I don't know about that. English was on the way up anyway due to the increasing wealth of the US and obviously the power of the British Empire. Especially as Britain will stay the world's financial center without the war, the influence of English would still grow, but not as quickly. French was on the way out, especially due to birthrates, but also the declining influence and power of the nation. OTL only sped up the process, but English and German were poised to replace it as international languages. In finance and diplomacy English would probably come to dominate, while in science and perhaps some literature German were be necessary. French will fade to a literary and regional language, with some people, just as today, learning it because it 'sounds pretty'.And english will not become the diplomatic language, french will most likely stay the international diplomatic language.
How hard or easy it is to hold Siberia is irrelevant to the debate, my point is simply that B/L was foreign intervention which was crippling to the Russian state, I don't think you really refuted that.Well, for one thing, the "Siberian wastes" are sparsely populated and sparsely developed, making them potentially rathr likely to stay Russian. I will not dispute that the Brest Litovsk losses were significant in terms of people and materiel, but even then, if you are to be believed, there was still industry and infrastructure elsewhere in the Empire conducive to its cohesion and survivability, You cannot have this both ways.
So why do you say that the interventions in Central Europe and the Ottoman Empire were so much more decisive to prevent the reformation of the empires?Due to the vast expanse of the country and actual level of commitment to the war (minimal, really) it is clear why I say those interventions were symbolic. I forgot that there weren't Entente forces attacking Turkey from all sides long after the vast majority of its territory and much of its industrial and commercial assets were seized. If the French, Italians, and British had put the effort into defeating the Bolsheviks in Russia that they did to prop up contrived states in the middle of Europe and abortive spheres of influence in Anatolia, there may well have never been a Communist Russia.
Esperato might be stronger, not a real contender but wont suffer from the same amount off oppression as otl.
I am quit unsure about the cultural scene, how likely is it that American pop-culture will be the giant of otl?
Because Russia could not innovate. It couldn't produce its own wealth outside of supplying labor for foreign corporations and had to buy anything requiring high technology outside the nation. That meant that that money left the economy of Russia instead of building it up. The Russian economy profited dramatically from the war because it built up the nation's manufacturing base with high tech equipment that could later be turned to producing goods for internal consumption, which would create jobs and enhance the internal economy, rather than buy those goods abroad and weaken the economy by having that capital leave the internal economy. Had Russia 'won' the war by sticking it out to the bitter end and avoided the civil war, it would have had a much enhanced economy despite the destruction, much like Holland after its war for independence from Spain. Instead the Bolsheviks managed to benefit from having all this modern industry that the Czarist regime never before had access to.
As to the 'massive amounts of foreign investments prewar' that was nearly exclusively the French loans to build up their rail roads/army. If you look at sector growth where these loans were targeted it fell primarily on infrastructure, military industries, and related industries like metallurgy. It did not extend to consumer goods except indirectly, but there were few internal markets to REALLY profit from, so it didn't matter. Yes there was some exporting going on, but it was weak compared to the rest of Europe AH included. With such a massive portion of the nation's population in the lowest economic class and something like a 45% literacy rate, there was just not the internal markets to really spur a consumer economy. The Czarists regime had no interest in spending the nation's wealth on educating the population or building up internal markets outside of defense. It would have meant a population that would eventually challenge the corrupt/autocratic government, so the Czar and his cronies so no percentage in building up the internal economy
The two key assumptions that you are making is that Russia will be stuck in their backward, underdeveloped state forever, i.e Russia will always have to rely on foreign sources for innovations and because it had a large amount of peasants sustenance farming it always will, because it had a Tsarist regime which didn't care about the people it always would. In OTL this was simply not true, and there's no reason to think that continuous economic growth or some sort of revolution can't change those as OTL. The other assumption, which I still find it really weird, is that you seem to think that foreign involvement in the Russian economy is somehow an incredibly bad thing.Except that the peasant class was far larger in Russia than anywhere else, and the peasants were far less educated. No money was spent to produce R&D 'in house', as foreign experts were recruited abroad. The fatal flaw in the Russian system was that the people were largely unable to compete in the world economy, either as labor in factories or as inventors of technology. Instead most were utilized in subsistence farming that added nothing to the overall economy...other than to produce tough soldiers that didn't complain because army food was better than at home.
I feel that you are just stating how colonialism is suppose to work, without taking into account the particular unprofitable conditions of Africa, and of course the fact that colonialism was dying anyway.By producing natural resources that were unavailable in the mother country. The problem is that security and development was paid for by the government in that country, but private enterprise reaped the rewards. That is why everyone states the colonies were unprofitable, because the governments in the colonial country spent far more on infrastructure than they collected in taxes from the goods produced/sold, but the mother country profited from the cheaper resources produced 'in house' rather than buying resources produced in foreign colonies/nations.
