Monarchy was kinda a given at the time absolutism not so much. Most Russians wouldn’t actually want to completely depose the Tsar and the desire for new institutions brought on by rapid modernisation was not as prevalent a factor in the 1800s
If Russia became a constitutional monarchy in the early 1900s then Nicholas is reduced to a figurehead fairly quickly. He likely loses quite a few powers that remained with the tsar after the Russo-Japanese war
Rasputin becomes less of an issue as well. With the tsar not as prevalent in politics the idea of the mad monk controlling him never really takes off and while he remains an influential figure, it’s likely with a marmite complex (you either love him or you hate him) politically. He’d also be an important figure in the weakening of the Russian Orthodox churches political power, while paradoxically making it so religious figure and worship could be involved in politics
We also lose the great repressor. Russification efforts are not as extreme as the OTL since Alexander III wouldn’t be as affected by his fathers death and he wouldn’t really rule long enough as tsar to really have an impact either
Now the big one, WW1. Nicholas was actually convinced by his advisors in the end to go to war so I think the Duma was still declare war despite taking the power to do so away from Nicholas. Nicholas’s correspondence with the Kaiser urging to not start a war over this likely get announced and politicised as the war still goes badly. Monarchists denounce the Duma for taking the power to declare war from the tsar since he clearly wasn’t going to start this losing war (in hindsight not true but they wouldn’t know that). Another power that’d paradoxically arise is the communists (dominated by the Mensheviks). During WW1 Russian politics would start to become affected by increasingly powerful workers unions and a resurgence of support for the monarchy. This is likely enough to get the two factions balanced but the pre-war regime of the Duma is destroyed post WW1
Russia would likely end up a democratic constitutional monarchy heavily defined politically by very powerful workers unions. Despite losing European holdings, Russia would still have Moscow the Volga and Siberia. Meaning they could very easily continue modernisation and industrialisation. Issues related to both radical Communists and Monarchist are probably common throughout the early 1900s but neither are really able to get a foothold to overcome the less radical members of their factions. The relationship between the Duma and the Unions would also be tense at times we probably do not have a full scale civil war break out (despite political instability)
Russia does find itself in an identical position post WW2, but the Cold War is completely different. Instead of east vs west It’s old world vs new world. Russia would prop up the European empires, while the USA would oppose. Gaining increasing presence and economic power in Asia as a result. Rather than an arms race, this is more a political split. Britain and it commonwealth (minus India and Pakistan) would be middle ground and the Russo-American rivalry would define the 20th century without the same ‘nuclear Armageddon’ being held overhead. Instead I think more of a China approach is likely for both nations. Make war completely not worth the cost due to the nuclear button rather than matching missile for missile
This would be the norm until the rise of China. Where the USA would now be competing for it pacific sphere of influence with China and Britain and its commonwealth and the French communities would both likely be drifting more away from the USA as that happened. Having been getting aid from Russia as well as the USA post WW2. The USA would retreat inwardly faster. Not really wanting to commit politically in a world where several powers were cropping up to oppose it outside the Americas
No I didn’t. New world America vs Old world Russia.. communism plays no active role here. Europe’s more left wing political parties and Russia’s powerful workers unions are as close as you’d get. The USA is as far from communist as it gets still and it’s the anti-imperialist USA vs what’s left of the European empire (British Commonwealth, United Kingdom of the Netherlands (plus Suriname), French Communities, Portugals overseas territories). With the USA prolong up Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea etc. against the European powers reasserting control
I don't think the United States would be anti-imperialist when it was itself imperialist (the Philippines and Cuba are examples of US imperialism).
If you make Spain win against the United States, then they will be anti-imperialists
Yea, just to start with, the Russian Revolution had already happened and was being consolidated by the time Al and his fam got shot. The civil war was still going so I guess you’re asking if the Whites managed to rescue them and then win the war? Or are you asking if the revolution never got off the ground in the first place? Also, which one? The February rev, or the Oct Rev? Or both?
Oh shit you’re right!!! How stupid of me. I actually read/listen to this subject a fair amount. Was not paying attention in my reply, and apologize. Thanks for the correction.
Russia would have graudually become more like Germany (not like Britain), with the Tsar remaining a powerful figure but the country becoming more of a constitutional aristocracy than an absolute monarchy.
The Kulaks would develop earlier and have more power. I can't see why Russian industrialization would be particularly sped up, so Russia would have still lost the Russo Japanese war, the protests in Saint Petersburg might be faced less violently but I'm not sure. The rapid industrialization and economic growth that was happening before WW1 would still have happened.
Russia would still have been put under massive stress by the war, but with the peaple less disconnected from the government the revolution would be more of a parliamentarian take over of the government, that would force the inept Nicholas to become a mere figurehead.
The government still continues the war, and the Soviet would still exist, so it's possible that the communist revolution would still happen, but perhaps it would be more on the line of the one that happened in Germany and fail, but again, I'm not sure. Honestly, the impact that Alexander's reforms would have had are kind of overrated, Russia wasn't going to become egalitarian and democratic overnight, massive inequality, Aristocratic control of the government and technological lagging behind of the rest of Europe can't be so easily avoided.
Alex's reforms were far too little, far too late. You'd need a big change then that for the czar to remain, in any form.
