Preventing the Russina Revolution in 1917

[Retrograde]

I've been on a history kick recently, the lead-up to WWI and the Russian Revolution in particular. I got to thinking, would it have been possible to prevent the Russian Revolution, given that Nicholas II was in charge? One possibility would be keeping Russia out of the war, but I'm not sure that was possible given the entangled alliances.

Any thoughts on how to keep the tsar (not necessarally Nicholas) on the throne? Give him a different wife? Make the luck of the genetic draw produce a non-hemophiliac male heir earlier? Different advisers?

 

[Tolls]

Better generals in charge for the push into East Prussia in August 1914.
Or no Max Hoffman on the German side, during the handover between Prittwitz being sacked and Hindenburg/Ludendorff arriving.
Or keeping Prittwitz on...

All of that is based around Tannenburg. The failure to capture East Prussia (at least in part) exposed a sizeable chunk of Poland to being gobbled up.

 

[platonov]

Rewriting history

I've been on a history kick recently, the lead-up to WWI and the Russian Revolution in particular. I got to thinking, would it have been possible to prevent the Russian Revolution, given that Nicholas II was in charge? One possibility would be keeping Russia out of the war, but I'm not sure that was possible given the entangled alliances.

Any thoughts on how to keep the tsar (not necessarally Nicholas) on the throne? Give him a different wife? Make the luck of the genetic draw produce a non-hemophiliac male heir earlier? Different advisers?

Hmm.
As there is a good argument that Russia started that war or certainly bears a large part of the responsibility maybe that’s where the revolution could have been prevented.

Before you get to East Prussia and all that.

 

[McHrozni]

It's doubtful it could be prevented outright. The society was deeply divided between the very rich and the poor, there was little social mobility. There was a powerful nobility that served it's own interests. It was much like France 140 years earlier in many respects, and similar to England another century earlier.

I strongly suspect a revolution in Russia was inevitable, however it would be possible to have a smaller, less radical revolution that would bring less radical, but still significant change. But I doubt Nicholas II could pull it off - or rather he would have pulled it off, if he could. The tragedy is that he couldn't.

The revolution would be prevented by embracing the changes promoted by Peter I, around 1700, even after his demise.

McHrozni

 

[rjh01]

Change Russian society before WW1. McHrozni has said what it was like. It did not need to be like this. If it had a strong middle class and certain freedoms then there would have been no revolution and they could have held off the Germans.

 

[Border Reiver]

Moves to a less autocratic system of government would have needed to be implemented, along with educational and social reforms long before WWI, say in the wake of the Crimean War inorder to ensure a more stable society and to have given those reforms a chance to take hold.

 

[catsmate]

I've been on a history kick recently, the lead-up to WWI and the Russian Revolution in particular. I got to thinking, would it have been possible to prevent the Russian Revolution, given that Nicholas II was in charge? One possibility would be keeping Russia out of the war, but I'm not sure that was possible given the entangled alliances.

Any thoughts on how to keep the tsar (not necessarally Nicholas) on the throne? Give him a different wife? Make the luck of the genetic draw produce a non-hemophiliac male heir earlier? Different advisers?

Basically no, not without significant changes well before 1917, and even before 1914. Russia was having a terrible time with the rapid industrial development, and the failure to implement the initial constitutional gains made by the 1905 revolution.

Maybe a Russian victory in the war against Japan and the removal of Nicholas II by a convenient accident, followed by drastic reforms. But there was simply too many internal stressors in Russian society at the time.

Some speculations.
1. Winning against Japan.
Not impossible, despite truly awful Russian leadership and some of the worst naval designs ever to shoot up unarmed fishing boats. Japan was in pretty dire financial straits. A chance Russian victory on 10 August 1904 enabling them to cut off resupply to the Japanese forces at Port Arthur. Perhaps the Tsarina miscarries or the heir is born dead (how vulnerable is an unborn hemophiliac?).
But something would have to change how Nicholas II rules, or else kill him off, to enable significant change.


2. Delay WW1
I've suggested before (here and elsewhere) that if WW1 hadn't started when it did things in Europe might have been very different. Britain would have had sufficient problems distracting it from involvement in a European war when it came. Quite possibly this triggers an earlier Revolution in Russia, but one that's less radical (no Lenin shipped in to stir thing up) leading to a Kerensky led Social Democrat government and gradual change. Or there's another 1905 style revolution in Russian and this deters Russia from involvement in a later WW1, or hampers it's actions sufficiently to allow the German 'France First' plan to actually work.

