Yes, but why would Maria survive ITTL just because Alexander II survived? No sense to me.
Yes, but why would Maria survive ITTL just because Alexander II survived? No sense to me.
No, you are missing the point: they have to convert as many peasants as possible into the industrial workers. Russia needed to get heavily industrialized ASAP and the only source of the industrial labor were peasants and Russia had a much greater percentage of them than any other major country, which was its weakness.There's no need for a dictator, just normal colonial policy for "western democracies" at the time would be enough.
That's exactly the point. They have too many peasants in Central Russia, they could relocate some of them into Manchuria.
+1, and converting is not as easy as it seems. You can't "just" move peasants into the factories, nor can you "just" automate the peasants with farm tooling. Both need training & literacy, as well as time. And even if that goes smoothly, you need housing, sanitation, healthcare, public transportation, factories to put them in etc etc. It's a huge undertaking. Adding more territory (even though I love Manchuria to be added, it has even more resources and can be a reason for a balanced Russia between East and West, it's just not worth it. More peasants, of a completely different culture is only valuable to deny them to the Japanese.No, you are missing the point: they have to convert as many peasants as possible into the industrial workers. Russia needed to get heavily industrialized ASAP and the only source of the industrial labor were peasants and Russia had a much greater percentage of them than any other major country, which was its weakness.
+1, and converting is not as easy as it seems. You can't "just" move peasants into the factories, nor can you "just" automate the peasants with farm tooling. Both need training & literacy, as well as time.
And even if that goes smoothly, you need housing, sanitation, healthcare, public transportation, factories to put them in etc etc.
If there is no OTL irresponsible policies regarding the Far East then Japan is not a problem and perhaps even an ally.It's a huge undertaking. Adding more territory (even though I love Manchuria to be added, it has even more resources and can be a reason for a balanced Russia between East and West, it's just not worth it. More peasants, of a completely different culture is only valuable to deny them to the Japanese.
Oh I agree, but many factories wouldn't work without those workers that actually could read and write. From what I've been reading there were never enough of those. I do remember a member here telling that Tzarist Russia made great strides around the 1900-ed already and the role of Communist Russia is exaggerated and they were profiting more from the groundwork laid before, but I don't recall it was you or someone else, nor their sources.Not necessarily the literacy: there were many industrial professions which did not need it, but there must be a reason for the peasants to change their life style dramatically and, short of the OTL communists’ exercises, this was going to be a long and painful process. Plus, of course, there must be enough capital invested into the industry to create a big demand fir the work force.
Interesting, I distinctly remember there was a lack of housing in most European cities, sanitation was low. Did Russia do any better?Most of these issues had been addressed to one degree or another before WWI. Public transportation was not a noticeable problem: the workers usually lived close to the industrial plants.
Still, that's a very big prize to leave in their hands. I rather have it be an Russian protectorate.If there is no OTL irresponsible policies regarding the Far East then Japan is not a problem and perhaps even an ally.
Oh I agree, but many factories wouldn't work without those workers that actually could read and write. From what I've been reading there were never enough of those. I do remember a member here telling that Tzarist Russia made great strides around the 1900-ed already and the role of Communist Russia is exaggerated and they were profiting more from the groundwork laid before, but I don't recall it was you or someone else, nor their sources.
Interesting, I distinctly remember there was a lack of housing in most European cities, sanitation was low. Did Russia do any better?
If the Japanese are not infringing upon the trade along the Eastern China RR, there is no problem. And in OTL after the RJW both sides came to a working arrangement which kept the 3rd party (the US) out of the picture.Still, that's a very big prize to leave in their hands. I rather have it be an Russian protectorate.
And a lot more open land to build more housing, I assume. Between the abundant land and Russia's large oil and natural gas reserves, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's urban planning ITTL goes down a similar direction to the urban sprawl of the Anglosphere (sans the UK, which is a lot more like the rest of Europe in that regard).AFAIK, in Russia the industrial plants tended to be built closer to the outskirts of the cities, which allowed creation of the whole settlements of the individual and multi-appartment houses (there was an old TL about Stolypin with some photos of those). Of course, there were also the barrack-style accommodations but, in general, an industrial worker was getting enough money to rent an apartment or to take a credit for buying a house.
