Without WWI, when would Russia's economy and military have surpassed Germany's?

I think in general terms that Tsarist Russia would overtake Germany in the size of the economy and military. But that doesn't mean that they would be equivalents in terms of quality or per capita outputs. Germany would hold a qualitative advantage over Russia for the rest of the century, like otl.
 
FWIW, Robert C. Allen argued (pp. 33-7 of *Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution*) that the Tsarist economic boom could not have continued, and that Russia could not even have sustained its Tsarist growth rate in per capita GDP--which would not be enough even to reach 1989 *Soviet* levels of per capita GDP, let alone western European levels. I quote him at length at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/IJJ8eV04na0/tzoo2zxLUJYJ See the entire thread for criticism of Allen's arguments...
 
Russia needs agricultural reform more than anything. The way the Soviets brought people to the cities to increase industrial production is with artificially low agriculture prices that impoverished farmers and made them move to the cities for opportunity. What the Tsar needs to do is increase agricultural productivity to where the prices are that low naturally. This can only be accomplished with land reform taking power from the communes and giving it to local families. As many communists noted, much of Russian agriculture was already collectivized by the traditional method of Obshchina farming where the land was owned communally and parceled out. The Tsar needs to encourage private land ownership and local agricultural investment banks that can lend to farmers wishing to increase productivity by buying modern equipment, which would also increase domestic demand for industrial production.

A method very much like this in China succeeded pretty spectacularly.


To give you guys an idea of how terrible Russia agriculture is to this day, I'll show you some statistics:


Agricultural Sector(2016) by value in millions USD(nominal):

China: 990,000

India: 392,00

United States: 215,000

Brazil: 95,000

Nigeria: 74,000

Japan: 56,000

Thailand: 52,000

Australia: 50,000

Russia: 49,000

France 47,000

Mexico: 39,000

Canada: 27,000


As you can see, Russia, with its 143 million people and endless tracts of land, falls behind desertine Australia with 24 million people. And even half-desert Nigeria, with its population barely larger than Russia and mostly subsistence agriculture blows Russia away.
 
Last edited:

Perkeo

Banned
IMO Russia surpaces Germany (and all other nations except the US and maye China) one generation after successfully implerment a functional market economy.

And I would write the same in the Future history thread.
 
IMO Russia surpaces Germany (and all other nations except the US and maye China) one generation after successfully implerment a functional market economy.

And I would write the same in the Future history thread.

I agree. But I do think agricultural reform is the basis for implementing a functional market economy in Russia
 

Deleted member 94680

Once again there are quite a few posters looking at Russia in a vacuum. If the Russian economic upturn (IMO unsustainable, as others have said) would elevate their GDP and per capita incomes without WWI, why would it not also increase Germany's? If the Russians would improve without the negative effects of global war, surely the Germans would continue to improve as well.

Russia's biggest problem is the two most likely forms of governance open to them - Tsarist absolutism or Bolshevik Soviets - were both horrendously inefficient in regards to modern, industrial economies. The Tsarist system was rife with corruption and mismanagement, from high-level failures to secure proper supply contracts and prices, to low-level managers and officers simply selling supplies out the back door for personal gain. Whereas the Soviet "economic miracles" - sunglasses being produced by painting normal lenses black, dangerously low quality production methods to meet overambitious production quotas and of course the Ukrainian famine - produced in large parts a paper tiger.

For me, without some form of drastic POD that produces "normal" civilian dominated democratic governance in Russia for a good ten to fifteen year period (to eliminate graft and systematic corruption) Russian would not overtake Germany for at least fifty years. That is also predicated on a fifty year period of general peace as war would throw those figures off considerably.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Yes, same with 1941 even and a big part of the fall in GDP under communism was the drop off in food production.


