NationStates Jolt Archive

Russia, prior to WW1 and the revolution, was slowly developing into a more European power. The emancipation of the Serfs by Alexander II was the biggest step, freeing more slaves than Abraham Lincon and much earlier, without any civil war. Also Russia was begining to democratise with the creation of the Duma. Though the first and second ones were thrown out very quickly, the third and fourth served full terms. It always seemed to me that the autocratic Tsar wanted to have his cake and eat it too. He wanted to reform to become more modern, yet still wanted all his power. Now it seemed that WW1 ended any chance of development as it devistated Russia's internal stability and showed how fragile its infrastructure was. Had it not happened, I believe it would have been possible for Russia to develop into something like another proper European great power. What do you think?

a good thought, and i suppose quite possible.

I think the answer would probably be yes.

Anything is possible.

it could always had been a democratic state -yet still have communism- as we saw with gorbachov. but stalin and some of the other presidents/effective rulers ruined the chances.

a good thought

I was getting quite tired about all the threads about modern conflicts and American history. Look further afield people

I think that if that bastard Stalin had been kicked out of the Communist Party before Lenin died, then we would have seen a Democratic Communist U.S.S.R.

Now THAT would have changed the history of the latter half of the 21st century as we know it.


Back on topic, I think the Durma was a joke, just an attempt to hold off the unevitable uprising of the people.

I think it still would've developed as a communist state, everyone was sick of the Tsars and wanted him out, and the Soviet party was gaing popularity, WW I only gave the Soviet party the push it needed to get the revolution to shift power. Also, before WW I Russia was in its interm-government (between two government) which was very weak, and was poorly put together. I believe that all WW I did was give the final push to Communism.

It wasnt evolving into a democratic state, the only reason the 3rd duma held onto a full term was because it had basically been selected by the tsar, and by the end of their five year term they had turned against him, realising he was an autocratic shit.
Also the emancipation of the serfs did little more than piss people off as the rural workers were given less land to work which was usually of a poorer quality, they had to pay to work on this land and the aristos were poorly compensated for what they had been given.

the Soviet party
I'm sorry, who?

Also, before WW I Russia was in its interm-government (between two government) which was very weak, and was poorly put together..

Im not sure what you mean by this? The Tsar was still in government during WW1, up untill the point that Russia surrendered and the revolution happened.

the Soviet party

Ahem, that didn't exist. Your thinking of the Bolshivicks. There was the Petrograd Soviet and later it became the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but it wasnt the Soviet party.

I think it still would've developed as a communist state, everyone was sick of the Tsars and wanted him out, and the Soviet party was gaing popularity, WW I only gave the Soviet party the push it needed to get the revolution to shift power. Also, before WW I Russia was in its interm-government (between two government) which was very weak, and was poorly put together. I believe that all WW I did was give the final push to Communism.

The Tsar was no longer in power when the communists took over.

Look, before WW I, Russia had a revolution. The Revolution has push the current government of the time out, and replaced it with a temp. government. However because it was a temp government, it was poorly put together, and it could've never handled WW I as a real government. Its like building a house out of a deck of card and then blowing on it. The temp. government was corrupted and it fed off the suffering of the peasants while rewarding the wealthy. Because of this, many people has become upset with the Temp. government, and all WW I did was give the Bolshivicks a reason to start yet ANOTHER revolution to overthrow the temp. government. Trust me, I have taken 2 classes in colleges on this subject. One in Modern Revolution, and another in European/Russian history. I got A's in both classes.

Almost certainly not. The Tsar only abdicated because he thought that he wasn't able to hold the country together, and the Russia army was very good at surpressing revolts when it wasn't busy fighting elsewhere, as in 1905 and 1915.


it could always had been a democratic state -yet still have communism- as we saw with gorbachov. but stalin and some of the other presidents/effective rulers ruined the chances.


I think the idea is that the November Revolution and October Revolution wouldn't have happened if it weren't for WWI, not that Russia would have stayed on the path Lenin intended (though its sort of hard to know what Lenin intended. He warned against Trotsky and Stalin in his will but didn't really say much constructive about leadership).



I think it still would've developed as a communist state, everyone was sick of the Tsars and wanted him out, and the Soviet party was gaing popularity, WW I only gave the Soviet party the push it needed to get the revolution to shift power.

Am I right in thinking that you mean the Bolshevik party by "soviet"? Because the Menshevicks and Socialist Revolutionary parties could equally be described as Soviet. Also, people really weren't sick of the Tsar outside the cities, and 90% of the people in Russia were farmers. Furthermore if he could stay out of large wars the Tsar could use the army to crack down on dissent as he had done in the past, and people wouldn't have been nearly as angry at him without the governmental incompetence surounding the Russian effort in WWI.

Also, without the war to make the provisional assembly look bad, the Bolshevicks wouldn't have been able to sieze power from the liberals and other socialists in October. They wouldn't have been able to sieze power before the constituent assembly convened and by then they couldn't pretend to be a legitimate opposition group without working within the government.


Also, before WW I Russia was in its interm-government (between two government) which was very weak, and was poorly put together. I believe that all WW I did was give the final push to Communism.

The interm government before WWI? Do you mean the Duma?