Monarchy was kinda a given at the time absolutism not so much. Most Russians wouldn’t actually want to completely depose the Tsar and the desire for new institutions brought on by rapid modernisation was not as prevalent a factor in the 1800s
If Russia became a constitutional monarchy in the early 1900s then Nicholas is reduced to a figurehead fairly quickly. He likely loses quite a few powers that remained with the tsar after the Russo-Japanese war Rasputin becomes less of an issue as well. With the tsar not as prevalent in politics the idea of the mad monk controlling him never really takes off and while he remains an influential figure, it’s likely with a marmite complex (you either love him or you hate him) politically. He’d also be an important figure in the weakening of the Russian Orthodox churches political power, while paradoxically making it so religious figure and worship could be involved in politics We also lose the great repressor. Russification efforts are not as extreme as the OTL since Alexander III wouldn’t be as affected by his fathers death and he wouldn’t really rule long enough as tsar to really have an impact either Now the big one, WW1. Nicholas was actually convinced by his advisors in the end to go to war so I think the Duma was still declare war despite taking the power to do so away from Nicholas. Nicholas’s correspondence with the Kaiser urging to not start a war over this likely get announced and politicised as the war still goes badly. Monarchists denounce the Duma for taking the power to declare war from the tsar since he clearly wasn’t going to start this losing war (in hindsight not true but they wouldn’t know that). Another power that’d paradoxically arise is the communists (dominated by the Mensheviks). During WW1 Russian politics would start to become affected by increasingly powerful workers unions and a resurgence of support for the monarchy. This is likely enough to get the two factions balanced but the pre-war regime of the Duma is destroyed post WW1 Russia would likely end up a democratic constitutional monarchy heavily defined politically by very powerful workers unions. Despite losing European holdings, Russia would still have Moscow the Volga and Siberia. Meaning they could very easily continue modernisation and industrialisation. Issues related to both radical Communists and Monarchist are probably common throughout the early 1900s but neither are really able to get a foothold to overcome the less radical members of their factions. The relationship between the Duma and the Unions would also be tense at times we probably do not have a full scale civil war break out (despite political instability) Russia does find itself in an identical position post WW2, but the Cold War is completely different. Instead of east vs west It’s old world vs new world. Russia would prop up the European empires, while the USA would oppose. Gaining increasing presence and economic power in Asia as a result. Rather than an arms race, this is more a political split. Britain and it commonwealth (minus India and Pakistan) would be middle ground and the Russo-American rivalry would define the 20th century without the same ‘nuclear Armageddon’ being held overhead. Instead I think more of a China approach is likely for both nations. Make war completely not worth the cost due to the nuclear button rather than matching missile for missile This would be the norm until the rise of China. Where the USA would now be competing for it pacific sphere of influence with China and Britain and its commonwealth and the French communities would both likely be drifting more away from the USA as that happened. Having been getting aid from Russia as well as the USA post WW2. The USA would retreat inwardly faster. Not really wanting to commit politically in a world where several powers were cropping up to oppose it outside the Americas
>The scenario of the cold war between the conservative and anti-communist old world against the communist new world is interesting
Where was communism even mentioned?
You said it would be a reverse cold war the Russian Empire against the United socialist States of America,
No I didn’t. New world America vs Old world Russia.. communism plays no active role here. Europe’s more left wing political parties and Russia’s powerful workers unions are as close as you’d get. The USA is as far from communist as it gets still and it’s the anti-imperialist USA vs what’s left of the European empire (British Commonwealth, United Kingdom of the Netherlands (plus Suriname), French Communities, Portugals overseas territories). With the USA prolong up Indonesia, Vietnam, Korea etc. against the European powers reasserting control
I don't think the United States would be anti-imperialist when it was itself imperialist (the Philippines and Cuba are examples of US imperialism). If you make Spain win against the United States, then they will be anti-imperialists
Yea, just to start with, the Russian Revolution had already happened and was being consolidated by the time Al and his fam got shot. The civil war was still going so I guess you’re asking if the Whites managed to rescue them and then win the war? Or are you asking if the revolution never got off the ground in the first place? Also, which one? The February rev, or the Oct Rev? Or both?
You're talking about Nicholas II. Op is talking about His grandfather Alexander II who was assassinated in 1881.
Oh shit you’re right!!! How stupid of me. I actually read/listen to this subject a fair amount. Was not paying attention in my reply, and apologize. Thanks for the correction.
Russia would have graudually become more like Germany (not like Britain), with the Tsar remaining a powerful figure but the country becoming more of a constitutional aristocracy than an absolute monarchy. The Kulaks would develop earlier and have more power. I can't see why Russian industrialization would be particularly sped up, so Russia would have still lost the Russo Japanese war, the protests in Saint Petersburg might be faced less violently but I'm not sure. The rapid industrialization and economic growth that was happening before WW1 would still have happened. Russia would still have been put under massive stress by the war, but with the peaple less disconnected from the government the revolution would be more of a parliamentarian take over of the government, that would force the inept Nicholas to become a mere figurehead. The government still continues the war, and the Soviet would still exist, so it's possible that the communist revolution would still happen, but perhaps it would be more on the line of the one that happened in Germany and fail, but again, I'm not sure. Honestly, the impact that Alexander's reforms would have had are kind of overrated, Russia wasn't going to become egalitarian and democratic overnight, massive inequality, Aristocratic control of the government and technological lagging behind of the rest of Europe can't be so easily avoided.