In terms of industry? Yes. They had imported a lot of US technology pre-war (and German too) plus got a LOT via LL, especially machine tools, which were very labor saving. A huge chunk of Soviet GDP in 1941 was agriculture and raw material production, so industry, despite their mass production, was well behind. There was a reason Stalin was keen on the Commercial Agreement in 1940:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)
They wanted the industrial equipment they couldn't source internally and weren't being sold by the Brits and US at the time. They did the same thing as part of the Reichswehr-Soviet military cooperation; IG Farben built the Soviet chemical weapons industry from near scratch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany–Soviet_Union_relations_before_1941#The_.22Third_Period.22

Stalin actually crippled Soviet exports during the 1920s-30s with his efforts at collectivizing the farming peasants.

Thanks for sharing all of this information! :)

That's your problem right there. Nicky did not want any reforms, he was an old school autocrat that would rather die than have to deal with a Duma.

Well, yeah, Nicky would certainly have to go for this to work.

Yup. German industry was substantially more advanced AND they were actually outsourcing a lot of factories to Russia, which the Russians nationalized in WW1. A big part of the reason the Germans punched above their weight in WW1 and 2 was their heavy industry based economy, but also part of the reason they didn't have a large automotive industry to draw on to make AFVs in WW1 (consumer goods like that were more British and French style industrial economies).

OK.

Also, I want to clarify something--Germany was more focused on heavy industry while both Britain and France were focused on manufacturing, correct?

No. I just think things would have been more balanced, perhaps with the Russians keeping up with perhaps half of US GDP rather than a tiny fraction.

Half the U.S. GDP in per capita terms or in total terms?

Relative to other nations yes, it was the largest economy in the world, but was still a debtor. It would have remained the largest economy in the world, but wouldn't have become anywhere near as domineering as it is today if not for the world wars. In fact without them the US economy grows much more slowly relative to the rest of the world and Europe's combined GDP would be at least 50% higher if not even double.

OK.

Also, though, when exactly did the U.S. become a creditor? During World War I?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Once again there are quite a few posters looking at Russia in a vacuum. If the Russian economic upturn (IMO unsustainable, as others have said)

Hang on--why exactly would it have been unsustainable? Indeed, I just want to clarify this part.

would elevate their GDP and per capita incomes without WWI, why would it not also increase Germany's? If the Russians would improve without the negative effects of global war, surely the Germans would continue to improve as well.

Yes, Germany's economy would also certainly grow without World War I; however, Russia had more room to grow than Germany had.

Russia's biggest problem is the two most likely forms of governance open to them - Tsarist absolutism or Bolshevik Soviets - were both horrendously inefficient in regards to modern, industrial economies. The Tsarist system was rife with corruption and mismanagement, from high-level failures to secure proper supply contracts and prices, to low-level managers and officers simply selling supplies out the back door for personal gain. Whereas the Soviet "economic miracles" - sunglasses being produced by painting normal lenses black, dangerously low quality production methods to meet overambitious production quotas and of course the Ukrainian famine - produced in large parts a paper tiger.

For me, without some form of drastic POD that produces "normal" civilian dominated democratic governance in Russia for a good ten to fifteen year period (to eliminate graft and systematic corruption) Russian would not overtake Germany for at least fifty years. That is also predicated on a fifty year period of general peace as war would throw those figures off considerably.

What about in a PoD where normal civil-dominated democratic governance does come to Russia, though? For instance, think of Russian Tsar Nicholas II getting overthrown in a revolution sometime in the 1920s.
 

Deleted member 94680

Hang on--why exactly would it have been unsustainable? Indeed, I just want to clarify this part.

Because it's relatively easy to make the initial improvements Russia did - much of it based on imported machinery and tooling - it's the 'next stage' that's harder to achieve.

Yes, Germany's economy would also certainly grow without World War I; however, Russia had more room to grow than Germany had.

Room it might have, but that's mainly because it had been so poor under the Tsarist system to date. Germany had a lead and under those circumstances wouldn't have a reason to lose it.

What about in a PoD where normal civil-dominated democratic governance does come to Russia, though? For instance, think of Russian Tsar Nicholas II getting overthrown in a revolution sometime in the 1920s.

