Questions on Imperial Russia

When was the turning point be of Imperial Russia, to be able to industrualized the nation and avoid the communist revolution.
 
The Communist Revolution wasn't inevitable till after it had happened. Even after Petrograd fell, decisive military action could well have "strangled it in the cradle". Instead, the Tsar hesitated...

For all its flaws, Russia in the early 20th century was progressing in the right direction, building up its industry and very slowly becoming more democratic (and was at no point less democratic than the USSR). A decade or two more of peaceful development, or an earlier Great War victory for the Allies, would have made the Revolution ASB-ish. Even as it was, it was very unlikely to happen.
 
The Communist Revolution wasn't inevitable till after it had happened. Even after Petrograd fell, decisive military action could well have "strangled it in the cradle". Instead, the Tsar hesitated...
Eh, no. Don't confuse the Februari Revolution with the October Revolution.
For all the faults of the Provisional Government, Communists to a man they were not.
That said, neither revolution (or, in the case of the October one, coup) wasn't avoidable, altough some kind of revolution (if it succeeds is another matter) is quite likely in a prolonged WWI-style conflict. While the Tsar still holds too much power, at least. Two successful ones, on the other hand, are far less likely. And the USSR in the very first years were about as democratic as late-Imperial Russia, but progressing in the wrong direction...
 
Imperial Russia could survive and industrialize, but what was really needed (and quite lacking) was external stability. Russia could deal with internal revolts when it was at peace, or not in a major war (witness various peasant rebellions, and 1905), but World War I basically destroyed the pillars that Imperial Russia relied on to survive, mainly using the army as a tool of state power when workers/peasants got out of hand. The army disintegrated, even started fighting against the state, and there was not enough residual loyalty for Tsar Nicholas II to fall back on. Plus the man was rather incompetent, which was also a major reason that the revolution succeeded, because any break that may have been caught by a more politically savvy Tsar was passed up due to Nick II's incompetence.

If WWI can be put off until the early 20's, something which is quite doable, Russia will probably have industrialized and modernized enough that it wouldn't suffer a total failure of the state in a war against the Central Powers. Indeed, one of the main reasons cited in Germany backing Austria to the hilt was that German military planners wanted to fight Russia before Russia modernized enough to win. That modernized enough to win point was sometime in the late 10's or early 20's.

I think that German military planners were probably right on that point, which would bring up an interesting issue. The British were not committed anti-Germans, they were committed anti-strongest power in Europe. So if that torch passes (or in the mind of war planners and the public passes) to the Russians (who the British have more conflicts with anyway) that could do some strange things to the alt-WWI. With a stronger Russia Germany would probably be even more involved in internal Austro-Hungarian affairs, trying to fix its ally so that it provides some kind of solid support in a future war against Russia (Franz-Josef's death in 1917 will give Germany the chance to really impose its own vision on AH, and provide the chance for some serious, if unsuccessful, slavic shenanigans), and Germany could change its military strategy. With Russia now a bigger threat, and perhaps with the UK changing its diplomatic outlook, there could be a "diplomatic revolution" sometime in the late 10's early 20's to reflect the growing power of Russia and the threat that presents to both the UK and Germany.
 
Eh, no. Don't confuse the Februari Revolution with the October Revolution.
For all the faults of the Provisional Government, Communists to a man they were not.
That said, neither revolution (or, in the case of the October one, coup) wasn't avoidable, altough some kind of revolution (if it succeeds is another matter) is quite likely in a prolonged WWI-style conflict. While the Tsar still holds too much power, at least. Two successful ones, on the other hand, are far less likely. And the USSR in the very first years were about as democratic as late-Imperial Russia, but progressing in the wrong direction...

Did I confuse you? I meant the Tsar could still have regained power after the February Revolution if he had acted quickly and decisively. The Revolution was generally left-wing rather than fully Communist, and poorly organised. Within a few days, however, his window of opportunity was gone. That was probably the sure end of Russian monarchy. But Communism still wasn't unavoidable till after Lenin's coup.

I don't remember when exactly Soviet Russia became the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, but generally, the Soviet dictatorship and terror started already with Lenin and War Communism back during the Civil War, and was worse than anything the late Tsars ever thought of.
 
Did I confuse you? I meant the Tsar could still have regained power after the February Revolution if he had acted quickly and decisively. The Revolution was generally left-wing rather than fully Communist, and poorly organised. Within a few days, however, his window of opportunity was gone. That was probably the sure end of Russian monarchy. But Communism still wasn't unavoidable till after Lenin's coup.

I don't remember when exactly Soviet Russia became the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, but generally, the Soviet dictatorship and terror started already with Lenin and War Communism back during the Civil War, and was worse than anything the late Tsars ever thought of.
You began with 'the Communist revolution' and then continued with 'the Tsar could have', despite the fact that the Tsar was in no position to give orders during the Communist coup (the October 'revolution').
You misformulated yourself.
But, actually, monarchy might have returned to Russia, if the OctCou is avoided, but the ensuing Russian Republic isn't stable, and enough time have passed since the FebRev.
 
You began with 'the Communist revolution' and then continued with 'the Tsar could have', despite the fact that the Tsar was in no position to give orders during the Communist coup (the October 'revolution').
You misformulated yourself.
But, actually, monarchy might have returned to Russia, if the OctCou is avoided, but the ensuing Russian Republic isn't stable, and enough time have passed since the FebRev.

Ah. I can see I miswrote it a little. Sorry for the trouble.
 
If the establishment had heeded/followed Stolypin instead of fighting him in parliament and watching him get murdered, the empire might have got the reforms necessary to stave off violent revolution and start catching up to the west.
 
Top