WI: Imagine a world without Communism.

Wolfpaw

Banned
Compared to Stalinist Russia, Tsarist Russia was paradise! You didn't have millions of people killed every year. You didn't have the kind of terrorism that was rampant in the USSR at the time. Stalin's NKVD made the Tsarist Secret Police look like choir boys. Tsarist Russia was a hellhole but Stalinist Russia was an even worse one.
While I agree with you, I must say in The Red's defense that he never said that Tsarist Russia was worse than Stalinist Russia, just that it was worse than the USSR in general, which, before, after, and even somewhat during Stalin's regime, is true.
 
Compared to Stalinist Russia, Tsarist Russia was paradise! You didn't have millions of people killed every year. You didn't have the kind of terrorism that was rampant in the USSR at the time. Stalin's NKVD made the Tsarist Secret Police look like choir boys. Tsarist Russia was a hellhole but Stalinist Russia was an even worse one.

That's an overstatement. Stalinist Russia was a dystopia but so was Tsarist Russia, also the USSR improved greatly after Stalin's demise.
 
Well, it'd be foolish to think that that amount of growth would continue into the 1930s and 1940s.


Why?

Nobody's denied that Russia was industrializing before the war or that it would eventually become industrialized to a similar degree as Stalinist Russia. What I and others have pointed out is that Russia wouldn't have become nearly as industrialized as Stalinist Russia within the same timeframe.

Again, why? A 13% growth rate is phenomenal, and if the chaos of WWI, the Revolution, and the civil war (which massively damaged Russia's industry and infrastructure) had been avoided, I don't see Tsarist Russia being far behind OTL Stalinist Russia by the 1930s.


The idea that Russia would have industrialized to the same degree as Stalinist Russia under a White regime post-Civil War, however, is not foolish. It is stupid. An examination of the White movement clearly shows that they really didn't give a fig about industrialization or modernization. If anything, they were a regressive movement that more or less eschewed mass industrialization in favor of maintaining the support of the aristocracy and the petty bourgeois.

The problem is that the "Whites" were basically most groups opposed to the Bolsheviks. I don't think that there was any "white movement". What they would do after an AH victory over the Bolsheviks would depend on which group gained the upper hand, and that could be anything from reactionary tsarists to liberals to socialists.
 
Well, it'd be foolish to think that that amount of growth would continue into the 1930s and 1940s.

Nobody's denied that Russia was industrializing before the war or that it would eventually become industrialized to a similar degree as Stalinist Russia. What I and others have pointed out is that Russia wouldn't have become nearly as industrialized as Stalinist Russia within the same timeframe.

The idea that Russia could have jumped from a third world country into a hyper-industrialized state without some sort of massively centralized and breakneck command-type economy is just foolish and betrays an ignorance of just how backwards Russia was and how far Russia still had to go during the Belle Époque.

The idea that Russia would have industrialized to the same degree as Stalinist Russia under a White regime post-Civil War, however, is not foolish. It is stupid. An examination of the White movement clearly shows that they really didn't give a fig about industrialization or modernization. If anything, they were a regressive movement that more or less eschewed mass industrialization in favor of maintaining the support of the aristocracy and the petty bourgeois.

They were interested in MONEY though. You don't have to be a forward thinking visionary to figure out industrialization was making you tons more money than farming was!
 
Last edited:
That's an overstatement. Stalinist Russia was a dystopia but so was Tsarist Russia, also the USSR improved greatly after Stalin's demise.

On the contrary I said Tsarist Russia was a hell hole. That Stalinist Russia made it look like paradise shows how bad it was there. The various Tsars at their worst NEVER killed anywhere close to millions of people. Evan Ivan the Terrible wasn't nearly that bad. You may also note I kept saying Stalinist Russia not Soviet Russia. However Stalin ruled for over 30 years which is a nice chunk of Soviet history considering it didn't last that long. Tsarist Russia was likely to reform over time. Dragging and kicking probably but reform was probably inevitable.
 
