What's up with Russia?

Well, for one, a steady food supply, esp. since it needed to export grain to buy everything else too.

So did Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. America also managed to export grain without causing famines.

I'm not sure what's the problem with grain exports.

Other than that, cotton, nitrates;

Russia had cotton from Central Asia; most of the world, of course, purchased its nitrates from Chile, so I'm not sure what the problem is. That Russia was too poor to do so? That's kinda circular, no?

...there wasn't enough food to sustain it (look at the bread riots in WW1, and the never-ending cycle of famines in the 1860-1930 period)

Never-ending cycle?
 
I'm not sure what's the problem with grain exports.

Poor and unpredictable climate, which leads to common responsibility developed back in the late middle ages, which leads to low investment into new methods of agriculture because of resistant traditional structures.

But poor and unpredictable climate is a more obvious explanation than some metaphysical "something must be wrong with them" and helps when you consider that no regime managed to really make it work.

Never-ending cycle?

How about this: alarming frequency of notable famines during the entire period (and obviously prior to, as well).
 

Tomex

Banned
Poor and unpredictable climate, which leads to common responsibility developed back in the late middle ages, which leads to low investment into new methods of agriculture because of resistant traditional structures.

But poor and unpredictable climate is a more obvious explanation than some metaphysical "something must be wrong with them" and helps when you consider that no regime managed to really make it work.

Not to annoy you, but the explanation seems wrong to me. As written before-I don't think either Lithuania nor Poland experienced any famine while in Russian Empire.
Also Ukraine under Polish rule in post-WW1 period while experiencing similiar geography and climate did not experience the famine that Soviet held Ukraine did(this is purely a comment on famine situation, not on who was better to Ukrainians ok?)
So did Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc. America also managed to export grain without causing famines.
Also Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's economy was based on grain export(not a good idea economically). Famine is unheard of from what I know.


Why a federated entity? While it's not a good thing, especially not if you happen to be Kazakh, I see no reason the Russian Empire of 1914 couldn't continue as a centralist state.
The Polish, Baltic, Finns and Ukrainians would drain many resources, and undermine its strenght if not satisfied to certain extent. Russia had to station more soldiers in 1905 Poland out of fear of full grown uprising then it sent to war with Japan.
It could continue as heavy handed centralist state, but it would make it unsuccessful.
 
Not to annoy you, but the explanation seems wrong to me. As written before-I don't think either Lithuania nor Poland experienced any famine while in Russian Empire.

Not to annoy you, in turn, but Finland had famine in the 1840s and 1860s, Poland likewise in 1867, whereas Austrian Galicia starved continuously in the 1840-50s, 1860s, early 1900s alongside the rest of Ukraine (and that's why we have all those Ukranians in Canada, for example) and in the 1930s as well (under the Polish government, actually, though of course nowhere as bad as in Eastern Ukraine which coincided with a big drive for urbanization and industrialisation and foreceful dismantlement of the old food production system).

Sloboda and Kiev Ukraine had several smaller famines in the mid-1800s, but were generally better off than Russia proper. Ukraine naturally happens to have a better climate.

Eastern Europe had a big problem with famines in general, and Russia isn't alone in that respect.
 

Tomex

Banned
Poland likewise in 1867, whereas Austrian Galicia starved continuously in the 1840-50s, 1860s, early 1900s alongside the rest of Ukraine
Poland had famine in 1867 ? To be honest it's the first time I hear about it and all my life I studied Polish history, and I can't recall any source writing about this. As to Austrian Galicia-it was very poor, but I don't think it enjoyed any famines comperable to the ones you are describing in Russia.
There was poverty but nothing of the scale of mass famine experienced in main Russia...
I think you are confusing poverty with catastrophic famine.
 
Main factor besides geography is, IMO, continuous preference of more autocratic style governments than the West.

IMO the fact that Napoleon failed to conquer it left its ancien regime much more intact since the Revolution wasn't really imported there, and Russian Liberals could be strangled in their cradle without making the peasants mad. The lack of the commoners knowing about Liberty should not be underestimated. Because of this Russia did not have an 1848 movement and so didn't reform until it was too little, too late.
 
IMO the fact that Napoleon failed to conquer it left its ancien regime much more intact since the Revolution wasn't really imported there, and Russian Liberals could be strangled in their cradle without making the peasants mad. The lack of the commoners knowing about Liberty should not be underestimated. Because of this Russia did not have an 1848 movement and so didn't reform until it was too little, too late.

Yeah, this might have been a turning point.
 
The Polish, Baltic, Finns and Ukrainians would drain many resources, and undermine its strenght if not satisfied to certain extent. Russia had to station more soldiers in 1905 Poland out of fear of full grown uprising then it sent to war with Japan.
It could continue as heavy handed centralist state, but it would make it unsuccessful.

The reason Russia had more troops in Poland is that it was fighting a war at the end of a single unfinished railway link against a power it underestimated and so most of its army, stationed on its western border as made sense, wasn't moved. If the Poles were such a threat to Russia, what happened in 1914?

During the First World War, all these groups inside Russia totally failed to make nuisances of themselves.

The Congress Poles were dominated politically by Dmowski's pro-Russian National Democrats. Militariy nsurrection had been discredited in 1863. Young leftist radicals willing to consider it had been driven into the wilderness in 1905 and the really determined ones like Pilsudski had ended up in Austrian paramilitaries, and of course during WW1 the Central Powers totally failed to blow up Poland.

