What would a Russian empire look like today?

XamuelReyes

Kicked
Banned
As would be seen today, mainly socioculturally and demographically, a Russian empire that, for example, achieved "win" the first world war? What would your political culture look like and what would be its impact on the rest of the world?

ps: you choose the point of divergence as long as it remains after 1902
 
Pretty much as it does today.. Oh the boarders may stretch and contract, but end of the day, basically at most ussr boarders or the same with out baltics.

The idea of russia taking constantinople is crazy at best.

Also when does russia when first world war. Is it kerensky? Who later conceeds to a restoraration?

Russian empire was loosing under the czar, tgere was enough ethnic animosity amongst the nation.. So again why would they add more, plus noone would want an even bigger russia
 
If the pre-WWI population projections are to be believed then it would most likely be a net food importer since the northern soils would not support that many people. Overall I'd say it will be poorer than the OTL current Russian Federation and will most likely resemble the Indian subcontinent with its poverty.
 
Pretty much as it does today.. Oh the boarders may stretch and contract, but end of the day, basically at most ussr boarders or the same with out baltics.

The idea of russia taking constantinople is crazy at best.

Also when does russia when first world war. Is it kerensky? Who later conceeds to a restoraration?

Russian empire was loosing under the czar, tgere was enough ethnic animosity amongst the nation.. So again why would they add more, plus noone would want an even bigger russia
Without 8 decades of communism they would have the world's largest economy, or close to it. They would have modernized but not sacrificed everything for heavy industry. Would have a larger, and more prosperous population. No genocides.
 

Slan

Banned
If the pre-WWI population projections are to be believed then it would most likely be a net food importer since the northern soils would not support that many people. Overall I'd say it will be poorer than the OTL current Russian Federation and will most likely resemble the Indian subcontinent with its poverty.
Nah, you are being overly pessimistic. Russia was growing at Chinese rates before WW1. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be better had they avoided all the economic hardships and mass death causes by the civil war, communism and the Nazis.

There's like a couple dozen MILLION people who would've lived and contributed to the Russian economy, their kids and grandkids would make up a big chunk of Russia's population today. Their consumer market would be WAY bigger. I see absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't be in a better shape as a nation.
 
Last edited:
It depends how Russian history develops. It is really hard get surviving empire. But let say if monarchy survives Russia would be consittutional monarchy altough tsar probably has still more power than other European monarchs. Some parliamentary system is required for survival of monarchy. Russia might be somehow federalised altough not in such degree as OTL Russian Federation.

Demographically it depends how much of border regions Russia can keep. But population would be higher and probably not so russificated than in OTL.

Economically Russia probably is not that industrialised as in OTL but still probably as prosperous as in OTL. There might be too some actual wellfare system altough nothing close of Nordic system.
 

Slan

Banned
It depends how Russian history develops. It is really hard get surviving empire. But let say if monarchy survives Russia would be consittutional monarchy altough tsar probably has still more power than other European monarchs. Some parliamentary system is required for survival of monarchy. Russia might be somehow federalised altough not in such degree as OTL Russian Federation.

Demographically it depends how much of border regions Russia can keep. But population would be higher and probably not so russificated than in OTL.

Economically Russia probably is not that industrialised as in OTL but still probably as prosperous as in OTL. There might be too some actual wellfare system altough nothing close of Nordic system.
Their industry would probably be more competitive.
 
Without 8 decades of communism they would have the world's largest economy, or close to it. They would have modernized but not sacrificed everything for heavy industry. Would have a larger, and more prosperous population. No genocides.
That is... very optimistic.

