For a start: 200 pages! I was awed at 100... twice that is something else! I'd like to thank all of my readers, whether you've been with me since August or just joined, for helping get
Place In the Sun this far. You inspire me to write every single day, and I look forward to inaugurating a new thread with you one day...
states don't have to be divided by ethnicity. There's absolutely no reason there can't be multiple russian-ethnicity states running around, in more manageable chunks.
Have you considered having the result of the Civil War being a divided Russia? Maybe a Russian Republic (or USSR) in Europe and a rump Russian Empire in Siberia, backed up by the aforementioned Japanese and maybe Germans?
This reminds me greatly of the discussion several dozen pages back on the merits (or lack thereof) of Balkanising France. If you ask me, such a thing would only be possible with Great Power backing. For example, the two Germanies remained divided in OTL... because it was what the USA and USSR both agreed upon. Once the USSR weakened, the German people immediately wanted to reunify. Same with the Vietnams and (hopefully without WWIII) the Koreas, one day. My point is that forcibly maintaining a divided Russia would require an extreme German military presence to overcome the natural desire of Russians for unity... which I doubt many in Berlin would want to do.
As I've said, the most I can see happening here is a small Japanese-backed Siberian state, which places tremendous emphasis on being
Siberian, not Russian.
In the age of nationalism? willing tear apart their own nation fookin doubt. that would require asb's to get involved. the only way it happens is if another country was to force it and i don't believe that there is a strong enough hegemony that would be wiling, capable and able to justify it. the fact is russia isn't going anywhere.
^^^
I mean if Kornilov goes strongman Russia will be fine, but no the monarchists in Russia kept the people as serfs and sure they abolished it but that is unforgiveable and they should have been shot long before Nicholas II.
So lets go Kornilov, authoritarian democracyyyy.
Also whats Sternberg up to?
As of right now, Kornilov is cooperating with the Republicans and is commander of the defences of Petrograd. He's not in the cabinet, but has a fair bit of quiet power thanks to controlling the troops around the capital. As to 'authoritarian democracy', we'll have to see what happens postwar... Kornilov might get shot for treason by the Tsarists, after all.
Sternberg? The answer will probably be a bit of a dissapointment but I think it's realistic:
Baron Roman von Ungarn-Sternberg was a fierce opponent of Tsar Michael II's liberal reforms. Totally devoted to Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality, he gave his vocal support to the 15 April 1918 attack on the Duma which killed Michael, though he didn't actively participate. This was a serious blunder, as it put him in the new regime's black books. Von Ungarn-Sternberg was one of those arrested in the wake of the attack, though he wasn't executed. Once the Russian Civil War broke out, the inmates in Von Ungarn-Sternberg's prison camp revolted and killed the guards. He refused to have anything to do with his fellow inmates, believing them traitors (even though they'd just freed him). Travelling to Vladivostok, he presented himself to the Tsarist governor in August, and recieved command of a cavalry company (though his title, 'Baron', was not formally restored). As of right now, he's a minor, unimportant, not particularly popular, cavalry officer in the Tsarist army.
It really wouldn’t not now and certainly not a century ago or even further back.
If human history has taught us anything it’s that the weak suffer what they must and the strong do what they will.
the primary reason for nationalism was to unite under a common ‘nationality’ with similar culture, language, history, etc. The secondary reason was in order to protect themselves by being part of a greater whole.
The only benefit a divided would bring would be to those who would seek to exploit the weakness of these many new states in much the same way that outside powers elected to divvy up the near East so that it could easily deal with many (generally poor or incapable of resisting them) states instead one big one that could potentially become a superpower or have the strength to defend itself from foreign interests.
The idea that dividing one nationality across multiple states would be beneficial to them is simply naïve.
There are many examples of why this idea is just plain wrong but most especially for Russia who had nearly been annihilated by a foreign power which invaded its wealthy but divided principalities and ruled over them for 300 years. That sort of thing being beneficial is not only mistaken it’s just never going to fly with the most important group of all: the Russian people who would naturally want to live in a state which could protect their entire nationality instead being a part of a minor provincial state that couldn't hope to protect themselves without being backed by foreign powers which would then use that as leverage against them.
"The weak suffer what they must and the strong do what they will". That's how it goes, alright.
You are spot on about how the only ones to benefit from a divided Russia would be foreigners (by which I of course mean the Central Powers and to a lesser extent Japan). It would have adverse economic effects, be a constant source of strife between fellow Russians, and something of a humiliation. With a country the size of Russia, it would also be just about impossible to maintain against the will of the inhabitants.
An excellent analysis.