Then until "sometime in the 1920s" Russia would have shitty Tsarist corruption riddled governance holding them back whilst Germany surges ahead.


Also, militarily, Germany wasn't afraid of being overtaken by Russia, they were concerned the Russians would be able to hold their own and force a two-front war. Remember, a lot of the statements attributed to German Generals about the Russian menace were made with an eye on securing increased funding for themselves. Much the same as the Americans talked up the Soviet "missile gap" in the 50s/60s.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Because it's relatively easy to make the initial improvements Russia did - much of it based on imported machinery and tooling - it's the 'next stage' that's harder to achieve.

By "next stage," do you mean building heavy industry?

Room it might have, but that's mainly because it had been so poor under the Tsarist system to date. Germany had a lead and under those circumstances wouldn't have a reason to lose it.

OK.

Then until "sometime in the 1920s" Russia would have shitty Tsarist corruption riddled governance holding them back whilst Germany surges ahead.

Agreed; however, how long would it have taken for Russia to catch up to Germany after the 1920s?

Also, militarily, Germany wasn't afraid of being overtaken by Russia, they were concerned the Russians would be able to hold their own and force a two-front war.

Well, yeah, they were worried about the Schlieffen Plan becoming obsolete by the completion of Russia's Great Military Program (planned for 1917).

Remember, a lot of the statements attributed to German Generals about the Russian menace were made with an eye on securing increased funding for themselves. Much the same as the Americans talked up the Soviet "missile gap" in the 50s/60s.

That's probably true; however, it wasn't only German generals who were panicking about Russia--for instance, take a look at what Bethmann-Hollweg declared about Russia:

https://books.google.com/books?id=A...-hollweg the future belongs to russia&f=false

Also, if German generals were merely interested in securing more funding for the German military, then they wouldn't have been so active in pushing for war in July 1914.
 

Deleted member 94680

By "next stage," do you mean building heavy industry?

No, I assumed we were already talking heavy industry. I meant expanding the industrial base to the point where it could surpass Germany.

Agreed; however, how long would it have taken for Russia to catch up to Germany after the 1920s?

Minus Germany's hobbling by Versailles or some ATL version of it, I don't think they would.

Well, yeah, they were worried about the Schlieffen Plan becoming obsolete by the completion of Russia's Great Military Program (planned for 1917).

Let's not get sidetracked by Schlieffen Plan debates. That's also the two-front problem, rather than fear of defeat.

That's probably true; however, it wasn't only German generals who were panicking about Russia--for instance, take a look at what Bethmann-Hollweg declared about Russia:

Meh. Bethmann-Hollweg said whatever he thought the power of the time wanted to hear.

Also, if German generals were merely interested in securing more funding for the German military, then they wouldn't have been so active in pushing for war in July 1914.

I don't think many of the German Generals actively pushed for war, they certainly didn't advise against it mind, but the military council in 1912 is overstated IMO. Also, many of those figures in and around those meetings were the "hawks" as opposed to the general consensus.
 
There were many competent reformers in the Tsar's service. He just hobbled them and personally cared more about maintaining autocracy than the state interests of Russia. What you need to do to fix Russia is get Nicholas out of the way and don't let the Bolsheviks or a permanently locked Duma replace him. My personal preference is Decembrists Mk. II, wherein a large cadre of liberal military officers seize St. Petersburg and the Tsar and force a constitution upon him. This constitution places the military into the hands of the Duma/the Duma in the hands of the military, cutting off the Tsar's real source of power. The New Decembrists bake a bunch of new laws into this constitution, increasing the power and democracy of the Zemstvas, and pushing land reform through before a Duma is even assembled. Then they graciously hand off the government into civilian hands after the election. A Turkish-style relationship between the military and the government ensues, except instead of a secularist/Islamist split it's a parliamentarian/autocrat split, with the military on the side of parliamentarians. And as the support for autocracy naturally wanes over time, the military gets less and less involved in civilian government.
 