There would be absolutely a lot of genocide in a continued Russian Empire- Nicholas II had a thing against Jews.
The best way of doing this would be an avoidance- or at least a victory- in the Russo-Japanese war. This would stagnate Russia and make them less likely to do anything, but we aren't making a best Russia are we now? This would mean no industrialization until when China was going through it OTL- or maybe even later.
Poland would just flat out leave- for reasons which are obvious, the Russians were basically doing a mini-generalplan-ost before the revolution. The Finns too would leave, although they might see more stiff resistance as there is some worry of Petrograd/Petersburg falling to a Finnish invasion. The Baltic states would also try to leave most likely- paving the way for a Baltic genocide if it fails, or a really fucking angry Russia if it works. After all, if they won the war, why are they still leaking territory?
By the modern day, the Russian Empire would be a rather poor and revanchist regime. The Tsars would be assassinated quite often (before 1902 the last chance of a decent Russia surviving was already gone, Alexander II having been blown up by a terrorist), and ultimately life would be pretty miserable, imo.
Nah, you are being overly pessimistic. Russia was growing at Chinese rates before WW1. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be better had they avoided all the economic hardships and mass death causes by the civil war, communism and the Nazis.

There's like a couple dozen MILLION people who would've lived and contributed to the Russian economy, their kids and grandkids would make up a big chunk of Russia's population today. Their consumer market would be WAY bigger. I see absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't be in a better shape as a nation.
I'm not certain that would happen. You've got to remember that the Russian Empire was in really, really bad shape in the 1900s, so there would be a shittonne of rebellions, which would be put down rather harshly. Imagine a handful of 1905-level events between 1930 and 1960.
 
That is... very optimistic.

There would be absolutely a lot of genocide in a continued Russian Empire- Nicholas II had a thing against Jews.
The best way of doing this would be an avoidance- or at least a victory- in the Russo-Japanese war. This would stagnate Russia and make them less likely to do anything, but we aren't making a best Russia are we now? This would mean no industrialization until when China was going through it OTL- or maybe even later.
Poland would just flat out leave- for reasons which are obvious, the Russians were basically doing a mini-generalplan-ost before the revolution. The Finns too would leave, although they might see more stiff resistance as there is some worry of Petrograd/Petersburg falling to a Finnish invasion. The Baltic states would also try to leave most likely- paving the way for a Baltic genocide if it fails, or a really fucking angry Russia if it works. After all, if they won the war, why are they still leaking territory?
By the modern day, the Russian Empire would be a rather poor and revanchist regime. The Tsars would be assassinated quite often (before 1902 the last chance of a decent Russia surviving was already gone, Alexander II having been blown up by a terrorist), and ultimately life would be pretty miserable, imo.

I'm not certain that would happen. You've got to remember that the Russian Empire was in really, really bad shape in the 1900s, so there would be a shittonne of rebellions, which would be put down rather harshly. Imagine a handful of 1905-level events between 1930 and 1960.
And wevare assuming no additional wars with say china or japan, poland or even a german round 2 for what ever reason.

Russia wasnt known for making the poor rich. Nkvd learned from okrona and other imperial police.

Rusdia could do alot of things granted, but would it, or even could it, so many butterflys from a surviving regime that anything would be possible based on scenarios.
 
As would be seen today, mainly socioculturally and demographically, a Russian empire that, for example, achieved "win" the first world war? What would your political culture look like and what would be its impact on the rest of the world?

ps: you choose the point of divergence as long as it remains after 1902
My preferred point of divergence would be to replace the 1902 OTL Anglo-Japanese alliance with a Russo-Japanese alliance, with Russia getting Manchuria and Japan getting the Korean peninsular - together harvesting China. If the above is too early, then a comprehensive understanding between Russia and Japan reaching a substantially similar outcome - perhaps with the Anglo-Japanese Alliance lapsing in 1905. This provides protection for Russian interests in the east, while increased rivalry with Britain, checks Russian adventurism in the west. This essentially butterflies away WW1.

In my opinion for Imperial Russia to survive, it needs to avoid war and/or revolution for as long as possible. It had serious shortfalls in terms of education, industry and infrastructure, but all of those were rapidly improving. The residual mischiefs facing Imperial Russia are potential corruption and the tyranny of distance - both formidable.
 
Nah, you are being overly pessimistic. Russia was growing at Chinese rates before WW1. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be better had they avoided all the economic hardships and mass death causes by the civil war, communism and the Nazis.

There's like a couple dozen MILLION people who would've lived and contributed to the Russian economy, their kids and grandkids would make up a big chunk of Russia's population today. Their consumer market would be WAY bigger. I see absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't be in a better shape as a nation.
Russia would definetly be poorer than in OTL.

