100 years ago today

[Belz...]

Certainly a defining day in history, right up there with September 1, 1939, December 7, 1941, August 9, 1945 or September 11, 2001.

All in some form a consequence of that day, mind you.

I blame the Big Bang.

 

[catsmate]

In general terms, then, do you reject the view that had there been no Great War, Russia could have evolved into a Western-style polity, perhaps as envisaged by the Constitutional Democrats?

No, in the medium/long term I believe this would happen.
However in the shorter term, absent the war, I believe Russia would have detabilised further, with rounds of repression and relaxation of Imperial control, leading to a revolution and the overthrow of the Tsarist system.

Whether this would have happened within 1-2 years, or longer is difficult to gauge; I'd be very surprised if Russia had lasted another decade with the Imperial system intact.
I just don't think there existed within Russia the capability to manage gradual, non-violent, change at the time, to create a democratic government, while keeping the extremists at bay.

Now such a revolution might have been as, or even more peaceful, than the historical February 1917 Revolution¹ and led to a moderate Social Democrat government, especially given the lack of the burden of the war (and hopefully the lack of Lenin).

Longer term it's likely that the old Russian Empire would have shed parts and formed a series of new states in Eastern Europe, possibly providing the buffer Germany desired.

Of course such changes wouldn't happen in isolation, Germany was also changing and given a few more years it's possible the Kaiser would be less capable of ruling autocratically. Without the Russian Pan-Slavism² it's also possible the Balkans might have been more peaceful.

Over the longer term there are still the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, what happens to them?

Such a state would presumably have been more conducive to economic growth, as one of the fruits of social modernisation.

Very probably. Of course a revolution in, say, 1915 would probably mean a few years of upheaval.

On the other hand, it might be argued that the immense preponderance of the peasantry as a proportion of the total population made such a development rather improbable, even if the European war had not broken out in 1914.

Also unfortunately true. Would a democratic Russia have been able to modernise apace, with the peasantry also demanding change?


And none of these changes really address the fundamental stresses of European politics of the era; the national rivalries, the matter of colonies, the naval arms race and the alliance systems. Perhaps a Russia mired by internal change would have helped maintain peace (by reassuring Germany and limiting French options), but it might also have fallen prone to Japanese or German aggression, triggering a war.


¹ or possibly less so with the Tsar successfully deploying troops to suppress it
² itself very much a consequence of the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War

 

[catsmate]

All in some form a consequence of that day, mind you.

I blame the Big Bang.

I blame Prince Alfred of Montenouvo...

 

[dudalb]

Possibly not in technology used, but every year the war was delayed would have been another couple of thousand km of rail network in Russia, and another few percent of increased industrial output.

Germany was already operating on fairly narrow margins in 1914 as it was. It's one of the reasons the army was all for it then.

That the Russian Railroads and Factories were being finianced mainly by loans from France..which never accepted the 1870 Annexataion of Alsace and Lorraine as a final settlement.... added to what amounted to German Paranoia in 1914.

IMHO if you are looking where the road to war really begun, Kaiser Bill's decisiion in the early 1890's to dumb Bismarck and pretty much reverse most of his foreign policy would not be a bad point.

Bismarck felt that tying the fate of Germany to a already fragile Hapsburg Empire would be a terrible mistake.and felt that good relatations with Russia was a foundataion of German Foreign Policy. He time and time again tried to be an "Honest Broker" between Russia and Austria-Hungary, since he felt a clash between them would have nothing but bad consequences for Germany.
He regretted the annextation of Alsace Lorraine within a few years of 1870,seeing the endless problems it caused Germany.
He felt that Germany seeking to become a colonial power was just plain dumb,that all the really good colonies had already been grabbed and Germany would be left with the leftovers, and Germany geographic location precluded it from becoming a major naval power,and the only thing a militant colonial policy would gain would be alienating it from Great Britian, who he felt was Germany's natural ally.

Kaiser Willy did a 180 turn on all of those, with eventually disasterous consquences.

After his fall from power, somebody asked Bismarck what the cause of the next great European war would be, he replied, "Some Damn Foolish Thing In The Balkans". He also declared that all of the Balkans was not "worth the life of one Pomeranian Grenadier". Too bad Kaiser Bill did not listen to him.....