Deleted member 94680

There were many competent reformers in the Tsar's service.

Care to name some? I've always had the impression anyone near power under Nicholas II was committed to maintaining the status quo.

What you need to do to fix Russia is get Nicholas out of the way and don't let the Bolsheviks or a permanently locked Duma replace him.

Without a Civil War, if you "get Nicholas out of the way" you simply get the next in line or a regent and the system stays the same.

My personal preference is Decembrists Mk. II, wherein a large cadre of liberal military officers seize St. Petersburg and the Tsar and force a constitution upon him.

So a Civil War is your solution to the unsuitability of the Tsarist system? Look how far back the OTL Civil War set Russia, proposing an earlier ATL one hardly looks a good way to advance the economy. Anyway, weren't the Decemberists more interested in land allocation, implying they were more agricultural in their outlook? By the time of Nicholas II the Decemberists (a small, fringe group at the best of times) were long dead as a political ideology. The Army, your vehicle for change, was the home of the reactionary elite, riven by personality based divisions of its own.

This constitution places the military into the hands of the Duma/the Duma in the hands of the military, cutting off the Tsar's real source of power.

A military junta as a way of advancing the nation? Don't think that's ever worked before. Men become Generals because they don't tend to be interested in (or suited for) politics and governance, there are noted exceptions for sure, but the Russian Imperial Army is not well known for them.

Then they graciously hand off the government into civilian hands after the election. A Turkish-style relationship between the military and the government ensues ... with the military on the side of parliamentarians. And as the support for autocracy naturally wanes over time, the military gets less and less involved in civilian government.

Highly unlikely. Once they take it (unlikely, IMO) they aren't going to give it back unless they want to be executed after the fact. In Russia a "Turkish style relation with the military" would involve a lot of coups and trials and executions, not a lot of economic advancement.
 
I think that Russia would overtake the Germans as an economic/military power in the 1950s or the 1960s depending (OK, maybe if things go very well, maybe the 1940s). The truth is, absent WW1 there is still going to be an economic crash, probably in 1914, which will devastate the commodity exports of Russia and cause economic and political crisis. There are likely to still be smaller wars (maybe one with the Turks), which may cause their own crises and the Russians are still ruled by Nicky. It won't be smooth sailing like numbers extrapolated on a graph.

And Russia probably wouldn't overtake the Germans in per-capita productivity even by today. (Overtaking that way is very hard to do and would probably take the Russians more than a single century.)

For me, without some form of drastic POD that produces "normal" civilian dominated democratic governance in Russia for a good ten to fifteen year period (to eliminate graft and systematic corruption) Russian would not overtake Germany for at least fifty years. That is also predicated on a fifty year period of general peace as war would throw those figures off considerably.

I think continuing Tsarism and the rise to power of the Bolsheviks were both low-probability.

Much more likely is that Russia slowly democratizes with bumps along the road such as military dictatorship or populists powerful enough that they can act as dictators (like Mussolini in Italy, who didn't have total power but was able to bully and bluster to get his way even in the absence of that).

Also, if German generals were merely interested in securing more funding for the German military, then they wouldn't have been so active in pushing for war in July 1914.

Why not? A good quick war is a great way to re-enforce the need for a strong military.

It's not like they expected a continent consuming total war, after all!

Much like NATO and WarPact planners who made plans for fighting in Europe with liberal use of tactical nukes from day one but somehow believed that there might be some delay in between lead flying and nukes flying in which they could "settle things" and then negotiate peace, the Germans made plans for industrial war but never thought it would actually happen.

fasquardon
 
And Russia probably wouldn't overtake the Germans in per-capita productivity even by today. (Overtaking that way is very hard to do and would probably take the Russians more than a single century.)
Sounds good enough, with 400 million people in its border Russia, even if half as per capita productive as Germany chances are good that Russia would have as many people who are about as productive as the average German than the whole German population. Average, remember, half have more than the average, half have less. That's a pool of 100, 150 million people as productive and educated as any other average Western European, plenty people to recruit world class scientists and engineers from to raise the power of the Russian military and economy.

