If you could change three events in post-1815 Russian history, which events would you change?

[WolfBear]

As for me:

-Have Russia conquer Galicia in either 1848-1849 (as "compensation" for helping Austria crush the Hungarian rebellion), 1866, or 1870-1871 and thus strangle Ukrainian nationalism there in its cradle and ensure that it won't be able to spread to the rest of Ukraine.
-Avoid sparking World War I in July 1914 by deciding to fight for Serbia. The conflict instead remains a localized Austro-Serbian war.
-Summarily hunt down and kill all of the Bolsheviks in the years before 1917. This would make Russia a total pariah, killing its own dissidents in exile, but it's nothing that Vladimir Putin would not have done had he been transported 100 years earlier and in any case, in this case, the circumstances certainly justified this.

Also, if I could add a fourth event here:

-Make an alliance with Britain and France in 1939 at all costs. Even a French ally that is on the defensive will still be better than the complete absence of any Western Front at all, as was actually the case for the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1944 in real life.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

I would have.

1. Have Alexander lll live to be a hundred.
2. Have Lenin die before 1910
3. Have Nicholas II be born completely different from his OTL counterpart and be more open to reform like his grandfather.

That's the best way to ensure things go well over the long haul.

 

[WolfBear]

I would have.

1. Have Alexander lll live to be a hundred.
2. Have Lenin die before 1910
3. Have Nicholas II be born completely different from his OTL counterpart and more open to reform like his grandfather.

That's the best way to ensure things go well over the long haul.

Alexander III living to be 100 would mean that he lives until either 1945 or 1946, which would have been extraordinarily impressive.

 

[History Learner]

As for me:

-Have Russia conquer Galicia in either 1848-1849 (as "compensation" for helping Austria crush the Hungarian rebellion), 1866, or 1870-1871 and thus strangle Ukrainian nationalism there in its cradle and ensure that it won't be able to spread to the rest of Ukraine.

Supposedly there was a serious chance for this in 1815, but the Saxony issue and the like killed it off. Something I've played around with before is a stronger Austrian presence in Italy supported by the Russo-Poles in exchange for Russia getting Galicia and thus also avoiding the Saxony Crisis. Also, how strong of a butterfly net we talking?

 

[WolfBear]

Supposedly there was a serious chance for this in 1815, but the Saxony issue and the like killed it off. Something I've played around with before is a stronger Austrian presence in Italy supported by the Russo-Poles in exchange for Russia getting Galicia and thus also avoiding the Saxony Crisis.

What was Austria's position on Saxony? And honestly, I'd have Russia trade Poland for eastern Galicia. The Poles were a rather rebellious bunch in any case. The Galician Ukrainians could have at least been molded into Russians had they been indoctrinated with Russian nationalist ideas at the time of mass literacy.

Also, how strong of a butterfly net we talking?

As strong or as weak as you want.

 

[History Learner]

What was Austria's position on Saxony? And honestly, I'd have Russia trade Poland for eastern Galicia. The Poles were a rather rebellious bunch in any case. The Galician Ukrainians could have at least been molded into Russians had they been indoctrinated with Russian nationalist ideas at the time of mass literacy.

The Austrians did not want a Prussian annexation of Saxony, as it served as buffer for Bohemia. As for the Poles, at this time there was a movement among them to unite as many of the Polish ethnic territories as possible under one ruler, be it Prussian, Austrian or Russian. A Russian annexation of Galicia would largely achieve this, and allow the Tsar to usurp the title of King of Poland pretty effectively, which may also reduce the issues there in the same way Little Germany did for the Germans despite Austria remaining independent. As for the Ukrainians, I agree, although keeping Lvov and its areas outside of Russia could also do the trick. It was the Post-War addition of them to the USSR that really exploded Ukrainian nationalism.

As strong or as weak as you want.

Have you read the timeline "A Lethal Otsu" incident?

 

[WolfBear]

The Austrians did not want a Prussian annexation of Saxony, as it served as buffer for Bohemia. As for the Poles, at this time there was a movement among them to unite as many of the Polish ethnic territories as possible under one ruler, be it Prussian, Austrian or Russian. A Russian annexation of Galicia would largely achieve this, and allow the Tsar to usurp the title of King of Poland pretty effectively, which may also reduce the issues there in the same way Little Germany did for the Germans despite Austria remaining independent. As for the Ukrainians, I agree, although keeping Lvov and its areas outside of Russia could also do the trick. It was the Post-War addition of them to the USSR that really exploded Ukrainian nationalism.



Have you read the timeline "A Lethal Otsu" incident?

Yeah, one could do a quarantine of eastern Galicia once Ukrainian nationalism has already exploded there. This would, of course, mean that either Austria-Hungary (if it survives) or Poland (if A-H doesn't survive) would get Galicia in Russia's place. Without Galicia, Ukrainian nationalism would be considerably weaker, though if even more western and central Ukrainian areas can be removed from Russia, then the Ukrainian nationalism problem would become even less severe.

