Why is Russian Empires authoritarianism considered untenable?

[JSchafer]

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?

 

[tsprks62]

Tsars don’t have a popular (ish) mandate, don’t have the mass media and 20th century tech at their disposal to the extent Stalin or Hitler did, and also they are sickly inbred incompetent aristocrats. Even if they do survive, they will likely be just figureheads as in virtually every other country except the gulf states.

basically, the same reasons absolute monarchy in any euro country lasting into the mid 20th century is implausible

 

[alexmilman]

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?

The 1st question is which Alexander are you talking about?

The 2nd question is which of the regimes you mentioned lasted for more than 3 centuries as was the case with the Russian monarchy?

And, BTW, 2 Russian monarchs managed to lose 20 - 25% of country’s population (and perhaps even more) as a result of their activities, which is quite comparable to the Khmer Rouge (25%) and, percentage wise, higher than Mao (even if we take 40M number). So why do you assume that Russian monarchs did not have an “extreme” power? It is just that not all of them had been barbarians like the dictators you listed.

 

[alexmilman]

Tsars don’t have a popular (ish) mandate, don’t have the mass media and 20th century tech at their disposal to the extent Stalin or Hitler did, and also they are sickly inbred incompetent aristocrats. Even if they do survive, they will likely be just figureheads as in virtually every other country except the gulf states.

Speaking of “sickly”, for how long would you be able to hold a roof of a railroad car on your shoulders?

And there was not too much of inbreeding either: the Orthodox Church had been very strict on that account. But you are right about quite a few of them being incompetent.

 

[tsprks62]

And there was not too much of inbreeding either: the Orthodox Church had been very strict on that account. But you are right about quite a few of them being incompetent.

The house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was (and is) mildly inbred. It’s pretty well known that hemophilia ran in the family. the heir (who presumably would be the one running the empire in this “tsardom survives” scenario, Alexei Romanov, spent like 1/3 of his life on the verge of death.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Because Nicky II was incompetent more than anything else

 

[Tjakari]

Because Nicky II was incompetent more than anything else

Basically this and the associated circumstances deriving from this. I'm not the sort to say that any kind of autocracy or authoritarianism is untenable from the jump. The reason why the Russian Empire couldn't survive was because of the Reign of Nicolas II, more than anything else, the mismanagement of the Russian state led to the death of its oldest institution.

People lost faith in the monarchy, the war was pushing the domestic sphere to the breaking point (conscripting millions of young men, wealthy capitalists were hoarding food and price gouging the people to make massive profits as well as hold out for the Germans to win so they could make bank after the surrender, major cities were turning into hotbeds of radical ideas like democracy and revolution, not to mention the just inhuman amount of death taking place at the front), and the Okhrana wasn't killing the people that it needed to make sure all the discontent never got off the ground. And for every inch the the monarchy gave, it lost ten miles and by the end of it there wasn't anyone left that was willing to fight for it.

An absolute monarchy that can turn into a republic over the course of a train ride is one that's been rotting for a looooong time.

The Russian Empire can last semi-indefinitely if it has effective leadership. But it didn't have that, and so its days were numbered.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

The time when you just needed the aristocracy and the church and the masses just followed whatever you said were over. Totalitarian leaders had the backing of a ideoogically driven mass movement, a considerable amount of the people believing in the state ideology and scaring the rest to silence. The old system of the masses just toiling for the aristocracy because tradition wouldn't work in the modern day.

 

[Kapellan23]

Basically this and the associated circumstances deriving from this. I'm not the sort to say that any kind of autocracy or authoritarianism is untenable from the jump. The reason why the Russian Empire couldn't survive was because of the Reign of Nicolas II, more than anything else, the mismanagement of the Russian state led to the death of its oldest institution.

People lost faith in the monarchy, the war was pushing the domestic sphere to the breaking point (conscripting millions of young men, wealthy capitalists were hoarding food and price gouging the people to make massive profits as well as hold out for the Germans to win so they could make bank after the surrender, major cities were turning into hotbeds of radical ideas like democracy and revolution, not to mention the just inhuman amount of death taking place at the front), and the Okhrana wasn't killing the people that it needed to make sure all the discontent never got off the ground. And for every inch the the monarchy gave, it lost ten miles and by the end of it there wasn't anyone left that was willing to fight for it.

An absolute monarchy that can turn into a republic over the course of a train ride is one that's been rotting for a looooong time.

The Russian Empire can last semi-indefinitely if it has effective leadership. But it didn't have that, and so it's days were numbered.

“The reason why the Russian Empire couldn't survive” - consists in treachery of allies, one of whom was strategic, during world war.

“People lost faith in the monarchy” - so that several years up in arms against terrorists battled for the country.

