Russia a Constittuional Monarchy- consequences internationally

WI Alexander II had lived and by 1900 Russia allowed free speech and a mass electorate

1) What would happen amongst the other Nationaliies, notably Poles and Finns but also the Baltic areas and Ukrain?

2) Might Russia be MORE drawn to pan Slavism, and more likely to go to War with Central Powers, especially Austria?

3) Would the RUSSO Japanese war be butterflied?
 
1. Finland and Poland might gain bigger autonomy. Perhaps Armenia and Georgia too. But other minorities are still bit unsure.

2. This depends very much how situation developes on other countries and inside of Russia. But Alexander II was quiet pro-Germany so there might be even different alliance system.

3. Probably not. There was some disputes about ownership of Sakhalin and Kuril Islands.
 
If Alexander II avoids assassination and writes some form of basic constitution. Then Alexander III follows in his Fathers foot steps by being a more Liberal ruler and as a butterfly of a longer Alexander II rule results in Alexander III surviving longer with his stable effects then maybe just maybe a coherent Duma can be formed that can guide Nicholas II in a responsible manner and stop the fall of the Tsarist Empire.
 
The notion that Alexander II was on the verge of granting a constitution is questionable. What Alexander II proposed (on Count Loris-Melikov's recommendation) was a *consultative* not legislative body--a commission partly elected by the zemtsvos which would make recommendations to the Council of State. This was not really comparable either to the Imperial German Reichstag or even the post-1905 Duma (let alone to a genuinely democratic parliament). I don't doubt that bringing elected representatives into even a purely advisory body would be a step forward, but I think the significance of it can be exaggerated. What Alexander II had agreed to was not really a constitution in the sense of anything limiting his own authority.
 
With regards to 2): the cultural history of Russia is pretty tangled and I don't think that Pan-Slavism is necessarily going to happen with democratization - Pan-Slavism does require a sense of 'belonging to a greater nation/race' which simply doesn't develop if you were an illiterate serf.

Even the idea of 'Russian-ness' amongst the peasantry was somewhat shaky up until Soviet times; an early mass democracy would have probably reinforced local tendencies.

In a cultural sense, mass democracy in 1900s Russia would pose a terrible dilemma for Pan-Slavism. The ideology based itself around the assumption that the Slavs had a better 'national character' for national/democratic development than the individualistic West - a deep spiritualism, concern for the greater whole, etc. I could imagine the Russian intelligentsia eagerly waiting for the serfs to elect noble, disciplined politicians to the Duma... only to have them return village elders, corrupt politicians and suchlike to St. Petersburg. It probably would have been a seminal point for Russian culture, the sort of realization that the serfs weren't actually as European as the intelligentsia assumed them to be. OTL this sort of stuff was probably behind works like the Rite of Spring.

However, I agree that Pan-Slavism would be a stronger factor were it a limited democracy - say, limited by income so only the middle classes and the rich could vote.
 
If Alexander II avoids assassination and writes some form of basic constitution. Then Alexander III follows in his Fathers foot steps by being a more Liberal ruler and as a butterfly of a longer Alexander II rule results in Alexander III surviving longer with his stable effects then maybe just maybe a coherent Duma can be formed that can guide Nicholas II in a responsible manner and stop the fall of the Tsarist Empire.

Problem with this is that Alexander III was a reactionary. He was the spare heir and as such didn't have as much focus on his education. Nicholas suriving might help with the development of a less absolute tsarism.
 
A democratic Russia might lead to minorities agitating for independence, though. Even the most liberal countries of the era (like the US and Britain) brutally suppressed their respective "minorities" (or, in Britain's case, their entire empire).

Granting some kind of mass suffrage (similar to the Prussian rule, with all men over the age of 25) might be the first step towards revolutions in Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States.
 
A democratic Russia might lead to minorities agitating for independence, though. Even the most liberal countries of the era (like the US and Britain) brutally suppressed their respective "minorities" (or, in Britain's case, their entire empire).

Granting some kind of mass suffrage (similar to the Prussian rule, with all men over the age of 25) might be the first step towards revolutions in Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States.
Russia had a two way policy on minority rights, with (metaphorically) slapping the shit out of Poland and the Baltics for rebellion, while giving some concessions to Finland since Finland generally remained loyal. So force was rewarded with force and loyalty was rewarded with favor. About the norm for that time period. Likely to create trouble for everyone involved since the minorities will be more rebellious while Russia would crackdown harder.