Tsarist Russia had an average industrial growth of 5.72% between 1885 and 1913, and an overall economic growth of 3.3% per year between 1885 and 1913. Well it's not that bad, but not that great either.

On the other hand, according to CIA estimates, the soviet economy overall grew by an average 6% between 1928 and 1940 (that's allmost two times that of Tsarist Russia). Industrial production in the period 1928–1937 increased 2.5–3.5 times, that is, 10.5–16% per year (according to Stephen Wheatcroft, professor of the school of historical studies, University of Melbourne). Thats two to three times that of Tsarist Russia.

On total numbers, I'd suggest to take a look at this:

"The World Economy", published by the OECD.



Page 476

GDP of Tsarist Russia 1913:
232.351 million International US Dollar (1990)

GDP of the USSR 1930:
252.333 million International US Dollar (1990)

GDP of the USSR 1939:
430.314 million International US Dollar (1990)

That makes:

1913: 1.365 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

1930: 1.501 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

1939: 2.553 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

Moreover, Poland (including western Ukraine and Belarus), the Baltics and Finland, the most developed regions of the Russian Empire except for Moscow and Petrograd, were not part of the USSR in the 20s and 30s. Thats a thing to consider, too.

Overall, as you can see in this statistic, total GDP and GDP per capita had allmost doubled by 1939 (compared to 1913). And that was despite WW1, the civil war and the loss of some of the most industrialized regions.

GDP is not a meaningfull indicator when discussing socialist states anyway. The main reason for that is that subsidies are not reflected in these statistics. And socialist states tend to not sell everything for the market price. Neccesities were heavily subsidized in the USSR, housing and healthcare was free. None of these are considered in the GDP data.

So the real economic progress from 1924 to 1939 was even more massive.

GNP is a way more meaningfull indicator for socialist economies. An even better indicator is NMP.

Without an early state led industrialization, Russia's population would be smaler. No large scale mechanization of agriculture probably means a reduced population growth. And if a war akin to OTL WW2 breaks out (germany could, and likely would, still end up under a right-wing, revanchist and authoritarian regime, though it might not be the NSDAP) the survival of this TL's Russia is seriously threatened.
 
This would mean no industrialization until when China was going through it OTL- or maybe even later.
The rapid rate of OTL industrialization of Russia was one of the key reasons to the unrest within Russia, so why would it stop after a victorious war?

Poland would just flat out leave- The Finns too would leave, The Baltic states would also try to leave most likely- paving the way for a Baltic genocide if it fails, or a really fucking angry Russia if it works.
Just like the Tibetans, Uighurs and Chechens did. Independent Poland, Finland and the Baltic states were a result of very unlikely and particular chain of OTL events.
 
Russia would definetly be poorer than in OTL.

Tsarist Russia had an average industrial growth of 5.72% between 1885 and 1913, and an overall economic growth of 3.3% per year between 1885 and 1913. Well it's not that bad, but not that great either.

On the other hand, according to CIA estimates, the soviet economy overall grew by an average 6% between 1928 and 1940 (that's allmost two times that of Tsarist Russia). Industrial production in the period 1928–1937 increased 2.5–3.5 times, that is, 10.5–16% per year (according to Stephen Wheatcroft, professor of the school of historical studies, University of Melbourne). Thats two to three times that of Tsarist Russia.

On total numbers, I'd suggest to take a look at this:

"The World Economy", published by the OECD.



Page 476

GDP of Tsarist Russia 1913:
232.351 million International US Dollar (1990)

GDP of the USSR 1930:
252.333 million International US Dollar (1990)

GDP of the USSR 1939:
430.314 million International US Dollar (1990)

That makes:

1913: 1.365 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

1930: 1.501 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

1939: 2.553 International US Dollar
(1990) per capita

Moreover, Poland (including western Ukraine and Belarus), the Baltics and Finland, the most developed regions of the Russian Empire except for Moscow and Petrograd, were not part of the USSR in the 20s and 30s. Thats a thing to consider, too.

