Russian Political Evolution without WW1

Assuming through of combination of butterflies ww1 could be avoided up to the modern day, what would be the likely long term general political evolution of the Russian Empire? PoD being 1914 and no carte blanche to Austria from Germany, and a more moderate ultimatum which serbia accepts.

Would the house of Romanov be able to make needed reforms?

If not what replaces it, or is it able to cling on while Russia becomes ever more of a basket case.

Assuming either the romanovs are able to reform or some regime who has the will to reform comes to power:

What would Russian federalism likely look like if it comes into being at all?

How would Russification develop?

How will Russian industrialization and agriculture look without ww1 and Stalin?

Without the communists how will education and health develop?
 
Well, I try to make a start.

Assuming through of combination of butterflies ww1 could be avoided up to the modern day, what would be the likely long term general political evolution of the Russian Empire?

Now that is quite a stretch, but it is your timeline. We are in a world of butterflies here, so actually, the contrary of what I say might just as well be plausible.

Would the house of Romanov be able to make needed reforms?

That depends very much on their surroundings, at least to my impression. The last Tsar wasn't the strongest ruler, so it depends on circumstances.

Over the course of the 20th century, we might probably see gradual reforms, but still with a rather high political influence of the Court.

If not what replaces it, or is it able to cling on while Russia becomes ever more of a basket case.


Why do you see Russia becoming a basket case? IMHO, that happend from 1917 onwards. Russia was not as modernizing as Germany or Austria-Hungary, but conditions WITHOUT the war didn't grow worse.

Without war, I do not see a successful red revolution. It would lack the needed prerequisites in such a huge empire. Even in OTL, it didn't happen without a civil war - and such a civil war has better odds for the "whites" if no world war just had happened.

A re-lapse into outright authoritarianism would be thinkable at some point of time, maybe during an economic crisis. Think Yugoslavia 1929 or the Italian Monarchy 1922.

How would Russification develop?

Quite well with a few notable exeptions.

I do expect Poland to become independant at some point of time - and peacefully. An uprising will only be counter-productive. So if there are reforms, someone will at one point be cunning enough to say "if we let them go, they will forever be our safe allies and infinitely pester the Germans and Austrians to let their Polish lands go as well".
Finland had, IIRC, already gained a great deal of autonomy prior to WW1. They will also become an independant nation with very close ties to Russia.

Apart from that, I see little perspective for parts of the empire breaking away.

How will Russian industrialization and agriculture look without ww1 and Stalin?

Russia will probably industrialize just as well as in OTL, even better. It would have been the "emerging market" of the first half of the 20th century. Russia has attracted loads of investments from France prior to 1914, not just because it was politically sound, but because Russia was worth it.

Russia's agriculture would probably develop not as fast and remain backwards for quite some time without central planning.

Two things I would like to add:

- though Russia would still be a country with a larger gap between rich and poor than in Central and Western Europe, there will be a larger and more established middle class in this timeline.
- and, along with that, I expect a very very lively cultural and intellectual scene
 
The whole reason why German military was so keen to fight a war against Russia in 1914 was because Russia was rapidly industrializing. The set of reforms put into effect after 1905 was partly reversed but not enough to stop the social and economic changes. It was not any more in Tzar's power to reverse or even stop the societal changes, but he was not really understanding what happened in the Russian society in the time.

IIRC there was an economic (mainly banking) crisis in 1913 - more strongly felt in Russia than in the West, and it was also thought that a small neat victorious war might help overcome it. Without the war, Russias economic development might have been retarded by a year or two, not more - it was not a structural crisis. So without a war parts of Russia would have been industrializing at a pace similar to that of the Soviet Union in 1920s and 30s - only without forced labor (after all much more capital would have been available, such as local and Western investments, so it is easier to hire workers).

Nevertheless, the days of Romanovs were counted with or without the war. The population have not forgotten 1905 and the broken promises afterwards. The Tzar would sooner or later find himself in a similar confrontation which he will loose again - and this time, if he can retain even a ceremonial role in a constitutional monarchy he can consider himself very lucky.

