the idea. Franz Ferdinand himself had expressed numerous times a preference for a stronger centralized government.
 
I guess that some alternative version of the OTL 1968 protests and a counterculture could develop between the 1950ies, 60ies and 70ies. A intellectual and student movement which would probably oppose authoritarianism, colonialism and support the liberalization of the european societies and an alternate version of feminism.

Most of the conflicts which lead to this movement in OTL are still in ATL. I assume that this will lead to similar protests as in OTL.
 
Top