Why is Russian Empires authoritarianism considered untenable?

Kapellan23

Banned
There's little point in debating this with you if you're coming back with finger in the ear, la-la-la not listening posts like this.

It's a fact of history that by the 20th century Russia was miles behind the western powers in terms of development, civil rights and industrialisation.

It is amusing to hear similar from British living in the "backward" monarchy.
 

Kapellan23

Banned
By 1800, that Monarchy was pretty much powerless to influence foreign or domestic affairs. the PM and Parliament was where the power was at

Really, when in 2019 without approval of the monarch there cannot pass not one law and he is the head of the Commonwealth countries which part copes directly through governor generals.
 
Really, when in 2019 without approval of the monarch there cannot pass not one law

Where the monarch has not withheld their consent for passing those laws for 300 years. There's a reason why there are reminders of what happened the last time the monarch got too big for their boots in the robing room in the Palace of Westminster.
 
Really, when in 2019 without approval of the monarch there cannot pass not one law and he is the head of the Commonwealth countries which part copes directly through governor generals.
I'm not sure what this has to do with why the Russian Empire was considered authoritarian, which is the point of this thread.

Just a poor grasp of how the British constitutional system works.
 
They were on the side of Soviet, some of the first recognized the government having signed trade contracts.

As the most banal example with attack and the evacuation in Arkhangelsk.
The occupation of Arkhangelsk was to prevent the Reds taking possession of munitions there, not to aid them. No legitimate government invited the UK to intervene in Russia and the intervention was abandoned when it was clear the various White factions had no popular support or legitimacy. (Also because the British forces were close to Mutiny' and the intervention had little popular support in the UK.)

Once a government controls its territory it's normal to recognise it and establish trade relations.
 
I'm not sure what this has to do with why the Russian Empire was considered authoritarian, which is the point of this thread.

Just a poor grasp of how the British constitutional system works.


“Authoritarian regime” (regime with a strong central power and limited political freedoms) is not the same thing as an “absolute monarchy” in which moarch’s actions are not limited by law or constitution. Russian Empire circa 1914 was an authoritarian state (so were Germany and AH) but it also was a constitutional monarchy. Basically, it ceased to be an absolute monarchy somewhere in the early XIX when the formulated principle was that a monarch is a single source of the laws but must respect these laws when they are issued.

British constitutional system is rather unique and can’t be cited as “one size fits all” model in the framework of Europe of the early XX century and an argument that something is not something because it is not like British is not working.
 
Once a government controls its territory it's normal to recognise it and establish trade relations.

Really?

The Bolsheviks had been controlling most of the territory of the future SU in 1920 (White Army evacuated the Crimea). Diplomatic relations established: by the UK - 1924 (broken in 1927 and reestablished in 1929), France and Italy - 1924, Japan - 1925, US - 1933, Argentina - 1946, Brazil - 1945, Chile - 1944, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria,Czechoslovakia - 1934, Belgium - 1935, Netherlands - 1942, etc.

In other words, recognition did not follow immediately after establishing control over the territory.
 
Really?

The Bolsheviks had been controlling most of the territory of the future SU in 1920 (White Army evacuated the Crimea). Diplomatic relations established: by the UK - 1924 (broken in 1927 and reestablished in 1929), France and Italy - 1924, Japan - 1925, US - 1933, Argentina - 1946, Brazil - 1945, Chile - 1944, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Austria,Czechoslovakia - 1934, Belgium - 1935, Netherlands - 1942, etc.

In other words, recognition did not follow immediately after establishing control over the territory.

Delays notwithstanding, his point seems to be that recognition and trade didn't constitute betrayal of the Whites. Hell, the delays reinforce that contention, since the Whites were long since dead by the time recognition became commonplace.
 
Delays notwithstanding, his point seems to be that recognition and trade didn't constitute betrayal of the Whites. Hell, the delays reinforce that contention, since the Whites were long since dead by the time recognition became commonplace.

I wrote nothing about “betrayal”, just about the fact that possession of a territory did not result in the immediate recognition of the Bolshevik government.
 
I wrote nothing about “betrayal”, just about the fact that possession of a territory did not result in the immediate recognition of the Bolshevik government.

He didn’t even use the word immediate, though. So you’re not engaging with his main point and you’re attributing an adverb that’s not there.
 
I've been reading some Russia timelines in late 19th and early 20th century and one thing that is repeated over and over again is that Tsar Alexander bungled the empire up by trying to keep power rather than give it up.