Russification would probably continue by economic means, with non-Russian minorities from poor areas moving towards greater economic opportunities, and Russians moving into richer, non-Russian majority areas for the same reason. This again will heat up ethnic tensions.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I could see Finland and Poland become semi-independent states in personal union with Russia, while the Baltics and the Caucasus becomes heavily Russified.
 
I could see Finland and Poland become semi-independent states in personal union with Russia, while the Baltics and the Caucasus becomes heavily Russified.

Northern Caucasus yes, southern Caucasus... probably no. There are not enough economic incentives for many people to move there, except possibly tourism. It will remain a net emigration area.
Caspian coast and northern slope of Caucasus are more probably to be russified due to oil and the resulting influx of workers; OTOH this would pour oil into the fire of already existing ethnic conflicts, and lead to heavy-handed intervention of the central government to protect oil assets.

The Baltics... I don't know. Depends on the amount of investment there, I guess.
I wonder what happens in the Pale of Settlement.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Well the Baltics were strategically important for Russia, and had a relatively good infrastructure, and could very well become quickly industrialized if there was a political will for it. Russification was already ongoing (but proceeding slowly, and meeting resistance), so I think we'd end up with Russian speaking Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the end.
 
Well the Baltics were strategically important for Russia, and had a relatively good infrastructure, and could very well become quickly industrialized if there was a political will for it. Russification was already ongoing (but proceeding slowly, and meeting resistance), so I think we'd end up with Russian speaking Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the end.

Estonia would probably rather end up associated with Finland, as a sub-province of an autonomous province within the empire. I am not sure how strong Latvian and Lithuanian national identities were - in particular Lithuania was a far more multiethnic place than it is now. If the Russian government pursues a prudent course it will probably rather push for a greater economic integration of the Baltic countries rather than a cultural integration - if they cannot afford to cut loose their main customers or suppliers, they will stay in the empire.
 
Well, I don't think you can answer the question without asking what happens instead but that requires a timeline.

As it stands, Russia is doing OK in 1914, industrialising, expanding its railway network, building up a strong navy with even more to come.

1905 were unique circumstances and one should no more assume that a repeat was inevitable than assume that Austria-Hungary was fated to see a repeat of the events of 1848 at some time.

It is true that the reforms have been reined in, but since Russian experience of democracy so far is one of revolution and confusion, the Russian people in general aren't that bothered about democracy first.

We can't ignore the fact that pre-WW1 is the age of anarchist assassins and its not beyond the bounds of possibility that somebody wipes out Nikolai II at some time. If they do, it won't signal any massive upheaval but would hardly make Alexei (or Michael or Kyril, whoever becomes tsar) think more enlightened thoughts.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Would the house of Romanov be able to make needed reforms?

Nicky certainly wouldn't. With a convenient assasination, I can see Grand Duke Michael establishing a proper bourgoise democracy in Russia with the Octobrists and Kadets. However long that lasted, it would last longer than the contradictory "system" of 1914.

I think that with quite a lot of luck on the part of the Romanovs, Russia could reform itself into some sort of constitutional monarchy eventually. But not all the people who could gain control of the state would necessarily abolish the now-powerless monarchy, which brings me to...

If not what replaces it, or is it able to cling on while Russia becomes ever more of a basket case.

I can see:

- *Fascism put in place by Black Hundredists and ambitious army officers with the connivance of the church, with Yellow Shirts, Okhrana, socialists off to Siberia, Jew-baiting, militarism, national chauvinism, you know the drill. That might happen in a quiet putsch if a constitutional or democratic regime was inclining too far to the left; or a sufficiently ruthless Tsar might impose it from the top, although personally I think the stuffed-shirt Nicholas II and his potential heirs are too late for that. You need someone with mojo. EdT uses Grand Duke Sergei in his spiffing TL.

- Revolution. Another *1905 isn't inevitable (nothing is), but it's neither imposssible nor doomed. Gaps between haves and have-nots in late imperial Russia were gigantic. Have Nicholas' regime continye, with all its incompetence and schizophrenia, and the middle classes that the October Manifesto bought off may turn against the government. Once the army are sufficiently fed up with the government as well, all it takes is a nudge.

This is unlikely to result in social-revolutionary Russia (to say nothing of Bolshevist Russia) without a war to create the necessary number of "peasants in uniform" and requisit social breakdown. I see something more like the Provisional Government, only less, you know, fucked.