Of course, Russia had much fewer industrial workers than more developed countries so the housing crisis simply was not there.
Look at https://www.charmingrussia.ru/2017/02/blog-post.html even if you can't read the text, there is plenty of a visual material to get an idea about the "plant settlements": the whole suburban areas with the hospitals, schools, kindergartens, etc. Of course, this was not 100% the case but looks as a trend. And the photos of the workers and their families are also telling (you may make a guess, which of them show a factory owner and which the workers ).And a lot more open land to build more housing, I assume. Between the abundant land and Russia's large oil and natural gas reserves, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia's urban planning ITTL goes down a similar direction to the urban sprawl of the Anglosphere (sans the UK, which is a lot more like the rest of Europe in that regard).
This is all a pure theory, In a reality the Russian Empire had huge problems with the native population of the areas which it officially annexed: they were marginally controllable at best with the border not controllable at all and a massive crime both inside and across the border. Taking into an account that a big part of the territory was "uncivilized", establishing an effective control of a border would be a pure fantasy.The problems with annexing Manchuria are overstated. The population was 8 million in 1900 so if Russia moves in and prevents further waves of Han migration then the population is very manageable without genocide or forced expulsion.
People arguing that Siberia can be settled slowly are overlooking the fact that in the US California was settled before the states in the Mid West. Similarly Manchuria would give Russia a good Pacific frontier warm water ports and a highly productive agricultural area and would in turn aid in the development of Siberia.
Yeah, and the Russians are going to learn to use the chopsticks in no time ....That area can grow rice so probably rice which provides higher calories per acre would enter the eastern Russian diet.
Would you like to elaborate on the so called "massive crime" and what "uncivilized" people you are talking about? The tribes of northern Siberia where nearly no Russians lived and government did not exist were uncontrollable, sure but where proper infrastructure existed not at all. Khiva and Bukhara are prime examples of their ability to control. The borders there with Afghanistan and Persia which shared ethnicities across the borders were controlled well and so what miraculous problems would arise in the Manchurian sector so as to make the border control a fantasy. Why would Han migrate there when they know they are unwelcome and would be kicked out. Even with OTL low population the Russians prevented the Han from crossing the Amur why would they fall here.This is all a pure theory, In a reality the Russian Empire had huge problems with the native population of the areas which it officially annexed: they were marginally controllable at best with the border not controllable at all and a massive crime both inside and across the border. Taking into an account that a big part of the territory was "uncivilized", establishing an effective control of a border would be a pure fantasy.
There are several reasons for this analogy to hold true. The conquest of Siberia by Russian pioneers was very similar to the westward expansion of the US but it did not manage to have the population boom of the frontier societies because of the lack of direct state support and the strict control on the use of land like reserved for game hunting and furs. It wasn't until 1880s that the rules were relaxed somewhat(it was feared earlier that a large Siberian population would form an alternate powerbase and become connected with Siberian culture and as a result may come under the influence of Russian enemies) and serfdom abolished which actually allowed for people to migrate there and migration increased(although did not reach a large figure yet) significantly after serfdom was abolished.In case you missed it, the Russian Empire had been quite different from the US in more than one respect so the parallels are simply irrelevant. Anyway, Russian Far East, if you are intent on CA analogy, was not populated either. And warm water ports are plain nonsense: read so-called Durnovo Memorandum on that issue. Russia had plenty of the good agricultural land in the Western Siberia but migration there was quite slow even with the government's sponsorship.
Rice already formed a secondary part of the Russian diet and particularly in the diet of the nobility and with the inclusion of major rice growing regions within the Empire that is going to increase. The people generally follow the nobility and it is quite likely that they would inherit the taste for rice from them. The impact wouldn't be the same across the Empire but more concentrated in the east and slowly spreading to the west. As for chopsticks the settlers in Manchuria are likely to know its use as most of the people around them(the Han/Manchu majority would remain until 1940s or 50s even in face of sustained settlement) would be using them it would be kind of like how Mexican cuisine entered the US diet and more prominently.Yeah, and the Russians are going to learn to use the chopsticks in no time ....