Now I understand how difficult it can be to hold onto such power but at the same time we had Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Khmer Rouge etc, dictatorial regimes with not only more power within the country than the tsar but also oftentimes genocidal and oppressive to the extreme. But if they were possible what was Russia missing to enable Tsars to wield such power as well?
I can't speak for those timeline authors, but while the mechanism and tools of oppression were there, the will and the imagination to use them was not. Also, the reason it failed is for the same reason it failed in OTL. Alexander III did try to consolidate the state, and it went sideways. Alexander III had a grand vision of society, much like all of his illustrious (and otherwise) predecessors. You can always count on a Russian tsar to have a grand plan, well, except Peter III - his grand plan was drinking, having ugly mistresses and spending time with mercenary officers in his toy army. For Alexander III, the plan required the creation of a half-assed martial law emergency state to enforce his vision of the future. Richard Pipes called it "the most important piece of legislation in the history of imperial Russia between the Abolition of Serfdom in 1861 and the October Manifesto of 1905." It was signed into law on August 14, 1881 and called for the introduction of extraordinary measures to protect the Empire from the threat of terrorism and other agents of change. There were two types of measures. One was Reinforced Safeguard, which could done to any province in the Russian Empire, if invoked by the Minister of the Interior and the Governor General of the province. The other was the Extraordinary Safeguard, which could be imposed only by the Tsar.

Reinforced Safeguard allowed for the Governor General of a province, governor of a county or a governor of a city to:
  1. imprison any resident for up to three months,
  2. fine any resident up to 400 rubles (it is a bit messy when comparing historical values to present day, and across currencies and regimes, but in terms of labor-value, it works to be about $100K US in 2019 money)
  3. forbid all social, public and private gatherings,
  4. close all commercial and industrial enterprises for the duration of the emergency,
  5. ban individuals from living in their locale,
  6. dismiss any county or city government employee for being "untrustworthy,"
  7. hand over anyone in violation of any laws in their locale during the emergency to military tribunals.
And those were the milder powers, delegated to the locals. Extraordinary Safeguard went further, but I won't list it here, because I want to focus on the seven above, because on August 14th, ten provinces, including St. Petersburg and Moscow, were put on the Reinforced Safeguard. Those statuses were never removed. In one way or another, they were extended, until the Empire died. Alexander III was creating a police state in OTL, with a bureaucracy that had to grant citizens permissions to do normal and ordinary things, which no other Tsar bothered to police, except in extraordinary times.
 

JSchafer

Banned
I can't speak for those timeline authors, but while the mechanism and tools of oppression were there, the will and the imagination to use them was not. Also, the reason it failed is for the same reason it failed in OTL. Alexander III did try to consolidate the state, and it went sideways. Alexander III had a grand vision of society, much like all of his illustrious (and otherwise) predecessors. You can always count on a Russian tsar to have a grand plan, well, except Peter III - his grand plan was drinking, having ugly mistresses and spending time with mercenary officers in his toy army. For Alexander III, the plan required the creation of a half-assed martial law emergency state to enforce his vision of the future. Richard Pipes called it "the most important piece of legislation in the history of imperial Russia between the Abolition of Serfdom in 1861 and the October Manifesto of 1905." It was signed into law on August 14, 1881 and called for the introduction of extraordinary measures to protect the Empire from the threat of terrorism and other agents of change. There were two types of measures. One was Reinforced Safeguard, which could done to any province in the Russian Empire, if invoked by the Minister of the Interior and the Governor General of the province. The other was the Extraordinary Safeguard, which could be imposed only by the Tsar.

Reinforced Safeguard allowed for the Governor General of a province, governor of a county or a governor of a city to:
  1. imprison any resident for up to three months,
  2. fine any resident up to 400 rubles (it is a bit messy when comparing historical values to present day, and across currencies and regimes, but in terms of labor-value, it works to be about $100K US in 2019 money)
  3. forbid all social, public and private gatherings,
  4. close all commercial and industrial enterprises for the duration of the emergency,
  5. ban individuals from living in their locale,
  6. dismiss any county or city government employee for being "untrustworthy,"
  7. hand over anyone in violation of any laws in their locale during the emergency to military tribunals.
And those were the milder powers, delegated to the locals. Extraordinary Safeguard went further, but I won't list it here, because I want to focus on the seven above, because on August 14th, ten provinces, including St. Petersburg and Moscow, were put on the Reinforced Safeguard. Those statuses were never removed. In one way or another, they were extended, until the Empire died. Alexander III was creating a police state in OTL, with a bureaucracy that had to grant citizens permissions to do normal and ordinary things, which no other Tsar bothered to police, except in extraordinary times.