All the large cities of Ukraine (even in Volhynia) had Russophone majorities in 1914 (or Yiddophone ones, with Russian as the language of government and communication between communities), and the Ukrainians served in the Tsarist army like everyone else. The core constituency of Ukrainian nationalists were the educated middle classes who organised the Tsentralna Rada, and the Directorate's army was a mash of student volunteers, German PoW units, and totally unreliable conscripts (these warbands mostly went Bolshevik or bandit as soon as Kiev fell). The workers and peasants weren't any more problematic than any other workers and peasants, nor the aristocrats and officers any less reliable (the Hetmanate was a piece of extreme pragmaticism by Skoropadskiy and his breed, and they showed their true colours as soon as they lost their German sponsor by turning Denikinite). And to cap it all, in 1917, while willing to accomodate the Rada and Ukrainian nationalism, Kerenskiy still denied that "New Russia" was part of Ukraine at all. Whether it was was pretty questionable.

The Lithuanian language was tolerated even before 1905 and again, where was the Lithuanian uprising during the First World War? To say nothing of Vilnius being a Jewish-Polish-Russian city with a German population rivalling its Lithuanian one.

The Estonian and Latvian national movements had benefitted from "Russification", which in their countries had meant bringing the totally Germanised education and administrative structures in line with Russian norms: it's a lot easier to learn Russian than to prove descent from a crusader knight. During WW1, Latvian nationalist volunteer units fought for Russia after the Germans made utter pricks of themselves in Courland.

And the Finns, after Russification was given up as a dead letter, had been pretty content with their autonomy: conspiracies during the wars came to nothing much while Mannerheim was busy being a distinguished officer of the Russian army.

This may seem a somewhat utopian portrayal of Tsarist rule. Be assured, that isn't the case. Tsarist rule was a litany of woe for Central Asia and the North Caucasus. But it was you who raised those nations which were actually broadly content to work within the Tsarist system and never posed a physical threat to it, and of course Russian rule in all sorts of places has been revised into a bloodthirsty reign of terror rather than properly analysed.

While of course autonomy for all these place and inter-national harmony would be good, I see no particular reason why any of the countries you named was a drain on Russian resources sufficent to drag down the state.
 

Tomex

Banned
During the First World War, all these groups inside Russia totally failed to make nuisances of themselves.

The Congress Poles were dominated politically by Dmowski's pro-Russian National Democrats. Militariy nsurrection had been discredited in 1863. Young leftist radicals willing to consider it had been driven into the wilderness in 1905 and the really determined ones like Pilsudski had ended up in Austrian paramilitaries, and of course during WW1 the Central Powers totally failed to blow up Poland.
The Dmowski faction was one of the important political groups in Russian Parliament, and Poles also dominated political life in former territories of PLC outside CP in Russia, Stolypin was very concerned about that.
The reason CP didn't blow up Poland was simple-at the beginning of WW1 majority of population was more pro-Russian then pro-German, since after 1905 Russia gave concessions to Poles, while Germany engaged in discrimination(the promises in WW1 were known to be hollow). That doesn't mean that they were not a threat to stability of Russian Empire and would not erupt in another revolution just like the one in 1905. The political organisations would demand further concessions with the ultimate goal of independence. This was official position of Dmowski, who as you already wrote dominated the political life of Russian Poles.
Finally considering the speed and impact in which Polish armies developed during the end of WW1 I would dispute that that the Polish situation had no influence on the time period. Certainly the Russian Civil War had Poles as one of the major factions based not on ideology but national self-determination, so there is no denial of the potential the Polish population of Russia had for resistance and destabilization.

To say nothing of Vilnius being a Jewish-Polish-Russian city with a German population rivalling its Lithuanian one.
Not much considering Lithuanians in Vilnius were around 1,6-2,5% of population.


While of course autonomy for all these place and inter-national harmony would be good, I see no particular reason why any of the countries you named was a drain on Russian resources sufficent to drag down the state.
Considering the resources used in 1831, 1863, 1905(that is every generation or so), I would say it was a drain on resources. Not to mention having dissatisfied population is a very tempting choice for hostile neighbours and rivals to exploit.
 
The Dmowski faction was one of the important political groups in Russian Parliament, and Poles also dominated political life in former territories of PLC outside CP in Russia, Stolypin was very concerned about that.
The reason CP didn't blow up Poland was simple-at the beginning of WW1 majority of population was more pro-Russian then pro-German, since after 1905 Russia gave concessions to Poles, while Germany engaged in discrimination(the promises in WW1 were known to be hollow).

Precisely.

That doesn't mean that they were not a threat to stability of Russian Empire and would not erupt in another revolution just like the one in 1905. The political organisations would demand further concessions with the ultimate goal of independence. This was official position of Dmowski, who as you already wrote dominated the political life of Russian Poles.

This hardly means the Russians are going to let him. What physical resources does he have available when his political options run out?

Finally considering the speed and impact in which Polish armies developed during the end of WW1 I would dispute that that the Polish situation had no influence on the time period. Certainly the Russian Civil War had Poles as one of the major factions based not on ideology but national self-determination, so there is no denial of the potential the Polish population of Russia had for resistance and destabilization.

That being after Poland was occupied by German armies and subsequently defended by troops returning from the army in exile in France and various other places, not from a situation of 1914.

Not much considering Lithuanians in Vilnius were around 1,6-2,5% of population.

This is precisely the point.

Considering the resources used in 1831, 1863, 1905(that is every generation or so), I would say it was a drain on resources.

Which is to ignore every factor besides the numerical spacing of these events. In 1831, Poland was a government with an army. The "rising" was practically an international war. In 1863, the disasterous conclusion, as I said, largely discredited vioelnce. The next generation, during the general breakdown of order in Russian in 1905, mostly remembered this lesson: those who didn't spent more time and resources fighting Dmowski's men than they did fighting the Russians and were thus driven into Galicia.

Not to mention having dissatisfied population is a very tempting choice for hostile neighbours and rivals to exploit.

True, and Germany totally failed to do this, in Poland and Latvia.
 
Top