Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Oh, look. A TL where Greece gets the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Imagine my surprise upon seeing this.
The Reign of Alexander II and the Death of the Tsarevich - a TL
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
You are not in a happy mood today, although I suppose lines like "Its rivals had all surpassed it in power, save for the moribund Ottoman Empire which continued to go down the spiral of administrative dysfunction, conservatism, weak military power and restive minorities" would be terribly frustrating to read.
To be honest, I'm not too certain about the interpretation of Alexander in this TL. He seemed to me more like a Disraeli conservative than a radical reformer, and his later attempts at reform relied heavily on his ability to remain an autocrat-- surely any devolution of power would inhibit, not fuel, his ability and will to reform.
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
It amazes me that nobody ever seems to notice that Russia collapsed utterly into anarchy and revolution after just two and a half years of war, but the Ottomans fought continuously from 1911 to 1923 rather successfully against overwhelming odds, without any breakdown of discipline or social structure, despite far greater hardship, with the troops never paid and irregularly fed. That tends to argue against administrative dysfunction, conservatism, weak military power, and restive minorities. But never mind, don't let historical performance get in the way of orientalist stereotypes.
Plus for all the talk of "Ottoman misrule", they did a hell of a lot better with the Middle East than the Europeans did.
I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that there was no breakdown in social structure in the Ottoman Empire during that time- aside from Macedonia, which was more of a mess because of all the conflicting nationalists than anything the Ottomans directly did, Ataturk was acting within the national interests but (by the end, at least) against the Sultan, leading to some political chaos, while the Arab Revolt demonstrates that there had to have been some unrest for the British to tap into to get the whole thing going.
Likewise, you are also downplaying Russia's development. The Russian Empire went into a major spasm of chaos, yes, but it came out of it with only the loss of the Baltics and Poland (and several million people), managed to eventually regain those Baltic provinces it lost earlier and make a puppet out of Warsaw, and retain coherency through the rule of Stalin, a world war which penetrated much deeper into Russia than anything during the Great War, and over forty years of cold war against a coalition of countries on all sides.
On reflection, that last bit doesn't say anything about the structure of Imperial Russia beyond that it had integrated enough of the empire that the Bolsheviks could hold onto most of it.
Last edited:
Abdul Hadi Pasha
Banned
Macedonia was afflicted by terrorism sponsored by the other Balkan states, but it didn't "break down" and had a higher rate of economic development than the rest of the Balkans except Bosnia.
When Ataturk began, Istanbul was under occupation, cutting off the capital from the administration of the provinces, which was quickly assumed by his government, with no change in the personnel and system already in place.
The Arab revolt totally failed to win any support in the Ottoman Arab provinces, the people and troops of which fought to pretty much the bitter end. The British tapped into the political opportunism of the Sherif of Mecca, who accounted for the entirety of the Arab Revolt. Not even Yemen joined in.
Russia didn't undergo a "spasm" of chaos, it collapsed utterly, with the government becoming totally powerless, the troops refusing to fight, peasants revolting and burning manorhouses, and a long and incredibly bloody civil war. It collapsed utterly into total chaos. There was even a roaming anarchist army, for chrissakes!
You make it sound like it went straight from Tsarist absolutism straight into Communist totalitarianism. There was a long period where there was nothing at all. Really, a Czech volunteer corps was in control of the entirety of Siberia, and Hungarian POWs were decisive in Central Asia. I'm not sure there's been such a total collapse since the fall of the Roman Empire.
The Reds were able to recover most of the Tsarist empire because nobody else wanted it or had any will to stop them. Where there was any will, they were easily stopped. You'd think the Baltic States were an easy target, for example. And there's certainly virtually no continuity between the Tsarist state and the Red state that followed, whereas Turkey is exactly the same as the Ottoman Empire except it's a Republic.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Given that the Ottomans proved capable of surviving challenges far beyond the reality of any Tsar at any point in human history......
He treats Alexander II's Russia like a cheap way to get the military powerhouse of the Soviet Union with the Tsar and the Russian Orthodox Church both intact. Can't be done.
Ah....no, not really. It's always possible to find people unscrupulous enough to revolt against popular authority and get them a victory if you back them to the hilt. That's in no small part much of the Cold War from both sides.
And you're missing a number of profound points in that last statement-
First, you miss (as does AHP) that the Provisional government kept the WWI effort limping along for another entire year into 1917. And that the structures of the state didn't start fully distinegrating until 1918. Past that point he's correct that it was a complete and utter disintegration more approximating Somalia than what Russia is usually associated with.
You also miss another few points-that there was a time lapse of 23 years between the start of the Russian Civil War and the true rise of the USSR to political power, and a great deal happened in that 23 year span. You also forget that the rise of the USSR under Stalin happened *after* the USSR survived two near-eclipses of it that were directly the fault of Josef Stalin thinking he could run the war better than the Soviet Army did.
You are also neglecting of course that a major reason the Soviet army performed so poorly against the Nazis in 1941 was the decision by Stalin to execute most of his talented and visionary generals, thereby stifling all initiative or show of independent skill on the part of the Red Army. The Soviet Union in the end *was* superior to the Tsarist system, which only serves to illustrate how utterly implausible his Alexander II-wank is.
Snake Featherston
Banned
That would have been news to both sides in World War II during the first two years of the Axis-Soviet War. Looking on paper the USSR in June 1941 had the largest mechanized forces in the world and had a huge army, some 10 million soldiers that were supposedly on fire for the USSR and for Communism.
As it turned out.....
Vince
Monthly Donor
That would have been news to both sides in World War II during the first two years of the Axis-Soviet War. Looking on paper the USSR in June 1941 had the largest mechanized forces in the world and had a huge army, some 10 million soldiers that were supposedly on fire for the USSR and for Communism.
As it turned out.....
Keep in mind I wrote that post about Russia in 1913 that had been industrializing more heavily for 60 years not OTL 1941.
Last edited:
Don't be surly. I'll be sure to write an Ottomanwank some time in the future since I like the Ottomans too (as well as the Russians and Germans). It's just that in a Russia-wank, the Ottomans are bound to get the shit end of the stick.
Russia-Wank does not equal a Greek Aegis. In DoD the situation was fairly similar and yet Greece only annexed Smyrna.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Keep in mind I wrote that post about Russia in 1913 that had been industrializing more heavily for 60 years not OTL 1941.
And that was a Russia where industrialization was entirely geared to the army without so much as giving two shakes of a rat's ass about what the average citizen of the USSR got. Imperial Russia will have neither the time nor necessarily the ability to devote that to the military at the expense of things like say, housing and clothing. And a liberalizing Imperial Russia will have still less teeth than the autocracy would.
abc123
Banned
Sorry for necromanting, but:
Imperial Russia ( non-industrialised ) was considered as one of the strongest military powers on planet.
If industrialisation continues ( OK, less to the military, but far more for general population ) why wouldn't such status continue?
And you will have a much happyer population and healthier economy.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Sorry for necromanting, but:
Imperial Russia ( non-industrialised ) was considered as one of the strongest military powers on planet.
If industrialisation continues ( OK, less to the military, but far more for general population ) why wouldn't such status continue?
And you will have a much happyer population and healthier economy.
Considered as one until in WWI it lost every single major battle to Germany. Imperial Russia lacks a lot of the coercive power of the Soviet state, meaning it can't for instance collectivize the peasantry to force industrialization and survive as one state intact.