- Succesful reform. Basically, this means that a competent tsar comes along and gets Russia using reform to broadly the place it would have been in the previous scenario: a parliament which isn't completely useless, some sort of executive responsibility, and power in the state broadly belonging to the middle classes.

What would Russian federalism likely look like if it comes into being at all?

*Fascists, of course, aren't going to divide Holy Mother Russia. For the others, I see it more as a gaggle of autonomies (like those briefly enjoyed by Latvia and Estonia) for the peripheral peoples. Turkestan was acknowledged as a colony (it didn't vote for the later Dumas), but the Baltic and Caucasian governorates could get autonomy. Whereas a republic - even a reformed monarchy - might be willing to tolerate Ukrainian language and culture, I don't see a territorial autonomy for Ukraine, which is what really turns "empire with amny autonomous bits" to "federal empire".

So, broadly, where the necessary middle-class exists to set up a regime along the same lines as the central one, autonomy: that's Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Armenia. Azerbaijan, Besserabia, and Lithuania are much less certain.

Finland was already a state-within-a-state, and that's where I see Poland going in any remotely federal scenario.

How would Russification develop?

Ukrainian will end up like Scots: in one register or another, more mixed with standard Russian or less, it's the spoken language of Ukraine, and written fairly often to make a point; but all the commercial life and administration, most of the intellectual life, and the existence of the upper and middle classes takes place in Russian.

Ukraine doesn't have any ancient kingdoms, kirks, seperate legal traditions, etcetera, so this pretty much does in Ukrainian nationalism as opposed to Ukrainian folklore enthusiasm. As Ukraine, so Belarus, but more.

Russian will be a widely spoken language among the educated in the Caucasus, with big Russian administrative communities in some cities, but won't budge the peasant language an inch. Baku was a melting pot already, so no change there. The people of the north Caucasus, though, may shrink to insignificance.

I don't see the Baltic people settled on an enormous scale. Soviet migration after the war had to do with the ports, a labour shortage, and the necessity of rebuilding. Russia now has more people, no devestation, and a mostly southern-orientated trade network.

There were quite big Russian communities in Riga and Tallinn in 1914, and as in every major imperial city I see them staying, but I don't think the native language will be displaced in the countryside - even if, weith urbanisation, the Russian-speakers become an appreciable portion of the population.

Actually, for physical Russian/Slavic settlement threatening the native population, I'd look at the Kazakh steppe...
 
Siberian settlement could go either way too. OTL it was due to Soviet pressure to settle Siberia, but that influence will obviously be gone here. I think it would happen regardless (perhaps slower) due to population. Or the focus could be on developing 'Real' Russia.
 
Siberian settlement could go either way too. OTL it was due to Soviet pressure to settle Siberia, but that influence will obviously be gone here. I think it would happen regardless (perhaps slower) due to population. Or the focus could be on developing 'Real' Russia.

Never heard of Stolypin's reforms?
Late Czarist Russia did not neglect the settlement of Siberia.
In fact, quite the opposite is true.
A RCW-less Russia would certainly result in a more populated Siberia.
 
Siberian settlement could go either way too. OTL it was due to Soviet pressure to settle Siberia, but that influence will obviously be gone here. I think it would happen regardless (perhaps slower) due to population. Or the focus could be on developing 'Real' Russia.

When Russian industry recognizes it needs all the coal, oil, gas, iron, nickel, copper, platinum, uranium and whatever else that is available beyond the Ural, Siberia will end up developed pretty quickly. If you see some of the locations in the world changed by mining-related settlement, most of Siberia is rather benign (if you exclude places like Norilsk or Kolyma)
 
Well I think the real issue isn't so much political reform to appease the middle classes as it is social reform to appease the masses. Somehow I don't see the Romanovs being able to bring themselves to the social reforms.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Well I think the real issue isn't so much political reform to appease the middle classes as it is social reform to appease the masses. Somehow I don't see the Romanovs being able to bring themselves to the social reforms.
Especially the need of land reforms would be tough issue. The Czars tended to favour the aristocracy a lot.
 
How many reforms ( social and political ) do you think Michael would have made assuming Nicky's son dies from his illness and the crown passes to him?
 
Top