WI: Tsarist Russia, Superpower

upload_2018-1-8_18-6-50.png

(green - Russian Empire; orange - puppet states; blue - allies)


There is no Crimean War ITTL, probably because there's a different tsar, maybe one who's keener on modernizing and not pushing his luck.

Instead, the Christian minorities in the Ottoman Empire are offered land in the east if they pledge their allegiance to the Tsar.

With more people, there's more pressure against China, which culminates with China losing all of the sparsely-populated Manchuria to Russian settlers.

Gold is also discovered in Alaska, and so people also migrate there.

During this time, there is also conflict with Japan, that sees Germany acquire thinly-populated Hokkaido, whilst the rest of Japan comes under Anglo-French economic interest.

Russia keeps industrializing, and at some point there's a world war, early into the 20th Century - Germany+Austria-Hungary+Ottomans+Japan(who rise up in rebellion) vs Britain+France+Russia+Serbia+Greece

The Russians end up on the winning side after a little less than a year of fighting, and force Germany to give up Polish-majority areas, Hokkaido and the Mariana Islands, A-H to give up Galicia, Bukowina and Slovakia (which becomes a Russian protectorate), the Ottomans to give up Thrace to Greece, Trebizond and Armenia (which both become a Russian protectorates) and Kurdistan, the Japanese to give up the Ryukyu Islands.

A decade or so later, China collapses into warlordism, and so Russia steps in.


Plausible?
Effects?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-8_18-6-25.png
    upload_2018-1-8_18-6-25.png
    71.3 KB · Views: 1,244
I started stupidly a TL about this exact topiclong ago, but I simply don't have the skill or time to make it as good as I wanted it to be, at least for now, anyway think about that gave me many ideas.

First I think Russia needs to not alineate Romania and prevent the Westernization process they had where they tried to re-romanize their language, using latin script and all that, it's possible they have to give up Bessarabia but at the same time they can get favourable deals and relationship, possibly using Bessarabia to appease Bulgaria taking all of Dobruja, Bulgaria being their strongest ally.

I find hard to have a complete compromise all over the Balkans that Russia can manage to achieve, especially with Greece and Bulgaria, maybe giving Dobruja and Macedonia(well you know which one) to Bulgaria would be enough for them? This strikes me as super idealistic and convenient to have Russia, by simply giving a backwater province make the Balkans work, but it sounds interesting nonetheless, anyway we have our fair share of nations Russia doesn't have to care about, like Croatia, Albania and Hungary and they don't have to compromise much and can just support their Orthodox powers. The Balkans would be basically be 4 Orthodox countries(Greece, Romania, Serbia-Yugoslavia and Bulgaria).

For Central Europe, Russia needs to appease of put down the Poles, I think they would need to carve out a smaller and totally homogenous Congress Poland(of course taking land with remotely any Eastern Slav for themselves) and use as a proxy against Germany and Austria. Otherwise, they would need to avoid the pale of settlement and allow Jews to spread all of over the Eurasian empire, possibly decreasing Polish population significantly and on the other side allowing some strong settlement in the region, especially urban areas.

Earlier railroads would allow for faster colonization, although I highly doubt they would retain Alaska, although on the other side I think they could aim for the Hawaii, even if just as a vassal state.

Hokkaido I'd argue can fall to Russian hands, although this still requires them to have their back not exposed(as it really requires war at this point in time) and play a very good diplomatic move, last thing they want is that people stop caring about Germany and start caring about them as a threat. Okinawa on that front seems excessive, at best some sort of vassal state but the English would hate it, as would everyone else.

Korea as a vassal is possible, but only in an economic sense and not politically so. For Manchuria I can't see it being directly annexed forever, even if Chinese weren't as numerous merely annexing this faraway territory won't stop the trend now, I can see them annex stuff north of Harbin or east of it, so the less populated but still valuable land to hold, the rest would be a Manchukuo like state, that would be prevented to be too Chinese by a mix of using the Koreans as workers or allowing them to settle the place while trying to prevent as much Chinese migration, and of course some sort of Manchurian identity could survive, although it would possibly lose the language.

Mongolia and Xinjiang would be vassals, although I imagine the Russian would either split the northern half of the later or annex it, but I imagine they prefer to would annex it, at least in the short term.

In Central Asia I can see Russians or East Slavs becoming the majority in Kazakhstan in the early 20th century, possibly relegating Kazakhs to south of the Balkhas Lake and to the Syr Darya river, making the Northern parts permanently Russian. Well they kinda were already OTL but this time it wouldn't require massive quick state controlled deportations but it would be more organic and stable.

In the Caucasus and Anatolia, Russia could create a Georgian and an Armenian state and try to first create some sort of stable border between the 2 and of course expanding their borders towards azerbaijan, only leaving oil reserves or just a direct corridor to Iran and a directer control of the Caspian sea, plus there weren't any minorites so far East. In Anatolia at this point some sort of Wilsonian Armenia and Eastern Pontus would be part of Armenia, although of course Georgia would get the Laz territory as far as it is feasible.

There's a probably a lot more to say, but this is getting lenghty lol.
 