Thanks! That makes it seem to me like the Russian state victimized and made martyrs of political opponents rather than turn them into a hated group which can then be isolated and persecuted a-la nazis and communists or nazis and jews or communists and kulaks. Could Russian people be manipulated to see revolutionaries and communists as the enemy? What would it take?
 
Thanks! That makes it seem to me like the Russian state victimized and made martyrs of political opponents rather than turn them into a hated group which can then be isolated and persecuted a-la nazis and communists or nazis and jews or communists and kulaks. Could Russian people be manipulated to see revolutionaries and communists as the enemy? What would it take?

I would say it would take earlier loosening of restrictions on an active political life to cultivate conservative political parties, or aggressively co-opting far right movements like the Union of the Russian People. Maybe avert Bloody Sunday, too. Nicholas needs someone or something who will support him, some powerful group that isn't exasperated with him and apathetic towards his continued reign.
 
He didn’t even use the word immediate, though. So you’re not engaging with his main point and you’re attributing an adverb that’s not there.

Thanks for telling me what I should or should not address. Within current context "betrayal" does not make sense to me because you can't betray somebody to whom you do not have obligations. If you believe that I have to give you money without my promising to do so, my refusal is not a betrayal even if it is a disappointment. What's there to address?

As for the rest, the original statement was: "Once a government controls its territory it's normal to recognise it and establish trade relations." Well, if 10 - 15 years space is "normal", it is fine by me.
 
Thanks for telling me what I should or should not address. Within current context "betrayal" does not make sense to me because you can't betray somebody to whom you do not have obligations. If you believe that I have to give you money without my promising to do so, my refusal is not a betrayal even if it is a disappointment. What's there to address?

Are you under the impression that either Finbarr or myself disagree with you about betrayal not making sense in this context? Because I described the post you responded to as an argument against there being a betrayal of the Whites by the West. As for the case that there was, take that up with Kapellan23, the guy Finbarr was responding to. I'm getting the impression you're losing track of the context of the discussion.
 
Are you under the impression that either Finbarr or myself disagree with you about betrayal not making sense in this context? Because I described the post you responded to as an argument against there being a betrayal of the Whites by the West. As for the case that there was, take that up with Kapellan23, the guy Finbarr was responding to. I'm getting the impression you're losing track of the context of the discussion.

I'm not losing track of it, just addressing a specific statement, "Once a government controls its territory it's normal to recognise it and establish trade relations", mentioned within a specific post and having nothing to do with "betrayal". If you do not have anything to add to that issue besides what you already said about recognition not being restricted by any time, our further conversation does not make sense.
 
Thanks! That makes it seem to me like the Russian state victimized and made martyrs of political opponents rather than turn them into a hated group which can then be isolated and persecuted a-la nazis and communists or nazis and jews or communists and kulaks. Could Russian people be manipulated to see revolutionaries and communists as the enemy? What would it take?
If I had no soul and was advising the Tsar, I'd cultivate the new burgeoning urban working classes by creating a patronizing not-welfare-state. Simple things such as restricting the work hours per day and the amount of working days per week would go a long way to getting the working class of the cities on your side. Most of the workers were peasants coming to the towns for work, rarely were they second generation town dwellers. By nature they were conservative and suspicious of change. And the mood among them was not inclined to favor the "nihilists" who killed the Tsar Liberabor Alexander II. The utter failure of anyone in power to engage meaningfully with the working classes outside was catastrophic. There were attempts by the police to work police-protected-unions of sorts, but they came much, much later. And the people pushing for it were themselves involved in a lot of silly conspiracies undermining their effectiveness. Once again, it would not have taken much to neutralize any radical element among the workers by giving simple things: 8 hour days and five days a week. Hell, they'd probably build a monument to you for offering it. From there, you ferment ethnic hatred (easy enough), and you have the added benefit of Russification being a pet hate of Alexander III already. Set ethnicities against each other. Once again, this was done by Alexander III, though without my forethought and planning. Alexander III had a wonderful horseshit racist and silly views on peoples that would have made him a fine officer in the British Raj. Just like the British randomly decided which were 'warrior races,' so too Alexander III determined the Finns were trustworthy and granted them autonomy, which went down well there. By contrast, Jews were The Enemy and as such bore close watching.

To borrower from Rosenberg's rancid book of terrible awful, you could also blame Freemasons. Reading Kanatchikov wonderful autobiography, he shared how his father and men in his village already had tall tales of the men behind the murder of Alexander II being "nahalists" and "Free-masons." So, there ya go. One more page from the Nazi playbook.