Honestly, my own view is that Russia would have been best served by having the Whites win the RCW while having the Poles succeed in conquering all of Ukraine west of Kiev (+/- western Novorossiya, such as Odessa), either with or without Kiev itself. That would have reduced the Ukrainian nationalist problem in the Russian Empire by a very good amount. It would have also resulted in most of Russia's Jews being placed outside of Russia's new borders.

Yes, I did. Or more accurately, I skimmed parts of it. I especially liked the part about an 1890s partition of the Ottoman Empire due to Russia deciding to act to stop the Hamidian Massacres. Had it actually done this, its position in WWI would have been significantly strengthened.

 

[History Learner]

Yeah, one could do a quarantine of eastern Galicia once Ukrainian nationalism has already exploded there. This would, of course, mean that either Austria-Hungary (if it survives) or Poland (if A-H doesn't survive) would get Galicia in Russia's place. Without Galicia, Ukrainian nationalism would be considerably weaker, though if even more western and central Ukrainian areas can be removed from Russia, then the Ukrainian nationalism problem would become even less severe.

Honestly, my own view is that Russia would have been best served by having the Whites win the RCW while having the Poles succeed in conquering all of Ukraine west of Kiev (+/- western Novorossiya, such as Odessa), either with or without Kiev itself. That would have reduced the Ukrainian nationalist problem in the Russian Empire by a very good amount. It would have also resulted in most of Russia's Jews being placed outside of Russia's new borders.

Yes, I did. Or more accurately, I skimmed parts of it. I especially liked the part about an 1890s partition of the Ottoman Empire due to Russia deciding to act to stop the Hamidian Massacres. Had it actually done this, its position in WWI would have been significantly strengthened.

Getting Galicia in 1815, then Badmaev Plan in the 1890s combined with the "Lethal Otsu" incident in terms of partitioning the Ottomans and striking down Japan earlier would basically set the conditions for Russia to be the Superpower of the 20th Century honestly.

 

[WolfBear]

Getting Galicia in 1815, then Badmaev Plan in the 1890s combined with the "Lethal Otsu" incident in terms of partitioning the Ottomans and striking down Japan earlier would basically set the conditions for Russia to be the Superpower of the 20th Century honestly.

Yep, though even maintaining real life's conditions until 1914 and then having Russia refuse to fight for Serbia would likewise work for this, assuming that the CPs won't betray Russian trust afterwards by doing something extremely humilitating to Russia. In other words, the 1914 Serb betrayal would be akin to Munich 1938, but there can't be an equivalent of Prague 1939.

 

[History Learner]

Yep, though even maintaining real life's conditions until 1914 and then having Russia refuse to fight for Serbia would likewise work for this, assuming that the CPs won't betray Russian trust afterwards by doing something extremely humilitating to Russia. In other words, the 1914 Serb betrayal would be akin to Munich 1938, but there can't be an equivalent of Prague 1939.

I'm of the school of thought World War I was not inevitable, and was entirely contingent about the reactions of the players and the situations on the ground, rather than being the structural end result of the European system. After all, all other crises had largely passed either without war or with limited war, World War I was the random exception that proved so fatal.

 

[Bassoe]

Probably something with the tunguska event. Twelve megatons is a lot to waste on some geopolitically irreverent forest.

 

[Skallagrim]

then Badmaev Plan in the 1890s

Only marginally less batshit than Tsar Paul's lunatic plan to invade India. Badmayev was a crank. Not an incapable man, but his pet obsession was cmpletely impractical. Tsar Alexander's response to the plan says it all: "All this is so novel, so unusual and fantastic that it is difficult to believe in the possibility of success."

If the Tsar happens to hit his head really hard and becomes brain-damaged enough to sign off on it, the result is a 100% chance of war with Britain. Germany thanks you for this wonderful opportunity, as you have effectively turned Britain against you. This means France can either forget about the Entente, or has to break ties with Russia. Either way, Germany wins.

If you want Russia to be a superpower, the main trick is to delay war, not to hasten it with crazy stunts. Time favours Russia. The earlier any Great War starts, the more Russia is screwed. The later it starts, the stronger Russia will be.

 

[WolfBear]

Only marginally less batshit than Tsar Paul's lunatic plan to invade India. Badmayev was a crank. Not an incapable man, but his pet obsession was cmpletely impractical. Tsar Alexander's response to the plan says it all: "All this is so novel, so unusual and fantastic that it is difficult to believe in the possibility of success."

If the Tsar happens to hit his head really hard and becomes brain-damaged enough to sign off on it, the result is a 100% chance of war with Britain. Germany thanks you for this wonderful opportunity, as you have effectively turned Britain against you. This means France can either forget about the Entente, or has to break ties with Russia. Either way, Germany wins.