Arguably, Tsarist Russia was a superpower, albeit before the term existed in language. They were one of the Great Powers prior to the First World War, and that status transferred to the Russian Republic, short lived as it was, and then after the Russian Civil War, to the Soviet Union, and then when they collapsed, to the current Russian Federation.

That all said, this looks like it could be interesting.
 
thank you for the reply

First I think Russia needs to not alineate Romania and prevent the Westernization process they had where they tried to re-romanize their language, using latin script and all that, it's possible they have to give up Bessarabia but at the same time they can get favourable deals and relationship, possibly using Bessarabia to appease Bulgaria taking all of Dobruja, Bulgaria being their strongest ally.
Romanian elites were sending their sons to study in Vienna and Paris, whilst Russia was viewed with suspicion, due to the (reasonable) fear that the Russians would go for direct rule, and thus impose harsh taxes and confiscate land.

Earlier railroads would allow for faster colonization, although I highly doubt they would retain Alaska,
How would they lose it if they maintain detente with the British?

although on the other side I think they could aim for the Hawaii, even if just as a vassal state.
I thought about that, but figured it would be quite a stretch.


Hokkaido I'd argue can fall to Russian hands, although this still requires them to have their back not exposed(as it really requires war at this point in time) and play a very good diplomatic move, last thing they want is that people stop caring about Germany and start caring about them as a threat. Okinawa on that front seems excessive, at best some sort of vassal state but the English would hate it, as would everyone else.
I figured they would get Hokkaido, along with the Marianas, FROM GERMANY during the inevitable world war.
Why would the British care that much about the Ryukyus, if Japan was on the losing side during the Great War?


Korea as a vassal is possible, but only in an economic sense and not politically so.
Why not?
 
Romanian elites were sending their sons to study in Vienna and Paris, whilst Russia was viewed with suspicion, due to the (reasonable) fear that the Russians would go for direct rule, and thus impose harsh taxes and confiscate land.
Bessarabia was also important, I think that if the Russian cede it and make Romania a vassal or form a strong binding relationship, Romania would stay with the Cyrillic and not modify their language to reintroduce romance terminology, on the other side they could introduce Russian ones like Bulgarian did.

How would they lose it if they maintain detente with the British?
´
Because Russia has neither the capability nor the incentive to maintain control of the territory and there is no scenario where such a big Russia is going to be in friendly terms with the British, if Gold is discovered American and Canadian settlers would flock in at a greater rate. It depends on what your time limit is.

I thought about that, but figured it would be quite a stretch.
In a way, less than a stretch than Alaska, at least from how I see it.

I figured they would get Hokkaido, along with the Marianas, FROM GERMANY during the inevitable world war.
I doubt Germany would be able to take it to begin with, yes I know there was that one TL with that premise but it's still quite unlikely if not impossible, more so for the Germans.

Generally the idea that Russia and Britain would ally strikes me as ASB, there is literally no reason for them to be friendly as they threaten each other's interests(central Asia, Balkans, Japan, Alaska).

Why would the British care that much about the Ryukyus, if Japan was on the losing side during the Great War?
In which world the Japanese side with the Germans when the later own Hokkaido remains a mystery to me, I mean you put the Japanese under British-French economic interest, that doesn't strike me as something the Japanese would "rebel" against(is it a protectorate or what? Still I find it hard to believe that Europe could manage that) instead of like fighting against the Germans to take land, more so when the alternative is fighting Britain, France and superpower Russia.

Because it would be excessive in the eyes of the British and the Japanese and those 2 alone can inflict a lot of damage to the Russian(that of course has no interests in a direct engagement with Britain if they are trying to build up a Pacific empire), of course you have the French has well that would be against it, as would the Qing.
 
Seems post 1815 Russia.

But in Russian historiography at least in English there is a difference between the Tsardom from Ivan III but usually Ivan IV till Peter the Great, which it is then afterward called the Imperial period.

When anyone talks of Tsardom I think surviving Rurikids, Shuisky, Godunovs or better earlier Romanovs of even a False Dimitry or two.
 
But in Russian historiography at least in English there is a difference between the Tsardom from Ivan III but usually Ivan IV till Peter the Great, which it is then afterward called the Imperial period.

When anyone talks of Tsardom I think surviving Rurikids, Shuisky, Godunovs or better earlier Romanovs of even a False Dimitry or two.
Well the rulers were still zar during the empire as well? But basically zar = emperor effectively, from a technical standpoint at least.
 
Well the rulers were still zar during the empire as well? But basically zar = emperor effectively, from a technical standpoint at least.

Not really, Czar was used up until Peter the Great at least as far as royal titles went. After that, it was just autocrat or emperor. If even they are technically the same thing, the distinction is used historiographically, for what are two fundamentally different periods. So for me, Tsarist Russia is looking at a much earlier POD than the OP.
 
Not really, Czar was used up until Peter the Great at least as far as royal titles went. After that, it was just autocrat or emperor. If even they are technically the same thing, the distinction is used historiographically, for what are two fundamentally different periods. So for me, Tsarist Russia is looking at a much earlier POD than the OP.
It's just a name really, a name that is basically the same thing with a different etymological root. I find it clear the time period we are talking about from the content of the thread, the earliest POD being the Crimean War.
 
Top