Thank you for this response, very much have something new to read about.
Poland's Future in a successful Tsarist Empire
- Thread starter Rothbardian21
- Start date
Especially since it seems this is almost certainly connected to the actual comment I quoted from Grand Duke Nikolai, it seems likely this is what they had in mind. So not independence as a satellite, but a certain level of devolution within the Empire. That seems much less likely to win over Poles for the long-term, but nevertheless informs me as to whether to go along with Russian plans for incorporating Austrian Galicia (not just the Eastern half of Lodomeria surrounding Lemberg).
I wonder for example whether the views of Sturmer or Sazonov would have predominated during the days where Sazonov is still in power, before he gets dismissed. Perhaps the Russian gov itself was not yet sure of a decision, hence the vagueness in their public statement.
Well, there was opposition even in Russian government calling for higher level of autonomy for Poland. Grand Duke Nikolai, Sazonov, Krivoshein to name the few of them. But the emperor didn't favor their plans.
I don't think Poles would raise against Russian Empire after WWI. After all, both previous Polish uprisings failed. Mobilization into Russian army in 1914 was extremely successful in Poland. Russian military authorities feared that there would be massive draft evasion and desertion among ethinc Poles, but this didn't happen: draft was very successful and there was a lot of Polish volunteers who drafted voluntarily into the ranks of Russian army.
I do, but they are in Russian only. There is good article by S.V. Lyubichankovsky about Stürmer's proposal in 'Otechestvennyiye Archivy' ("Исторические Архивы") historical magazine No. 1, 2009. Not only he gives historiography of the question, but also gives full text of Stürmer's memorandum of July 7, 1916 to Nicholas II about the very idea of reform.
Russian imperial government was split into two 'parties': the dualists (supporters of status quo and executive monarchy where the government is responsible before the Czar and the Czar appoints all the ministers while the Duma is only a legislative body) and the parliamentarists (supporters of parliamentary monarchy where the government would be responsible before the Duma and the Duma would appoint Prime Minister who would then choose members of his cabinet from members of Duma). Funny thing is that there've been no reactionaries (supporters of absolute monarchy) in the government at all. Nicholas II selected members of government carefully, trying always to keep balance between two parties. But Prime Ministers almost always were dualists. If you tell me what exact time period you are interested in, I can name you all dualists and parliamentarists in the government. Broad autonomy for Poland would be supported by parliamentarists while dualists would prefer something less ambitious.
I actually just found information on the meeting Sazonov had with the Csar, where he claims to have won over the Csar, here is what he says to Buchanan and Paleologue in a letter: "The Emperor has entirely adopted my views. . . . I won all along the line." And then apparently, he went to vacation in Finland, and was working on drafting an Imperial proclamation on Poland, but then the Tsarina moved against him, and he was ousted shortly after. Crazy turn of events lol. I found this in "Nicholas and Alexandra: The Classic Account of the Fall of the Romanov Dynasty", by Robert K. Massie. I also found that in the occupation of Eastern Galicia, the Russians really reached out to the Polish group there (minorities in the Eastern Galicia, as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you), and that placards and pamphlets of Nikolai's proclamataion were placed everywhere they could.
Of particular interest to me would be the Csar of course, but this is made more difficult due to how impressionable and flip-floppy he was. The context of my studies I should say, is also in exploring a slightly differed alternate timeline where the British place certain conditions on their entry into the war, and one of those conditions being to finalize a "Memorandum of Mutual Understanding for a Peaceful European Future", where the Entente basically hash much of the postwar settlement before Britain agrees to enter the war.
Well, in fact majority of Russian government opposed Sazonov's plans in Polish question. So Nicholas II had to decide whether to support his Prime Minister and most of ministers or to support Sazonov. He chose the majority of his own cabinet. Sazonov was dismissed because of his too strong pro-British and pro-French views and because he was considered too left-wing. It was part of complicated diplomatic combination: Nicholas II removed pro-Entente Sazonov and appointed pro-German Stürmer (well, he was never pro-German, but many people believed he was) in order to create impression that Russian empire was considering possibilities of separate peace talks with Central Powers. The emperor probably wanted to create panic in France and Britain so that they would make concessions to Russia in Ottoman question. This worked actually.
The Czar was of course dualist himself. Nicholas II never supported the idea of returning to pre-1905 state of affairs (without Duma), but he also opposed the idea of parliamentary monarchy, especially in wartime. He must have believed that members of Duma were... well... absolutely and ridiculously incompetent at best. Maybe he would allow gradual transition to responsible cabinet after WWI, but he would still have control over military affairs and foreign politics
All very interesting stuff. It seems like a somewhat different but familiar German constitutional monarchical hybrid was the likely trajectory in the medium term, at least from my reading of the situation (again, if either the war doesn't happen, or Russia wins it). But what about his views toward Poland?? Do we ever get a good reading on that outside of moments where he's being swayed to either side of the fence by this or that character?