“The Russian Empire can last semi-indefinitely if it has effective leadership. But it didn't have that, and so it's days were numbered.” - it had a great management, but bastards “allies".

“An absolute monarchy that can turn into a republic over the course of a train ride is one that's been rotting for a looooong time. ” - It is truly told about a lime.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

@Kapellan23

Can you explain what the treachery of allies means? Can't recollect either France or the British Empire making a separate peace with the Central Powers. Or refusing to provide Imperial Russia with money or supplies. Gallipoli ring a bell? Failure but an effort to improve supplies to Russia.

 

[FBKampfer]

@Kapellan23

Can you explain what the treachery of allies means? Can't recollect either France or the British Empire making a separate peace with the Central Powers. Or refusing to provide Imperial Russia with money or supplies. Gallipoli ring a bell? Failure but an effort to improve supplies to Russia.

Looking at his post history, a lot of it seems to have this wierd White Russian bent to them. Like he seems to have been (still be?) under the impression that the Russian army could have beaten the Germans in late 1916/early 1917. Blames Brest-Litovsk on the French and British it seems, for some reason.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Well, at least Nikolai was more competent than Kerensky that's for sure.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Even without WWI the political set-up wasn't stable and barely staved off a revolution in 1905.

 

[sendô]

Serfdom, my dear boy.

The Russian peasants had it the worst of any working class in Europe. Russia was a backwards nation, striving and struggling to catch up to western European ones. Peter the great tried setting things in motion when he moved his capital, but in over 2 centuries Russia had never caught up, despite it's size and population, because it was too slow to reform, and when it did, inevitably those reformed were pushed backwards again.

Remember that after Tsushima in 1905 there was a revolution that was barely put down - the Tsars nearly went then, but Nicholas 2 didn't learn, didn't reform, and instead allowed his nation to sleepwalk into an ever bigger war with an even more powerful enemy.

 

[marathag]

“The reason why the Russian Empire couldn't survive” - consists in treachery of allies, one of whom was strategic, during world war.

If Russians were not going to fight for the Monarchy, why should the French, British or Japanese?

 

[marathag]

Remember that after Tsushima in 1905 there was a revolution that was barely put down - the Tsars nearly went then, but Nicholas 2 didn't learn, didn't reform, and instead allowed his nation to sleepwalk into an ever bigger war with an even more powerful enemy.

Over Serbia.

That had never been part of the Russian Empire, ever, but because of some mystical 'Brotherhood'.

I mean the Russians had a better claim on what happened to Denmark, from the Rus of the 9thC.

But Serbia? That was a hobby horse. And it killed their Empire.

 

[alexmilman]

People lost faith in the monarchy, the war was pushing the domestic sphere to the breaking point (conscripting millions of young men, wealthy capitalists were hoarding food and price gouging the people to make massive profits as well as hold out for the Germans to win so they could make bank after the surrender, major cities were turning into hotbeds of radical ideas like democracy and revolution, not to mention the just inhuman amount of death taking place at the front), and the Okhrana wasn't killing the people that it needed to make sure all the discontent never got off the ground.

Food production had been falling because millions peasants had been taken into the army and instead of being food producers became consumers. Hoarding by the “wealthy capitalists” was not a critical problem because starting from 1916 government introduced “prodrazwerstka” and food rationing. Of course, it should be done earlier.

An idea that Russian capitalists were sabotaging economy waiting for the German victory is a fantasy: only the Bolsheviks (AFAIK) had been preaching defeat as a political goal.

It was not a function of Okhranka to kill people.

 

[alexmilman]

The time when you just needed the aristocracy and the church and the masses just followed whatever you said were over. Totalitarian leaders had the backing of a ideoogically driven mass movement, a considerable amount of the people believing in the state ideology and scaring the rest to silence. The old system of the masses just toiling for the aristocracy because tradition wouldn't work in the modern day.

Not sure how this applicable to the Russian Empire circa 1917. It was, since 1905, a constitutional monarchy with a reasonably well developed capitalism and aristocracy not being dominating politically or economically.

 

[alexmilman]

The house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was (and is) mildly inbred. It’s pretty well known that hemophilia ran in the family. the heir (who presumably would be the one running the empire in this “tsardom survives” scenario, Alexei Romanov, spent like 1/3 of his life on the verge of death.

But this applies strictly to Nicky and his marriage. By that time increasing number of the Grand Dukes (including his own brother) had been marrying the “commoners”.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

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?

Those regimes were equally untenable. The Nazis only lasted 10 years. The Khmer Rouge held power for just 5. Maoism and Stalinism died with their namesakes. By comparison, Imperial Russia lasted centuries before the peasants got tired of their shit.