Alexander III could not totally win over the peasants, not without addressing the elephant of land reform. And considering his empire was supported and staffed by landowners and sons of the same, he could do little about that. He could no more win over the intellectuals than he could the peasants. This is a man who gloried in being simple unfrozen caveman, a man who made a virtue of being rough. But squeezing the native industrialists and championing the working classes and being their Good Tsar... would cut into any revolutionary activity in the cities.

So, yeah, if I had no soul, and I was advising the Tsar, that's the route I'd follow: win over the workers, ignore the rest and when it doubt blame the Jews (the last being a time honored tradition in Russian governing circles since the time of the ancients).
 
Maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way?

Instead of trying to increase industrialization and urbanization as in the OTL and as generally done in AHTLs, the Tsars tries to generally let things be?

People living in rural areas tend to have less political consciousness, be more conservative, and more religious. During recessions, they have more stable employment on farms, and have direct access to food. Tsarist Russia still had a small per capita (proportionate to other European Great Powers) Industrial base and was still dependent on foreign manufacturing while also being a major exporter of food by WWI.

Given Russia’s sheer size, lack of literacy, and just how dispersed so many places are, having a focus on agriculture and commodities might just make sense up until around the 30s and 40s. Competing with smaller, more educated countries with more infrastructure, local and developed energy sources all over, and established industries might just be a bad idea.

Primarily focusing on universal school attendance, improving infrastructure, gradually modernizing agriculture, ensuring peasants can become land owners relatively easily, and colonizing what you already have might be a safer idea.

You’ll still see decent industrialization over the next few decades, just at a slower pace, without doing much catching up. With smaller Urban centers, you can implement work laws to keep people happier (albeit probably with less money), leave larger rural areas for them to fall back on during times of recession and famine, and try to get your new industrial class intermarried into to aristocracy or given some sort of voice.

By the 30s and 40s, the Empire can have the literacy, infrastructure, agricultural surplus, and gigantic population needed to actually begin massive industrial growth without causing massive issues.

This strategy basically requires a more modest Russian foreign policy that only goes to war when under attack or when dealing with a scenario where victory is guaranteed. You basically concede that Germany has a larger industrial base than you until the 40s or 50s. But by the 40s Russia can undergo growth similar to OTL China from 1990-today and be a High Income Economy and Super Power by the 70s.

That kind of prestige, the increase in living standards, support from more traditionalist institutions in general (Military, Church, Aristocracy), and winning over your new Industrialists might be enough that the common man loves or at least likes the Tsar and feels content. When some people still protest the Tsar, the regime might not need to silence them, as they might be able to just point to the Tsar’s track record of success, accuse them of undermining the country, or be popular enough to just ignore/laugh at them.

If the Regime lasts that long, they can try to manipulate demographics through other means. Mandatory religious public education, heavy restrictions on divorce, pay men out the ass to join the army while they are young, create positive net worth in the nations youth to enfranchise them into the system, encourage large families and marriage, discourage or legally restrict divorce, pay for anyone to go to college but don’t cover classes that in the OTL tend to encourage left wing and democratic tendencies, create a state media with great content mixed with government propaganda, only grant government interviews to Networks that are kind to the regime. Things like that to create a population that is not likely to revolt and likely to lean towards conservatism naturally.

Also ensure some kind of system of universal healthcare and national retirement by the 1970s. Clean up pollution aggressively by the 70s. Spend money on prestige programs like a serious space program from the 60s to the present. Act nobel, doing things like sending massive numbers of volunteers (including the Tsar) to situations like the 2014 West African Ebola outbreak and 2004 Tsunami. Intervene to stop things like the Rwandan Genocide, but don’t stay around for the aftermath, just stop massacres without getting bogged down (and have the Tsar actually fight if physically capable). If your government claims that it knows best, is divinely inspired, and noble, act like it and make sure cameras see you doing it.

If done correctly, the government might not even need a secret police or restrictions on freedom of speech to ensure its survival because it will just be popular enough.

Thoughts on this? Completely ignorant or off base? Mostly right? Missing the point? Hit and miss?
 
Last edited:
Maybe we’re looking at this the wrong way?

Thoughts on this? Completely ignorant or off base? Mostly right? Missing the point? Hit and miss?

You're definitely right that a big agenda item needs to be encouraging small peasant landowners. Russia's peasants were shockingly radical compared to peasants in other countries that still had them because so few of them really felt like they had a real stake in the system. After 1905 the tsar's government finally got their assess in gear on this front, but it was too little, too late. Maybe if you had undertaken more radical land reform at the expense of the big landowners. It would risk their ire, but after 1905 I think the liberal elements of the elite would appreciate decisive leadership.
 
Top