The industry was growing as fast as it could given the limitations of capital, skilled labour and education faced Russia, absorbing a lot of the excess peasantry but there were even more left who could be shifted to Manchuria which had ample farmland available and where they could thrive. The limitations faced by the industry could not be overcome in a short time when the population would continue to rise.The most important part about this and similar fantasies is that they are (in pretty much ASB case of their implementation) pushing Russia in an absolutely wrong path of development, increasing number of peasants (of which Russia already had a much higher percentage than any developed country in the world) instead of building up its industry.
The disaster suffered in the RJW and WW1 were for reasons far more impactful than peasantry. If Russia fought on a and didn't send the second fleet they would have won after the Japanese economy which was on the verge of collapse finally collapses. And there are too many ways by which things could have gone wrong for the central powers.Vulnerability of the peasant-heavy Russian Empire had been convincingly demonstrated during the RJW and WWI: low productivity agriculture plus underdeveloped industry was a recipe for disaster.
Would you like to elaborate on the so called "massive crime" and what "uncivilized" people you are talking about?
The tribes of northern Siberia where nearly no Russians lived and government did not exist were uncontrollable,
. Khiva and Bukhara are prime examples of their ability to control.
The borders there with Afghanistan and Persia which shared ethnicities across the borders were controlled well and so what miraculous problems would arise in the Manchurian sector so as to make the border control a fantasy. Why would Han migrate there when they know they are unwelcome and would be kicked out.
They did not fully and, in case you missed it, the Amur is a rather big river which you need to cross. Southern border of Manchuria is just a line on the map. Do you understand the physical difference?Even with OTL low population the Russians prevented the Han from crossing the Amur why would they fall here.
You clearly did mot get it. Unlike the case with the US, there was never really mass migration to the East even into the good areas reasonsbly close to the European Russia: the cultures were different and your “similarities” are totally ignoring this.There are several reasons for this analogy to hold true. The conquest of Siberia by Russian pioneers was very similar to the westward expansion of the US but it did not manage to have the population boom of the frontier societies because of the lack of direct state support and the strict control on the use of land like reserved for game hunting and furs. It wasn't until 1880s that the rules were relaxed somewhat(it was feared earlier that a large Siberian population would form an alternate powerbase and become connected with Siberian culture and as a result may come under the influence of Russian enemies) and serfdom abolished which actually allowed for people to migrate there and migration increased(although did not reach a large figure yet) significantly after serfdom was abolished.
Mr. Ignirant, I already recommend you to read Durnovo Memorandum to get some idea on the subject.How is warm water port irrelevant Mr. Genius?
Before Port Arthur they did not really have a proper warm water port in the east from which they could base their operations from. And how exactly would trans Baikal Siberia develop without ports? They are the one that bring investment and thus incentivises people to move.
You last line is plainly false. Since 1906 government support for migration began,coupled with the completion of the Trans Siberian Railway, the number of people moving to Siberia increased dramatically.
I am not sure how Durnovo Memorandum is relevant. Please elaborate.
Second part of it was potato.Rice already formed a secondary part of the Russian diet
There was no need for more farmland, all resources had to be channeled to industrialization and I did not say that it would happen overnight or being a nice process.The industry was growing as fast as it could given the limitations of capital, skilled labour and education faced Russia, absorbing a lot of the excess peasantry but there were even more left who could be shifted to Manchuria which had ample farmland available and where they could thrive. The limitations faced by the industry could not be overcome in a short time when the population would continue to rise.
Only alternative is to force industrialisation down the throats of the people like Stalin did during reindustrialisation during his time.
Which “nobles”? By 1914 almost 90% of the agricultural land belonged to the small holders and the only places with the high productivity and modern technology were few big land holdings. Nobility ceased to be the major land owning class by the end of the XIX. The exception was Siberia, the only area where Russia had true farmers: most of the peasants refused to turn into them and remained in the communal model. Did not want to migrate either. Learn Russian history before arguing.The disaster suffered in the RJW and WW1 were for reasons far more impactful than peasantry. If Russia fought on a and didn't send the second fleet they would have won after the Japanese economy which was on the verge of collapse finally collapses. And there are too many ways by which things could have gone wrong for the central powers.