Now if Russia wanted to be really dickish though, they could claim that while Poland was in personal union with the Emperor of Russia, the Kingdom of Poland is a separate kingdom from the Russian Empire. Therefore the democratic and suffrage reforms only apply to the Russian Empire, and maybe the Baltic governates (part of Russia but semi autonomous) and Finland the loyal subordinate but not to any people Poles. Because Congressional Poland was theoretically a separate state from Russia after all and therefore not subject to these new fangled democratic reforms. :p
 
Problem with this is that Alexander III was a reactionary. He was the spare heir and as such didn't have as much focus on his education. Nicholas suriving might help with the development of a less absolute tsarism.

Ah but Alexander III did this due to the death of his father at the hands of the Peoples Will. If his father isn't killed and the Peoples Will doesn't become so well known then Alexander III may not launch his restrictions all that was done to damage the Peoples Will to rise against him.
 
Granting some kind of mass suffrage (similar to the Prussian rule, with all men over the age of 25) might be the first step towards revolutions in Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States.

The Grand Duchy of Finland had its first parliamentary elections with universal suffrage of men and women over 24 in 1907, and that in itself did not increase Finnish secessionism. The official policies of Russification and reducing Finland's traditional rights as an autonomous unit under the Emperor, on the other hand, caused the Finns to rise against St. Petersburg's rule in great numbers.

It is highly possible Finland could be kept a loyal part of the Empire by continually allowing it a fair degree of internal economic and cultural autonomy - the Grand Duchy in the late 19th century saw constant economic growth and improving conditions in many things and was by no means a dissatisfied society. Unfortunately that was a view the Russian elites in general did not understand, but saw any "extraordinary" rights the Finns had as promoting discord and future secessionism within the Empire - when in fact it would be the act of taking those rights away that would make the Finns more desirous of independence and freedom from Russian oppression, the very policies of Russification serving as a potent example why independence would be necessary.
 
Ah but Alexander III did this due to the death of his father at the hands of the Peoples Will. If his father isn't killed and the Peoples Will doesn't become so well known then Alexander III may not launch his restrictions all that was done to damage the Peoples Will to rise against him.

Not really, Alexander III was raised to be a military man (which in Russia was a reactionary institution), and when he became heir he was taught by a noted reactionary professor Konstantin Pobedonostsev who believed in the absolute power of the Tsar and promoted a zeal attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. Alexander III also had a fallout with his father as he disagreed his father's "liberal" policies. So I think Alexander would still be the harsh reactionary with the assasination or not.
 
The notion that Alexander II was on the verge of granting a constitution is questionable. What Alexander II proposed (on Count Loris-Melikov's recommendation) was a *consultative* not legislative body--a commission partly elected by the zemtsvos which would make recommendations to the Council of State. This was not really comparable either to the Imperial German Reichstag or even the post-1905 Duma (let alone to a genuinely democratic parliament). I don't doubt that bringing elected representatives into even a purely advisory body would be a step forward, but I think the significance of it can be exaggerated. What Alexander II had agreed to was not really a constitution in the sense of anything limiting his own authority.

It could evolve into a true parliamentary body, however, especially since it's created nearly 25 years before OTL's Duma. With a longer lived Alexander II (possibly outliving his son Alexander III), Russia could gradually move toward constitutional monarchy. 35 years is a fairly long time. In the meantime, Nicholas II can learn from dear old grand dad to delegate responsabilities rather than micro manage everything, which was just impossible.
 
Not really, Alexander III was raised to be a military man (which in Russia was a reactionary institution).
Yeah, things really kind of started going downhill in Russia once the army stopped practicing 20 year conscription. It left too many reformers and liberals around with nothing to do with their time besides agitate and assassinate.
Ah but Alexander III did this due to the death of his father at the hands of the Peoples Will. If his father isn't killed and the Peoples Will doesn't become so well known then Alexander III may not launch his restrictions all that was done to damage the Peoples Will to rise against him.
Nihilists ruining things for everyone again. >.<
 
Top