Overall, as you can see in this statistic, total GDP and GDP per capita had allmost doubled by 1939 (compared to 1913). And that was despite WW1, the civil war and the loss of some of the most industrialized regions.

GDP is not a meaningfull indicator when discussing socialist states anyway. The main reason for that is that subsidies are not reflected in these statistics. And socialist states tend to not sell everything for the market price. Neccesities were heavily subsidized in the USSR, housing and healthcare was free. None of these are considered in the GDP data.

So the real economic progress from 1924 to 1939 was even more massive.

GNP is a way more meaningfull indicator for socialist economies. An even better indicator is NMP.
Err no. Russia had the fastest growing economy in the world and was already the fifth largest industrial power on the eve of the great war. Between 1888 and 1913, Russia's industrial economy was growing at an average of 6.1%, as fast as during Soviet times, but without sabotaging agriculture that lead to famines, or forced labour. Also, the October Revolution put the country far behind what it could have achieved, and growth did not resume till the late 20's. In addition, while GNP per capita of the USSR increased, productivity actually decreased. So a lot of the growth that the Soviet Union achieved only compensated for the loss from the civil war and October revolution.
Plus, growth in Tsarist Russia was accelerating. From the end of Serfdom to around the turn of the century, Russian industry was growing at double digit rates. Subsequently, until around 1906, it entered a recession of 4-5% growth. However, after this, even during the first world war (but without the October revolution), Russian industry was growing at double digit rates again, even outpacing the growth during the height of the Soviet industrialization. So continued growth could likely have been as strong as Soviet industrial growth, but with advantages such as no lost decades to catch up to or famines. Agricultural production would likely have slowed down due to collapse in demand following the great war, but it wouldn't have been completely devastated. Urbanization might actually have been slower without collectivization, but it would have occurred nonetheless.

The myth that Stalin single-handedly converted a backwards and stagnant agrarian state into an industrial power has been debunked many times.

In truth, by 1913 Russia had universal (male) schooling, rapidly developing industrial sector and increasing agricultural productivity. Now, obviously it had many problems, economic and political, such as high tarrifs and protectionism making life difficult for industry (not that the Soviets helped that in any way) and an over-reliance on resource extraction. Nonetheless, it would still have been superior to Soviet mismanagement.
Without an early state led industrialization, Russia's population would be smaler. No large scale mechanization of agriculture probably means a reduced population growth.
This is just wrong. Russia's fertility rates, which were one of the highest in the world, collapsed following the October Revolution and fell deeper as collectivization proceeded. Russia's population in such a world would have been twice or thrice the population of OTL. Remember, even if Stalin did not necessarily accelerate industrialization or economic growth, he did accelerate urbanization, which decreases fertility rates.

Edit: Also, GDP includes services produced at equivalent market value, whereas NMP does not include services. So GDP would actually include all of them, whereas NMP would not.
 
Last edited:
The rapid rate of OTL industrialization of Russia was one of the key reasons to the unrest within Russia, so why would it stop after a victorious war?


Just like the Tibetans, Uighurs and Chechens did. Independent Poland, Finland and the Baltic states were a result of very unlikely and particular chain of OTL events.
A victory doesn't often mean mass change to a situation. Russia would have no real push to industrialise if it won the war (they'd be too busy keeping their new lands in line)- and it was industrialising slowly anyway, compared to OTL USSR.
The Tsardom under Nicholas II was so unstable that it would be impossible to power project into Poland and the baltics. Hell, Poland was technically a seperate country under personal union with Russia until the 1870s iirc. No way Nicholas would be competent enough to stop the Polish, Finns, or Baltics from leaving, especially as the former would probably sue to the US/UK/France for help.
 
There would be absolutely a lot of genocide in a continued Russian Empire- Nicholas II had a thing against Jews.
Two facts to be considered here.

1) Imperial Russia was far more anti-semitic than the USSR.

2) The USSR killed far more Jews than Imperial Russia.

This is not a contradiction. The reason is that the Soviet Union killed two orders of magnitude more people than Imperial Russia. (Excluding enemy casualties in the World Wars.)

