Will Russia industrialize, form a duma with actual power? Will it win ww1? If he would outlive Alexander III and his son Sergei be as incompetant as Nicholas, meaning a possible russian victory in the russo jap war or ww1?
No Alexander II's reforms were meant to save the autocracy, not destroy it.I think a duma with actual power would be established since he wanted to westernize Russia. I think this also leads to and earlier industrialization. With a more industrialized Russia it will definitely do better in WW1 if it isn’t butterflied away. If Russia wins the Russo-Japanese war then I think that they likely also win WW1.
Edit: the February and October revolutions are also butterflied if there is a Duma with actual power.
What about the tsars who followed? I thought I read somewhere that Alexander III and Nicholas II who witnessed what happened to Alexander II were scarred into having no love for his reforms. They reacted vengefully towards the populace blaming them for Alexadner II's death while he was trying to help them. If Alexander II had lived, he may have limited how far he would go, but would his son and grandson have embraced his policies and expanded them further during each to their own reigns?No Alexander II's reforms were meant to save the autocracy, not destroy it.
Will Russia industrialize, form a duma with actual power? Will it win ww1? If he would outlive Alexander III and his son Sergei be as incompetant as Nicholas, meaning a possible russian victory in the russo jap war or ww1?
What about the tsars who followed? I thought I read somewhere that Alexander III and Nicholas II who witnessed what happened to Alexander II were scarred into having no love for his reforms.
They reacted vengefully towards the populace blaming them for Alexadner II's death while he was trying to help them.
If Alexander II had lived, he may have limited how far he would go, but would his son and grandson have embraced his policies and expanded them further during each to their own reigns?
Well then I guess I shouldn't always believe what I read. Thanks for interpretation of events. Very insightful.Future Alexander III was not a big fun of the reforms well before assassination of his father and not without a good reason. The most fundamental reform, emancipation of the serfs, resulted in a huge damage to the Russian agriculture in general and majority of the peasants. It is enough to read some of the "liberal" authors of that period to find endless complaints about increased drunkenness, pauperization of the peasants and pretty much each and every problem imaginable; most of the "gentry" found themselves in a lousy economic situation as well.
The judicial reform also was a good idea, especially trial by jury. The only problem was that these jurors had tendency to pay attention to the "ideals" and "feelings" rather than to the laws or facts in which they had been helped by the liberal judges like Koni (who managed to make it all the way to the Senate and State Council). How the state was supposed to deal with the terrorism if the terrorists had been let free by the jurors? AFAIK, there were even demands to let the assassins of Alexander II free to show government's willingness to cooperate with the "society".
What "populace" and what this "vengeance" amounted to? Hanging Alexander's assassins? Was he supposed to give them a medal? And what, in general, would be an effective method of dealing with the terrorism without killing the terrorists?
Most of the population did not suffer from any "vengeance" and even if the contemporaries liked to moan about "suffocating atmosphere", none of them could spell out what that "suffocation" amounted to.
They did embrace part of his policies.
Well then I guess I shouldn't always believe what I read. Thanks for interpretation of events. Very insightful.