That's a pretty common and a pretty ridiculous assertion. Not only did Hitler and Stalin kill off most of the European Esperanto speakers during WWII, but it was also heavily persecuted in the USA by McCarthy. "An Esperantist is like a water melon - green on the outside, red on the inside" ring a bell?Esperanto will still be dead on arrival. It was originally supposed to be everyone's second language but with nationalism across Europe and beyond tied up with the revival and sometimes reinvention of pre-existing languages, no one is going to spare a thought for an "artificial" language apart from the usual collection of cranks, kooks, and wackos.
The only way that Russia could break out of its corruption and inefficient government model is widespread social unrest culminating in violence that replaces the Duma system with something more responsive to the people's needs. As it was even if a non-autocratic Czar came to power the structure of the government was based on cronyism that extended even to the Duma. The Czar lacked the power to really even affect change to the kinds of people cleared for elections. The nobility and moneyed interests needed to be appeased otherwise a reformist Czar would see his reign cut short.The two key assumptions that you are making is that Russia will be stuck in their backward, underdeveloped state forever, i.e Russia will always have to rely on foreign sources for innovations and because it had a large amount of peasants sustenance farming it always will, because it had a Tsarist regime which didn't care about the people it always would. In OTL this was simply not true, and there's no reason to think that continuous economic growth or some sort of revolution can't change those as OTL. The other assumption, which I still find it really weird, is that you seem to think that foreign involvement in the Russian economy is somehow an incredibly bad thing.
That revenue spent on the war was mostly lost to graft and largely came as the result of foreign loans, not so much internal financing. Much of the interwar industrialization was only possible thanks to the machinery purchased and delivered during the war. Without it Stalin wouldn't have had as large a base, nor as experienced a industrial class to operate them. Eventually the Russians would accumulate the money and machines to get to the same point, but not nearly as quickly. If anything they'd only reach the 1930's level of industrialization by the 1950s without any wars or civil disturbances, which is presupposing a lot. Most of the people lost in the war period were peasants, which, I really hate to say, were not irreplaceable. The fleeing of the Whites and more experienced and wealthy labor was a worse blow than the deaths in many ways.I think considering that the Russian Civil War killed 15 million and completely devastated the country's economy far outweighs any benefits that "high tech equipment" acquired during the war gave OTL. Hell, I'm pretty sure the revenue lost from WWI and the Civil War would be enough to acquire those equipment several times over. Yet the USSR was easily one of the three strongest powers in the world even without WWII.
It was only a top tier power because it spent all its money on its military. Ultimately it fell apart as a nation because it had no consumer economy. A closed system cannot really grow without trade. ITTL Russia it may be a great military power, but its economy won't be on the same level as its likely opponents, who will be developing technologically and be able to produce armored fighting vehicles and aircraft that would outclass anything produced in Czarist Russia. As goods require more training and expertise to manufacture the nation will have to purchase it from outside or try and attract foreign talent by paying them obscene amounts, which would only further highlight tensions in the country (OTL the Russian workers were pissed by the number of Germans coming in and claiming the best jobs and pay while they were treated as animals by their foremen and gendarme).Also, Stalinist USSR was a top-tier great power without ever having to devote a great deal of the economy to consumer goods.I feel that you are just stating how colonialism is suppose to work, without taking into account the particular unprofitable conditions of Africa, and of course the fact that colonialism was dying anyway.
Reading selectively does that, and given that the Germans were unable to sustain their presence due to a loss in the West makes their intervention in Russia a moot point.How hard or easy it is to hold Siberia is irrelevant to the debate, my point is simply that B/L was foreign intervention which was crippling to the Russian state, I don't think you really refuted that.
So why do you say that the interventions in Central Europe and the Ottoman Empire were so much more decisive to prevent the reformation of the empires?
I would like to make a vague claim from memory that the A-H growth rate (in %age and absolute terms) was greater than Imperial Russia prior to WW1. In any case, I understand the sustained growth rates of those empires was comparable at around 2% - not exactly 'middle kingdom' material.
For the early 1900's it's not that bad. Remember, as technological change advances, the speed at which economies can be developed increases. The US growing at 4% annually in the 1920's was considered blazing fast, comparable with China today.
Starting from such a low as it did, Imperial Russia was growing like a beast in the very late 19th century/early 20th century. If allowed to keep developing, Russia could have been an industrial super power by the 40's, right in time with OTL.
I agree the Russian growth rate was impressive for the times, but not significantly more so than the USA, Germany and Austria-Hungary. The period prior to WW1 was a golden age for many nations, not just Russia.
Russia was starting from a low base with massive natural resources and had huge pottential for continued growth. However, it also had huge demographic and geographic challenges that could (and did) derail that potential.
Again, when looking at the debt fueled growth of Russia circa 1914, modern day China does not naturally come to mind. Indeed, without WW1, Russia might have been expected to service its increasing levels of debt and by the 1940s could well have been an economic basket case.
For balance, it should be noted other growth nations (incl A-H, Germany & USA) were also significant debtors during the pre-war period.