Think about this. How many Communists were executed by Imperial Russia? (OK, the designation did not really exist before 1917. So let's say "Red" Socialists generally - Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs, etc.) A thousand? Two thousand? Five thousand would be the utter maximum . Now, how many Communists were executed by the Soviet Union? 500,000 in the Great Purge.

Imperial Russia was a flawed regime. But for all the faults of the Tsars and their minions, they did not have any messianic ideas about perfecting the world that required the extermination of entire races or social classes, and made any sort of dissent a capital crime.
 
If the Brusilov offensive during WW1 was offensive (northern generals actually aided by holding up the Germans, Romania being able to enter the war 1 week earlier than OTL), and Russia is able to knock out the Austrians, then Russia probably have some extra time to play around with (and probably some territories in Galizia and Anatolia from winning WW1). However most of the Empire's structural issues would still be there, as in no one really liked the government, even though many respected the Czar himself. Social pressures would just keep rising, and the non ethnic Russians would always be a threat to the Empire's survival, since they are not going to stop wanting out. Probably more Poles within the Empire's borders too which will increase the pressure for an independent Poland.
 

Ulyanovsk

Donor
Imperial Russia was a flawed regime. But for all the faults of the Tsars and their minions, they did not have any messianic ideas about perfecting the world that required the extermination of entire races or social classes, and made any sort of dissent a capital crime.
I think it sort of overlooks the whole "state-approved pogroms against Jewish Communities for their supposed crimes against Tsar and Fatherland" which claimed the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the 'Pale of Settlement' and can be reasonably called the predecessor to the Holocaust[1]. Also, Tsarist anti-semitism being pretty strong, Ohkrana involvement in creating the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc. We never saw direct state extermination against the Jewish people on the level of the "Final Solution", but I think it's a mistake to claim they didn't "hold any messianic ideas about perfecting the world that required the extermination of entire races" when the whole "Jewish Conspiracy against Russia" had a lot of credibility at the court of the late Romanovs.

We didn't see it IOTL, but the foundations for even more comprehensive genocide was certainly there. I made a post about Russian pseudo-fascist movements after the collapse of the Romanovs yesterday and, while mostly economic conditions weren't ripe for fascism at the time, if Russia continues to industrialize it certainly could develop.

For Russian Fascism as a separate discussion though, the only real opportunity for a movement like that was among the Cossacks and the younger officers class active in the White Armies of Denikin and Kolchak who saw that the hopeless reactionarism of their fathers was too anachronistic to win the war against the Bolshevik, and were as you say "purified in the bloodbath against the evils of Bolshevism" through their experiences in the Civil War. I stumbled across some comments made by Peter Kenez in his paper "The Ideology of the White Movement" that discusses Russian Fascism which I saved in my notes:

Cossack.jpg

"It is hard to make out a case for describing the Volunteer Army as fascist. Modern methods of communication, so necessary for a fascist style of mass mobilization, did not exist. Dislocation and profound cultural despair, characteristic of recently industrialized societies which prepare willing recruits for radical movements, were also absent. However, there was an important segment of the counter-revolutionary movement to which fascism might have had an appeal. This segment was the Cossacks, whose contribution to the White cause has never been properly appreciated by historians. The existence of a Cossack estate in the beginning of the 20th century was something of a paradox. The Cossacks, who were richer and better educated than most Russian peasants, possessed a pride in their way of life and a memory of autonomy, which made them the most 'modern' group within Russia. At the same time they enjoyed feudal privileges, cherished medieval customs and believed that their material interests were hurt by the changes occurring in a slowly modernizing society. They joined the White cause above all because they were determined to defend their lands from the land- hungry Russian peasants. Significantly, two decades later Hitler found many more collaborators among them than among other segments of the Russian people. In Ataman Krasnov they found a suitable spokesman. He was a master demagogue and adept at creating a mythical past for the Cossacks. But Russia had only a few million Cossacks. It is hard to see how Krasnov's type of vengeful rightist radicalism would have found a large enough social base among the peasants to come to power. Generals Alekseev and Denikin, the two men who did most to develop a political programme for the Volunteer Army were conservatives. Compared with the vast majority of their followers, they possessed a degree of political sophistication and tolerance. Consequently, if we form a judgement on the basis of the public statements of the Army, we must conclude that it was a conservative organization.