Tsarist Russia was likely to reform over time. Dragging and kicking probably but reform was probably inevitable.

I'd have liked seeing the alt-Tsarist Russia deal with the *Depression when it hit (very high probability), seeing how it was completely dependent on foreign investment and how a good chunk of that kept dieappearing into private pockets due to corruption.

The upside is that perhaps the diplomacy would be better and people would be less active in trying to dismember it, so less catastrophic wars.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
And why exactly can only Stalin industrialise Russia? Before the WWI Russias industry grew about 13% per year. While a direct continuation is unlikly this shows that Industrialisation was already happening. And as Tyler suggests a more liberal Russia than IOTL foreign investment will be much larger.

Imperial Russia anno 1940 would likely be more industrialised than USSR, but it would different kind of industry, Stalin push for heavy industry, imperial Russia would likely have followed a more capitalistic pattern which results in ligther consumer-oriented industry.

But in the end, it doesn't matter, with a so early POD, it's completely implasable that Hitler and the Nazi would gain power.
 
Imperial Russia anno 1940 would likely be more industrialised than USSR, but it would different kind of industry, Stalin push for heavy industry, imperial Russia would likely have followed a more capitalistic pattern which results in ligther consumer-oriented industry.

Yes, there was plenty of industry developing in Russia at the time, and there's some great period evidence for it, some photographic.

Glass factories, distilleries, tobacco rollers and tea packagers. Like playing Vicky with Laissez-fair on, I kid you not.

That said, there was a military complex developing as well, and maybe by 1940 it would have been significant.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Yes, there was plenty of industry developing in Russia at the time, and there's some great period evidence for it, some photographic.

Glass factories, distilleries, tobacco rollers and tea packagers. Like playing Vicky with Laissez-fair on, I kid you not.

That said, there was a military complex developing as well, and maybe by 1940 it would have been significant.

Of course it would be significant, but they would unlikely to be as extented and large as in USSR. Heavy industries and infrastructur are two of the few thing a planned economy does well.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Imperial Russia anno 1940 would likely be more industrialised than USSR, but it would different kind of industry, Stalin push for heavy industry, imperial Russia would likely have followed a more capitalistic pattern which results in ligther consumer-oriented industry.
Oh, okay. Yes, I agree with this. When I said earlier that Stalinist Russia would be more industrialized than a continued Tsarist Russia, I meant with regards to heavy industry, not consumer goods; I should have made that clear earlier.

Here's a really great article I ran across that gives a good analysis of the economic climate in Russia from 1861 to 1914: http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/cmr_1252-6576_1995_num_36_1_2420

It also addresses why, while Russian economic growth up to 1914 was very impressive and looked like a good omen, the foundations of the system that produced 13% growth were very fragile.
 
On the contrary I said Tsarist Russia was a hell hole. That Stalinist Russia made it look like paradise shows how bad it was there. The various Tsars at their worst NEVER killed anywhere close to millions of people. Evan Ivan the Terrible wasn't nearly that bad. You may also note I kept saying Stalinist Russia not Soviet Russia. However Stalin ruled for over 30 years which is a nice chunk of Soviet history considering it didn't last that long. Tsarist Russia was likely to reform over time. Dragging and kicking probably but reform was probably inevitable.

It is interesting that a number of people have noted that even in the Original Time Line, Tsarist Russia was slowly reforming on its own. With the changes laid out, one would think that the reforms and industrialization would have accreted noticeably.

I still think the main focus for this ATL would be looking at ensuring the Reforms of Alexander II, either by ensuring Nicholas does not die, or Alexi DOES.
 
Communism as an idea was developed as an ideology before the PoD, thus unless the world goes Orwellian it will still be around. Did you mean a world without the Soviet Union? Any way for either question the answer is: a worse one.

In regards to an Orwellian world, how would removing Communism make this so? How could an idea not exist or become a different version of Communism?
 
Top