I don't know about that. English was on the way up anyway due to the increasing wealth of the US and obviously the power of the British Empire. Especially as Britain will stay the world's financial center without the war, the influence of English would still grow, but not as quickly. French was on the way out, especially due to birthrates, but also the declining influence and power of the nation. OTL only sped up the process, but English and German were poised to replace it as international languages. In finance and diplomacy English would probably come to dominate, while in science and perhaps some literature German were be necessary. French will fade to a literary and regional language, with some people, just as today, learning it because it 'sounds pretty'.
Still, we did see several colonies become profitable after WW2, a larger Europe with more people will among push food prices up, and higher demands of consumer goods will press raw-material prices up. Incentives that could help.
And not all of Africa were economic dead ends or in-hospital to Europeans. We might not see Europeans become a majority, but more Rhodesia-Mozambique-Algeria like colonies. And those that in otl did see larger European settlements might turn out more like otl`s South Africa.
What if Gavrilo Princip had not assassinated the Archduke of
Austria-Hungary on 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo?
This isn't exactly AH, since I'm not presenting a story so much as a
set of counterfactual events. I know others have thought of this scenario (or similar), and I'm liking joea64's ATL story so far. But my interest is more broad -- how did this one event shape the world we live in today?
Let's assume for this scenario that Gov. Potiorek did remember to tell the driver (Leopold Loyka or Lojka) to keep going straight on the Appel Quay. Princip doesn't see them, no assassinations take place, no precipitating event for WWI. (As opposed to joea64's scenario, where Potiorek is in the line of fire instead of Archduke FF.)
Of course, the causes of the Great War were very complicated,
including intricate (and sometimes secret) alliances, perceptions of
the loss of the balance of power, and misfortunes of bad timing, etc. For
example, on August 1, the tsar of Russia responded to a telegraph from
the king George V of the UK stating that he "would gladly have accepted your proposals [of keeping peace] had not the German ambassador this
afternoon presented a note to my Government declaring war." At any
rate, the tensions were such that a war of some kind may have been to
some degree inevitable. However, I'm thinking that the immediacy of the
assassination lent itself to over-hasty alliances and declarations,
and the "World" portion of the phrase "World War" might never have
come to fruition without it.
But let us imagine an optimistic scenario: Potiorek tells the driver
to continue on the Appel Quay, avoiding Princip's assassination. The
Black Hand makes no more attempts on the Archduke's life. (The
architect of the attempt, Col. Dragutin "Apis" Dimitrijevic, was
acting somewhat independently of the Black Hand's leadership -- who
realized that the act would lead to war, and tried to recall the
assassins when they found out about the plot.) Given a larger time
frame, the great European powers circumspectly limit the ramifications
of their treaties, and Britain and Russia enter the war later if at
all. The USA's original policy of non-involvement holds, the Lusitania is not
sunk, and the US doesn't enter the war; President Wilson does not
outline his Fourteen Points, and the Treaty of Versailles does not
bankrupt Germany. Therefore, a vengeful nationalism does not grow up
in Germany, no Nazi party exists, and Hitler lives and dies in
relative bohemian obscurity.
However, without World War II, the US sees further incredible
ramifications: without the entrance of Black soldiers in the war, the
seeds are not sown for renewed perceptions of racial equality,
resulting in an absent (or at least severely muted and therefore
mainly ineffectual) Civil Rights movement. Without the "Rosie the
Riveter" phenomenon (women taking domestic jobs previously reserved
for men), the Feminist movement is stillborn, or at least kept in
permanent infancy. And finally, with no US "baby boom" or post-war
economic boom, the commercialism and youth-oriented culture never
arises in America, and never spreads from thence to the corners of the
world. Can anyone truly imagine what a non-materialistic (or at least
much less so) America in the 21st century would look like?
Also, consider these side remifications: If Britain had not entered
the war, a young man named J.R.R. Tolkien would not have had occasion
or opportunity to conceive his new mythology that we came to know as
Middle-Earth in the "Lord of the Rings." If Russia (or Germany) had not entered the war, it is possible that the Tsar may not have been assassinated, or at least not for several more years. And finally, if Germany had not given rise to the Nazi party, Albert Einstein may never have come to America.
All this because Gen. Potiorek simply forgot to tell his driver to
keep going straight.
Any other ramifications I didn't think of? Love to hear your thoughts!
Interersting scenario--another obvious aspect of no WW1 is no Bolshevik revolution in Russia--or at least, an aborted attempt (or numerous attempts throughout the rest of the 20th Century) along the same lines (and with about the same success) as the 1905 uprising. Therefore no Lenin, Stalin et. al., and Tolstoy gets to live out his life safely in Russia (hopefully) without ending up dying in Mexico with a pickaxe in the back of his skull. There's an idea for a marvellous alt-timeline...Tsarist Russia surviving to the present day, constantly having to fight off attempts at violent overthrow while maintaining a ruthlessly tight grip on the peasant hordes.
Actually, come to think of it, that's not too far from the situation that's in place today...