However, the officers who joined the movement in the beginning of 1918 and continued to play a dominant role in it until its final defeat, were young, profoundly embittered by their recent experiences in the Revolution and drawn to radical solutions.
Especially after Alekseev's death in the autumn of 1918, Denikin was constantly under attack from the right; his followers wanted him to pursue reactionary policies. In April 1920 Denikin had to go into exile and his successor, General Wrangel, was a candidate of the right. To be sure, Denikin lost out in the power struggle largely because his armies had suffered defeats; nevertheless it is clear that his position had been greatly weakened by political disagreements. If we judge by the sentiments of the majority of the officers, and on the basis of the policies which the peasants actually experienced at the hands of the Volunteer Army, we should consider the White movement a reactionary phenomenon. The majority of the peasantry was right to distrust the promises and public statements of the Whites."

...also the rabid anti-semitism

If the Whites had won the Civil War (I have my own thoughts on the likelihood of that succeeding though), I could certainly see a vengeful and embittered young officer class, backed up by Cossack support, forming parties and fraternal organizations that could lead to a movement on the fringes of classified fascism. Sort of like the pseudo-fascism/proto-fascism of Franco and the Falange Española de las JONS, that is largely a reactionary movement with elements of fascism and the aesthetics of fascism mixed in. That's outside the scope of this discussion, but would make an interesting timeline or discussion thread in my opinion.
Russia could easily develop "modern methods of communication" and "profound cultural despair" producing willing former-peasant recruits for such a movement. Although I know the threads positing a continued Empire usually imply the same traditional conservative/reactionary bureaucracy and state, I think a mass "Black Hundreds" esque movement could easily work alongside the monarchy (and likely will be needed to keep it afloat) in a neo-reactionary/pseudo-fascist party organization that commits heinous crimes against rebellious ethnic minorities and Jews. Anything is possible really..


[1] - [Budnitskii, Oleg, and Timothy J. Portice. Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites, 1917-1920. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.]:
Studies on the Russian Civil War have often promoted the notion that the pogroms of this period can be viewed as a kind of harbinger and prologue to the Holocaust. In my opinion, such similarities can be found in the methods and psychology of the Whites and various other anti- Bolshevik factions: the indiscriminate slaughter of Jews, singling out Jewish POWs for execution, widespread anti-semitic propaganda, and (perhaps most importantly) the belief that attacking Jews was a central goal of the war, a belief that sprang from the notion that Bolshevism was a Jewish invention. The massive scale of anti=Jewish violence and the participation of numerous military units in the widespread murder and pillaging leads one to the conclusion that even the term “pogrom” (a local, isolated occurrence of violence), is hardly sufficient in understanding this historical phenomenon. The violence perpetrated against the Jewish population during the Civil War was of an entirely different magnitude

It is difficult to agree with Richard Pipes, who, repeating the ideas of I. M. Bikerman, writes that from a broader historical perspective the pogroms against the Jews “were part and parcel of the pogroms perpetrated at the time throughout Russia.” Actually, a “broader historical perspective” shows something quite different. During the Civil War, Jews were killed precisely because they were Jewish, regardless of their age, sex, or political convictions. This is why, in my opinion, one must consider the pogroms of the Russian Civil War as precedents for the Holocaust.


**While this specifically tackles the anti-semitic violence of the Volunteer Army and other White forces in the Ukraine during the Civil War, this proceeded directly from the Tsar and 'Chyornaya Sotnya' actions during the last decades of the Tsarist regime specifically and it is not too far fetched to apply these historical instances to the question of ATL Tsarist policy against the Jews.
 
Last edited:
I think it sort of overlooks the whole "state-approved pogroms against Jewish Communities for their supposed crimes against Tsar and Fatherland" which claimed the lives of possibly hundreds of thousands of Jews living in the 'Pale of Settlement' and can be reasonably called the predecessor to the Holocaust.
There was certainly anti-semitic violence by the Whites during the Civil War. But "hundreds of thousands"? Was this gigantic crime ignored or glossed over? The nascent USSR would have excellent reasons to document and publicize it.