If you want Russia to be a superpower, the main trick is to delay war, not to hasten it with crazy stunts. Time favours Russia. The earlier any Great War starts, the more Russia is screwed. The later it starts, the stronger Russia will be.

I think that HL aimed to have the Badmayev Plan be Russia's starting negotiating position, after which point Russia could compromise--for instance, by giving Britain Tibet.

 

[Skallagrim]

I think that HL aimed to have the Badmayev Plan be Russia's starting negotiating position, after which point Russia could compromise--for instance, by giving Britain Tibet.

Russia would not be able to carry the plan out. Probably not at all, but certainly not with ease. Meanwhile, Britain would consider it grounds for war. It will not stop that war short of a resolution that sees Russia withdrawing from all Chinese territories, and agreeing to permanently recognise and observe China's territorial integrity.

"Giving" Tibet to Britain is preposterous. Russia doesn't have it. Even if the the plan by some miracle goes off without a hitch, Britain will still insist that Tibet isn't Russia's to give away, and will refuse to negotiate any peace that involves Russia gaining so much as a square inch of Chinese land.

The Great Game was winding down at he time. If Russia absolutely wants to make it go hot at the very end, in a suicidal conflagration for no practical gain... this is one way to do it.

 

[WolfBear]

Russia would not be able to carry the plan out. Probably not at all, but certainly not with ease. Meanwhile, Britain would consider it grounds for war. It will not stop that war short of a resolution that sees Russia withdrawing from all Chinese territories, and permanently agreeing to China's territorial integrity.

"Giving" Tibet to Britain is preposterous. Russia doesn't have it. Even if the the plan by some miracle goes off without a hitch, Britain will still insist that Tibet isn't Russia's to give away, and will refuse to negotiate any peace that involves Russia gaining so much as a square inch of Chinese land.

Th Great Game was winding down. If Russia absolutely wants to make it go hot at the very end, in a suicidal conflagration for no practical gain... this is one way to do it.

Britain allowed Russia to gain Chinese territory in both 1858 and 1860.

 

[Skallagrim]

Britain allowed Russia to gain Chinese territory in both 1858 and 1860.

Both of which were slightly different situations than "we march in there and grab Mongolia and Sinkiang and Gansu and also Tibet, which just so happens to border the Raj".

(When we put it like that, the inherent absurdity of the plan should become obvious.)

 

[WolfBear]

Both of which were slightly different situations than "we march in there and grab Mongolia and Sinkiang and Gansu and also Tibet, which just so happens to border the Raj".

(When we put it like that, the inherent absurdity of the plan should become obvious.)

What about limiting the gains to Mongolia and Xinjiang?

 

[Skallagrim]

What about limiting the gains to Mongolia and Xinjiang?

I think it would still cause a clash with Britain, but a negotiated settlement would presumably be a viable outcome.

The problem is that this means it would still be a massive, risky, ambitious operation... with only very modest gains. And it will cause Anglo-Russian relations to worsen, which is a bad thing for Russia. Simple cost-benefit analysis tells you it's a bad idea, then.

The plan proposed by Badmayev was theoretically viable precisely because it was so ambitious. The projected gains were enormous, and that would make the venture worth it. The problem is that what can be done on paper can't just as easily be done in practice, and -- perhaps more importantly -- Russia also had to consider the reaction of other powers, especially Britain.

 

[WolfBear]

I think it would still cause a clash with Britain, but a negotiated settlement would presumably be a viable outcome.

The problem is that this means it would still be a massive, risky, ambitious operation... with only very modest gains. And it will cause Anglo-Russian relations to worsen, which is a bad thing for Russia. Simple cost-benefit analysis tells you it's a bad idea, then.

The plan proposed by Badmayev was theoretically viable precisely because it was so ambitious. The projected gains were enormous, and that would make the venture worth it. The problem is that what can be done on paper can't just as easily be done in practice, and -- perhaps more importantly -- Russia also had to consider the reaction of other powers, especially Britain.

Makes sense. That said, though, would Britain have been less pissed off had Russia limited its territorial gains to only Mongolia?

 

[WolfBear]

I'm of the school of thought World War I was not inevitable, and was entirely contingent about the reactions of the players and the situations on the ground, rather than being the structural end result of the European system. After all, all other crises had largely passed either without war or with limited war, World War I was the random exception that proved so fatal.

I think that World War I was significantly helped by these things:

1. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand (and his wife) since it removed the main pro-peace voice in A-H
2. Austria-Hungary's remaining leadership aggressively wanting war with Serbia
3. Germany being unwilling to reign in A-H
4. Russia taking A-H's bait
5. France backing Russia over Serbia
6. Britain not making it crystal-clear that it would not remain neutral in any Great War before this war had actually started