Then there's also the issue of currency valuation, today a Ruble gets you more goods and services in Russia than outside so despite having a GDP the size of Italy Russia can afford a military Italy could only dream of because their Rubles are spent in Russia buying things from Russian factories which pay their workers in Ruble, not converted Dollars - there's no such thing as an Italian space program.
 
It's rather odd how many people put so much faith in Provisional government, or its alternate equivalent.
It's not like provgov remotely improved war effort, or home front. There was still corruption, incompetence. On top of all ills of previous system, provisional government added new ones, at the price of taking away remains of stability and legitimacy Russian government still had in the eyes of its people. Lvov, Milyukov, and Kerensky didn't want to end war, they overthrew the tsar because they were angry he wasn't winning war they considered winnable. They were oblivious that country was falling apart.
I simply don't think that overthrowing tsar or giving power to the Duma would help Russian economic growth in no-WWI situation. At best, you'd get decades of oligarchs and corruption, an earlier Yeltsin era (which would still be better than post-Qing China did - no warlords), at worst, situation would deteriorate into some insane far left not too different from Bolsheviks taking power, except they'd do it through elections, not coup.
Maybe some twenty years after 1905 revolution or so, after people got used to representative institutions, and government successfully grabbed some low-hanging fruits thus improving general economy and prosperity, transferring into responsible government would be doable.
 
As I have pointed out before, Russia was probably the most rapidly industrialising country in the world c.1890-1914 and that was under Tsar Nicky! Indeed, his fall (like the Shah of Iran's) was probably more through the dislocations and tensions caused by his massive modernisation than his being an absolutist reactionary (absolutist yes agreed, reactionary not so much). Yes they could have had a slump or two even without the War but essentially they were well on the way to being a modern industrial economy. Look how relatively well they did OTL with the devastation of the two World Wars, the Civil War, War Communism and the purges under Stalin. And the inertia under Brezhnev and Chernyenko.
One of the (many) reasons why WWI started was that Germany felt that it was only up to 1916 that they could have a war with Russia while there was still a window of possibility of them winning. They did overrate Russia's military reforms but the basic reasoning was sound (as they discovered in 1945 OTL).
Denekin, Wrangel, Boldyrev, Kappel, Kornilov, Kolchak, Alexiev, Yudenich et al were all pro military and communications/logistics modernisation so, even in a worst case scenario of a military dictatorship, industrialisation would continue.
Russia was as a nation hurt and exhausted by WWI and there was a lot of infrastructure damage in the West. But as far as the industrial economy was concerned (mainly in Petrograd, Kiev, Moscow and Tsarityn at that point), it took the Civil War and War Communism to really do damage. No Civil War and no War Communism and possibly some territorial gains at Turkey or China's expense ? Along with no murder or mass migration of scientists, industrialists, managers and engineers (including Zworykin, Seversky and Sikorsky) Russia would have been roughly where she was in 1933 ten or fifteen years earlier (so even with a slower rate of industrialisation than under Stalin they would still outstrip him due to their ten or fifteen years head start). Not to mention being more integrated in the world economy from 1917 onwards (no defaulted debts or lack of diplomatic recognition so they could buy in as well as build). By 1938/39 Russia would be at least as much, and probably more, industrialised (though probably with more of the industry this side of the Urals) than OTL. They would also have a more modern and competently led army, navy and airforce with no purges (and likely some post war experience in Finland, Poland, the Baltics, Middle East and China to keep them sharp too) and very unlikely that Germany would have the inclination to take them on. Unlikely to be a lot of German industrialists keen on supporting or bankrolling a party hostile to their greatest trading partner in 1932/33 either. No communist bogey and the far right probably never gets the same traction it did OTL. Russian industrialisation probably more sustainable and balanced than OTL also. Better attention to quality control and products consumers want and less jerry-building. And that is even if they lose Poland, Finland and the Baltics!
 
Top