But that didn't happen. There were no mass graves uncovered; no memorials on the sites of particularly infamous massacres. Even after the fall of the USSR, I have not seen Jewish groups "digging up" such history.

Also, what happened during the Civil War was after the Empire had been overthrown and the Bolsheviks had embarked on their own campaigns of mass terror.

If there is no breakdown of civil order, nor widespread revolutionary violence, then IMO it would be unlikely for there to be genocide in Russia by anyone. Whatever the foul beliefs of the Black Hundreds, Russia had gone a hundred years without that. If there was a political revolution in the Empire which empowered the extremists, as in Germany, very bad things could and probably would happen. But such an outcome would not be inevitable or even likely (IMO).
 
Last edited:

Ulyanovsk

Donor
It's intellectually lazy, but because I don't feel like arguing the body count of the victims of anti-semitic violence in the former Russian Empire at the moment so I will just quote Wikipedia:

"In three years between 1903 and 1906, about 660 pogroms were recorded in Ukraine and Bessarabia; half a dozen more in Belorussia, carried out with the Russian government's complicity, but no anti-Jewish pogroms were recorded in Poland.[33] At about that time, the Jewish Labor Bund began organizing armed self-defense units ready to shoot back, and the pogroms subsided for a number of years.[35] According to professor Colin Tatz, between 1881 and 1920 there were 1,326 pogroms in Ukraine (see: Southwestern Krai parts of the Pale) which took the lives of 70,000 to 250,000 civilian Jews, leaving half a million homeless.[36][37]"

"Large-scale pogroms, which began in the Russian Empire several decades earlier, intensified during the period of the Russian Civil War in the aftermath of World War I. Professor Zvi Gitelman (A Century of Ambivalence) estimated that only in 1918–1919 over 1,200 pogroms took place in Ukraine, thus amounting to the greatest slaughter of Jews in Eastern Europe since 1648.[38]"

"Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in his book Two Hundred Years Together provided additional statistics from research conducted by Nahum Gergel (1887–1931). Gergel counted 1,236 incidents of anti-Jewish violence and estimated that 887 mass pogroms occurred, the remainder being classified as "excesses" not assuming mass proportions.[37][39] The Kiev pogroms of 1919, according to Gitelman, were the first of a subsequent wave of pogroms in which between 30,000 and 70,000 Jews were massacred across Ukraine.[40][41]"


Also happen to have a copy of "Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites, 1917-1920" by Oleg Budnitsky on hand and I'll briefly quote that on that..

"The pogroms that occurred during the Civil War were unprecedented in terms of their cruelty and scale. At various times, historians have proposed various rational explanations for their occurrence. The most commonly cited motivations include: revenge for Jewish participation in the Bolshevik movement and the destruction of Russia, economic factors (which had become all the more keenly felt during the collapse of everyday life), and even the simple base desire to loot and plunder, which many pogromists undoubtedly had. Other more concrete justifications have included the Jewish votes in the Rada that opposed Ukrainian in de pen dence, gunshots allegedly fired at retreating soldiers from Jewish homes, and others. In my opinion, these explanations are merely attempts to rationalize the irrational. The syllogism “Trotsky commands the Red Army, therefore we should cut off the hands of the local cobbler, rape his wife, and crush the skull of his child” is clearly flawed. If the Jewish socialist parties voted “incorrectly,” then why should the blame fall on those Jews who voted for religious political parties, and who were themselves far from being politically active? If Jews wanted to fight the Bolsheviks alongside the Whites, then why were they not allowed to serve in the military? After all, they were behaving in a “politically correct” fashion. Moreover, portraying the pogroms as “punishment” for supporting the Bolsheviks does little to explain the pogroms that were carried out by the Red Army, which would take place at the slightest slackening of military discipline."

"From 1918 to 1920 more than 1,500 pogroms took place in over 1,300 cities, villages, and towns in Ukraine alone. According to various sources, anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 Jews were killed outright or mortally wounded. Another 200,000 were seriously injured. Thousands of women were raped. At least 50,000 women were widowed, and nearly 300,000 children became orphans. The precise number of victims will probably never be firmly established, despite the fact that information on the pogroms was being collected in a more or less systematic fashion as early as May 1919. Jews were killed on the streets, and in the fields. Entire families perished, leaving no one to tell their tale."