Look, before WW I, Russia had a revolution. The Revolution has push the current government of the time out, and replaced it with a temp. government. However because it was a temp government, it was poorly put together, and it could've never handled WW I as a real government. Its like building a house out of a deck of card and then blowing on it. The temp. government was corrupted and it fed off the suffering of the peasants while rewarding the wealthy. Because of this, many people has become upset with the Temp. government, and all WW I did was give the Bolshivicks a reason to start yet ANOTHER revolution to overthrow the temp. government. Trust me, I have taken 2 classes in colleges on this subject. One in Modern Revolution, and another in European/Russian history. I got A's in both classes.

Are you talking about the 1905 revolution? To my knowledge that didnt do very much. I have done Russia for A-level coursework but we only had it once a week.

Almost certainly not. The Tsar only abdicated because he thought that he wasn't able to hold the country together, and the Russia army was very good at surpressing revolts when it wasn't busy fighting elsewhere, as in 1905 and 1915.





I think the idea is that the November Revolution and October Revolution wouldn't have happened if it weren't for WWI, not that Russia would have stayed on the path Lenin intended (though its sort of hard to know what Lenin intended. He warned against Trotsky and Stalin in his will but didn't really say much constructive about leadership).





Am I right in thinking that you mean the Bolshevik party by "soviet"? Because the Menshevicks and Socialist Revolutionary parties could equally be described as Soviet. Also, people really weren't sick of the Tsar outside the cities, and 90% of the people in Russia were farmers. Furthermore if he could stay out of large wars the Tsar could use the army to crack down on dissent as he had done in the past, and people wouldn't have been nearly as angry at him without the governmental incompetence surounding the Russian effort in WWI.

Also, without the war to make the provisional assembly look bad, the Bolshevicks wouldn't have been able to sieze power from the liberals and other socialists in October. They wouldn't have been able to sieze power before the constituent assembly convened and by then they couldn't pretend to be a legitimate opposition group without working within the government.




The interm government before WWI? Do you mean the Duma?


Yes I do mean the Duma.

Are you talking about the 1905 revolution? To my knowledge that didnt do very much. I have done Russia for A-level coursework but we only had it once a week.

Yes I am talking about the 1905 revolution. While it wasn't on the scale as the second one, it did push the current government out and replaced it with the Duma. Because the Dumas was poorly constructed, all was needed was a war to collapse it.

Yes I am talking about the 1905 revolution. While it wasn't on the scale as the second one, it did push the current government out and replaced it with the Duma. Because the Dumas was poorly constructed, all was needed was a war to collapse it.

Yes, but without the war, given more time, could the government have developed?

Yes, but without the war, given more time, could the government have developed?


Not likely, because like I said, the Duma was corrupted and was oppressing the peasants and cathering to the wealthy. Theres ALOT that goes into a revolution, no one revoluation just have one cause. I gotta go to class now though, I'll finish when I come back.

after the February revolution when there was no Tsar anymore then it could have been possible

Well...

The socialists were still big in Russia. It would have become socailist, and probably authoritarian, even if the Bolsheviks hadn't seized power.

They actually did have an election, the Bolsheviks just disregarded it. The Socialist Revolutionaries (democratic socialists) got 400 seat and the Bolsheviks got 200. As we all know, any form of socialism leads to poverty, even if it isn't authoritarian. If capitalism would've made a come back they could certainly have taken on the rest of Europe, but as things were they were headed on the long, poverty stricken road of socialism even if it was through democracy. It would've been better on the citizen's though, as there would've been more civil rights and no mass murders.

First of all, it was the Germans who sent Lenin into Russia by train. If WWI hadn't started the Germans would'nt of had to do that. Russia would continue to build power, and take over any uprising. The reason why Communism happened wasn't just that WWI Russia was weakened but the people were losing Morale. Hear about these mass quantities of death surprised them. I'm sure in the 20s'-30s' Russia would build a parlimentary system. WWII would of never happened either in Europe. Japan is something totally different don't let me get into that.

Yes I am talking about the 1905 revolution. While it wasn't on the scale as the second one, it did push the current government out and replaced it with the Duma. Because the Dumas was poorly constructed, all was needed was a war to collapse it.

Not exactly, the old Russian regime was still in plane, Czar Nicholas II still ruled with a heavy hand, but now there as just a Duma. It wasn't very effective, and only helped quell the revolt. It was the February Revolution (Actually in March) that replaced the Czars government with the democrat regime of Kerensky, but it did not seek peace with Germany and could not bring victory to the Russian Armies (The ill-fated Kerensky Offensive was the last gasp of the Russian Army), so the armies melted away (desertion mostly, widespread).

Well...

The socialists were still big in Russia. It would have become socailist, and probably authoritarian, even if the Bolsheviks hadn't seized power.

They actually did have an election, the Bolsheviks just disregarded it. The Socialist Revolutionaries (democratic socialists) got 400 seat and the Bolsheviks got 200. As we all know, any form of socialism leads to poverty, even if it isn't authoritarian. If capitalism would've made a come back they could certainly have taken on the rest of Europe, but as things were they were headed on the long, poverty stricken road of socialism even if it was through democracy. It would've been better on the citizen's though, as there would've been more civil rights and no mass murders.


Are you sure all the Democratic Socialists were socialists though? In France the Radical Socialists were in fact a middle-of-the-line party. I could see a slightly more radical France, on a much grander scale, and probably problems with nationalism of Non-Great Russian people.