The low productivity agriculture was practised by the nobles
didn’t you hear about the honghuzi?
So a bunch of Bandits is all that is needed to discourage people from going to Manchuria and for Russia to attempt. When did Russians have trouble ruling Outer Manchuria?I’m talking about the parts of Manchuria that Russia got by the treaties with China, not the Northern Siberia.
Yeah sure if something goes against your argument it automatically becomes irrelevant.First of all, not exactly and second absolutely irrelevant to the specifics of the area I’m talking about.
Oh yes a river how do people cross it? For several millennia now people haven't learnt to cross rivers despite how ridiculously easy it is to do so. And people surely don't know how to enforce a line on a map.They did not fully and, in case you missed it, the Amur is a rather big river which you need to cross. Southern border of Manchuria is just a line on the map. Do you understand the physical difference?
To start with, PA was a terrible port and I explained more than once why. Second, there were no meaningful “operations” they could conduct from it or any other port on the Pacific. Third, PA was exclusively naval base, aka, no merchant marine in it and a commercial “warm water port” about existence of which you are seemingly unaware, proved to be a complete commercial failure by the reason well explained by Durnovo.
There were and still are Russian ports on the Far East, none of them is a warm water port and none of them of a serious importance prior to wwi. How would it develop? As it was in OTL: its important connection was to the rest of the empire, not to the Pacific.
Why would someone use a port that has no hinterland? A port attracts people, people create a hinterland which needs a port and that cycle continues. The original Trans Siberian was built through Manchuria rather than through the more treacherous terrain in the left bank.Baby, it increased dramatically comparing to close to zero level but even settlement in the Western Siberia backed up by Stolypin Reform was well behind the anticipated level. Completion of the TransSib prior to the RJW meant completion of the East China RR: there was no RR on the right bank of Amur and ECRR was a commercial enterprise for the trade with China.
Is this the memorandum? If yes it talks nothing of the Russian Far East and only gives a remarkable prediction of the Great War and talks of some shortcomings of the Russian agriculture. Is that all that you are referring to?Please read it and hopefully you’ll understand.
There was no need for more farmland, all resources had to be channeled to industrialization and I did not say that it would happen overnight or being a nice process.
Prioritizing Industrial Growth doesn't mean agriculture should be neglected. Agricultural growth is as important when you have a fast growing population. of the 18% people who decided not to settle in Siberia doesn't mean no one wanted. Although fertile it was difficult to clear land and get actual Siberia and it was easier in the Manchurian Plains and Primorsky Krai so if people are settled there the chances are far higher that they settle down over there.Nope. Industrialization was already happening in a high rate but a lot of available resources had been misspent.
The large estates had comparatively higher yields compared to the small landowners and not high yield as per the global standards of the time which were achieved in Siberia. I still don't understand why in your opinion Russia could not absorb one more region? if Kazakhstan did not go through he 20s and the 30s as we know it then we would have a population similar to the Manchuria if it were a part of the empire from the early 1900s. It wasn't an organized large scale effort to settle Manchuria by the Hans unlike how many places got colonized and aggressively settled and it was well within the ability of the Russians to defend.Which “nobles”? By 1914 almost 90% of the agricultural land belonged to the small holders and the only places with the high productivity and modern technology were few big land holdings. Nobility ceased to be the major land owning class by the end of the XIX. The exception was Siberia, the only area where Russia had true farmers: most of the peasants refused to turn into them and remained in the communal model. Did not want to migrate either. Learn Russian history before arguing.
Serbia could very much still be the tail wagging the dog, but for the former: it's not the industry that is a constraining factor, its logistics. The railways to the east are limited in what they can transport, men, equipment and supplies all fight for priority. That's why I expect @Onkel Willie to devote not just time to reform and the international relations but also on internal things that upgrade Russias capabilities to wage wars: Trucks, Tractors and Trains for instance. But also things that allow greater stockpiling of food like canning.Kinda expected russia to stomp over japan with how they are better industrialized and it seems war because of Serbia would still happen,