The scholarship on the subject disagree with you.

But that didn't happen. There were no mass graves uncovered; no memorials on the sites of particularly infamous massacres. Even after the fall of the USSR, I have not seen Jewish groups "digging up" such history.
The nature of the pogroms was widespread, sporadic, and often a smaller groups at a time than what we saw in the organized Nazi extermination plan - the uncovering of "mass graves" would therefore be harder. There are plenty of pogrom memorials, especially in Poland and some regions of the Ukraine (if you can read Russian/Ukrainian, it is easier to find than in English where it does not get much publication.) Also, you're overlooking that the political climate in the USSR wasn't exactly favorable to publicizing this: Reds committed Jewish massacres too (albeit at a much lower rate) and the SovNarKom was always trumping up class issues over national and ethno-religious issues in the lens of the war anyway...

Whatever the foul beliefs of the Black Hundreds, Russia had gone a hundred years without that.
And Germany had gone quite a long time being one of the more progressive regions in Europe towards the Jews: this really doesn't mean anything.

If there is no breakdown of civil order, nor widespread revolutionary violence, then IMO it would be unlikely for there to be genocide in Russia by anyone.
We can probably agree that, like 1905 (where a lot of pogroms still happened), a surviving Tsarist state will have its fair share of trouble - I don't believe it's far fetched to see political crises in Russia's future IATL.
 
Last edited:
Russia would definetly be poorer than in OTL.
This is at least the third time you've reposted this. No problem with that, it's a reasonably good post, but I don't think it quite works in this context.

On the other hand, according to CIA estimates,
Ah yes, the bomber gap folks. Well known for never overestimating America's adversaries.

Tsarist Russia had an average industrial growth of 5.72% between 1885 and 1913, and an overall economic growth of 3.3% per year between 1885 and 1913. Well it's not that bad, but not that great either.

On the other hand, according to CIA estimates, the soviet economy overall grew by an average 6% between 1928 and 1940 (that's allmost two times that of Tsarist Russia). Industrial production in the period 1928–1937 increased 2.5–3.5 times, that is, 10.5–16% per year (according to Stephen Wheatcroft, professor of the school of historical studies, University of Melbourne). Thats two to three times that of Tsarist Russia.
Here's the thing though, no civil war and no loss of territory. So, assuming 1913 values in 1918, resuming 3.3% per year gets you 459,463 million 1990s USD in 1939. Which is higher than the historic values for the USSR.

Now one could argue that this is an optimistic projection which assumes minimal economic loss in WWI, a quick recovery to pre-war growth rates, and no severe effects from the great depression (although on the other hand it also assumes no Roaring 20s for Russia, nor have I accounted for the Tsar's education programs eventually paying dividends). However, in any case, in 1939 Russia is unlikely to be remarkably worse off than the USSR was.

Moreover, Poland (including western Ukraine and Belarus), the Baltics and Finland, the most developed regions of the Russian Empire except for Moscow and Petrograd, were not part of the USSR in the 20s and 30s. Thats a thing to consider, too.
See this is the problem with whole sale reposting things without any edits for the context of the conversation. You'd have a point if the discussion was about a white regime which could be expected to lose at least that much territory as well, but an intact Russian Empire doesn't have this issue.

Without an early state led industrialization
Which is basically what Imperial Russia's railroad building and military modernization schemes were.

And if a war akin to OTL WW2 breaks out
Hitler gets bent over a table by France if he goes east and bent over a table by Russia if he goes west.

(germany could, and likely would, still end up under a right-wing, revanchist and authoritarian regime, though it might not be the NSDAP)
Again, this is a fine point for discussing White Russia, it doesn't work for a victorious Russian Empire.

The German right can't claim to have won in the east and been "stabbed in the back" before they could finish off the west if they've lost on both fronts. Militarism and German supremacy would be at least somewhat discredited by a defeat at the hands of "weak and backwards" Russia.
 
Last edited:
Top