Well, Russian monarchy in 1906-1917 was already very close to German model
We don't know. Nicholas II was a very secretive man. He didn't leave us his memoirs and his private diary is absolutely uninformative (he never expresses his views on political matters on its pages). We can presume that being supporter of political status-quo, Nicholas II would oppose high level of Polish autonomy as it didn't correspond his own perception of how Russian empire should look like. Some administrative autonomy - yes, why not. But satellite state - nope, that wouldn't fly. In Finland Russian government tried to gradually decrease level of her independence from central government. Why would same Russian government act in a different way in Poland?
So what do you make of Sazonov's letter to Buchanan and Paleologue , where he seems to be echoing an exchange with the Csar that witnessed his agreement to the idea? Perhaps the Csar being characteristically unable to be disagreeable, and not being as firm in his wavering but soon-to-arrive decision to have him ousted?
"Why would same Russian government act in a different way in Poland?"
Because it's the passageway by which you pry not just Eastern Galicia, but Western (polish-dominated) Galicia away from the Austrians, it's how you secure a long-term and viable relationship with the poles, that sees them still integrated into your economic market, as well as obviously use them as a military lever to enhance your own security vs any future Central Powers revisionism. And additionally - at least in the case of my alternate timeline - because the British may not agree to let Western Galicia be pried away from the Habsburgs, in the event of them not joining a wider Polish nation, which undermines the principles under which many of the territorial transfers would be made (and the Galician Poles probably not being accepting of it), as well as other British considerations.
Last edited:
An exchange of opinions with the Czar did took place, but Sazonov fell into believing he had Nicholas II on his side while the Czar was very skeptical and according to Sazonov they had a rather heated debate. The Czar must have said neither yes nor no. But he was unhappy with Sazonov's drive and decided to remove him.
I tried to translate a quote from general Mosolov who was director of cabinet of the Ministry of Imperial Household and who knew the emperor well. Mosolov described how the Czar used to act with his ministers when they had disagreements: "Nicholas II never took a certain position, decisive enough to break down the resistance of his ministers, make them follow the Czar's wishes and to keep them at their positions. Some minister, having received no firm rebuff from the Czar, suggested that His Majesty did not insist on his original thoughts. Meanwhile the Czar understood that his minister would try to proceed with his endeavors despite Emperor's disagreement. Minister left the Czar fascinated and overwhelmed with joy, believing he convinced his royal master to change his point of view. But the fate of this minister was already decided and soon after his return he would find an imperial rescript about his resignation with a lot of kind words in it".
Such practice doesn't mean though that the Czar didn't have his own opinion or that it was easy to make him change it. On the contrary. The Czar was rather stubborn and if he had some idea it was not easy to make him change his views.
Well, in OTL Russians tried to solve problem of future revisionism of Central Powers by having secret agreement with France about partitioning of Germany. According to this secret agreement reached in February 1917 (just few days before the revolution in Russia) France would establish her eastern border along the Rhein and make Rheinland puppet state. In return France would give Russia cart blanche in defining her new western border. British would of course severely oppose that if they knew.
But you are right, if in your timeline Brits place certain conditions on their entry into the war and they oppose Russian annexation of Western Galicia without decent degree of autonomy for Poles, it may work. But still Russians would not be happy about it and would try to downplay their concessions to Poles somehow.
I’m at work right now so not really able to respond till I finish up, but I wanted to thank you for this convo, it’s really hit the spot lol.
I wonder which of the two would be more plausible, a "Kingdom of Poland" whose king is in personal union with the Tsar along Neo-Slav lines, or say - and now I'm injecting a bit of my own creativity - a "Commonwealth of Poland", that has no separate King, so instead has more formalized language linking the country to the Tsar (with "Commonwealth" perhaps also referring to the 'common' economic area or customs union, in addition to obvious historical attachments to the word).
Separate king is anywhay too much. Maybe a viceroy (namestnik) at best, one of grand dukes. But second variant seems more plausible, though the name would be the same as in 1815 and before Polish constitution was revoked - Tsardom of Poland
I think I got it, lemme know what ya think.....
The Grand Duke will command the Army, having affiliation with the Tsar, and so the constitutional position for the Duke is to maintain defense obligations for coming to one another’s aid in time of war (perhaps limited to Europe, seems a bit much to have Poland obligated to some Manchurian adventure, though they would still help guard the West for Russia ofc), having really no other role in the government other than maybe to appoint a few of the members in an upper house.
I don't think Russia would agree to grant Poland its own army. But they could allow creation of several Polish guard divisions. There would be Polish Seim (parliament) in Warsaw and probably Poland would also send a number of delegates to State Council of the Russian Empire (the upper house of Russian parliament). Poland would have its own local government (administrative council or something with a name like this) and special administrative body in Petrograd for communication with imperial cabinet (the chancellary of minister-secretary of state for Poland whould could also be member of Russian imperial government ex-officio). The Grand Duke (namestnik) would act as intermediary between Poland and the Tsar and as appeals instance.