Interestingly by mid-1914 Lenin was being sidelined by the other socialist/SD elements. The Second International's special conference on Russian unity (held in Brussels in July 1914) had condemned his actions (in absentia) and, if it had one ahead, the International Socialist Congress was going to denounce him and the Bolsheviks. However the war preempted this, it was to have been held in Vienna in late August.
So possibly a united, Bolshevik free, socialist block in Russia? A populist revolution and a social democrat government


3. Going back further, perhaps if Crown Prince Rudolf hadn't died in 1889 (under fascinatingly odd circumstances but that's a different matter) the whole alliance systems could have bee different with Austria-Hungary more aligned towards Russia (as the empire had been in the previous decades).


4. An Anglo-Russian war in 1904 over the Dogger Bank Incident (with or without the involvement of a time traveling submarine) might have staved off the revolutionary pressures for long enough for reform to happen. Though if Nicholas II was still on the throne as absolute monarch I've doubtful. He'd have to go, and that wasn't going to be voluntary. Of course this might have dragged in France under the terms of their alliance with Russia an I'm sure Germany would have gotten in on the act too.


5. Russian 'responsibility' for WW1.
An interesting idea, though a bit OT. Certainly in 1914 Russia was eager for war, far more so than, say, Germany. The Russian Imperial Council had been in favour of a declaration of war on the Ottomans early in 1914 over the appointment of Liman von Sanders, which would probably have triggered a general war.

 

[catsmate]

One nitpick, Russia saw two revolutions in 1917 even if they're often conflated. Rather like France and Iran.

 

[Retrograde]

The revolution would be prevented by embracing the changes promoted by Peter I, around 1700, even after his demise.

Or even those started by Alexander II before he got blown up. I can understand why his successor might be a little slow to embrace reform, but that's probably the time to start.

. Quite possibly this triggers an earlier Revolution in Russia, but one that's less radical (no Lenin shipped in to stir thing up) leading to a Kerensky led Social Democrat government and gradual change. Or there's another 1905 style revolution in Russian and this deters Russia from involvement in a later WW1, or hampers it's actions sufficiently to allow the German 'France First' plan to actually work.

That's probably the least messy approach. The 1905 Revolution gets glossed over, but it did at least point in the right direction. Maybe make the Duma stronger -i.e., let them override a tsarist veto? Putting some of the money wasted fighting Japan into industrialization would help as well.

3. Going back further, perhaps if Crown Prince Rudolf hadn't died in 1889 (under fascinatingly odd circumstances but that's a different matter) the whole alliance systems could have bee different with Austria-Hungary more aligned towards Russia (as the empire had been in the previous decades).

That's a whole other can of what-ifs!

 

[catsmate]

Or even those started by Alexander II before he got blown up. I can understand why his successor might be a little slow to embrace reform, but that's probably the time to start.

True, and reasonably easy to do. If he hadn't insisted on getting out of the armoured carriage...

That's probably the least messy approach. The 1905 Revolution gets glossed over, but it did at least point in the right direction. Maybe make the Duma stronger -i.e., let them override a tsarist veto? Putting some of the money wasted fighting Japan into industrialization would help as well.

The problem is Nicholas II attempted to roll-back the concessions as soon as he could.

Now if Tsuda had been better with his sword, or Prince George of Greece slower with his stick, Nicholas might have died in 1891 while still tsarevich.
If his brother George still manages to kill himself that leaves Michael (the historical Michael II, last Tsar of Russia) as the next Tsar. Unfortunately I can't say if he'd be better than Nicholas II, though it seems probable.

That's a whole other can of what-ifs!

Yeah sorry, the Mayerling Affair is a favourite of mine and I recently wrote it up for an RPG ezine.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Basically no, not without significant changes well before 1917, and even before 1914....

3. Going back further, perhaps if Crown Prince Rudolf hadn't died in 1889

Perhaps, but how would we do that? And how do we prevent it from being 'messy'?

Do we somehow convince Prince Rudolf not to commit suicide, prevent him from hooking up with Marie Vetsera, or something else? Either way, we have to posit that something which did happen, didn't. Once we open that door the possibilities become limitless. But the results may not be what we expect.

If the Russian revolution doesn't happen then WWII plays out differently, and perhaps we are all speaking German now. If WWI doesn't happen then perhaps Germany (not the US) becomes the World's top industrial and military power - and we are still speaking German now. And my grandfather never fought in the Somme, never met my grandmother, and I don't exist!

Whether it's changing the behavior of thousands, or just one - it's still 'messy' because changing history like that involves violating the physical laws of the Universe. It's like suggesting that we make 2 + 2 = 5. Sure it might seem like a tiny tweak, but the implications are huge!

One way to do it without violating the laws of physics might be to find to find a time and place where the path of history can be changed by a single quantum fluctuation, which being inherently random could go either way. I have done some calculations and determined that the best candidate involves a certain protozoa that lived in the Lower Cambrian era. Had this particular organism died 3 femtoseconds later than it did, recorded Human history would have proceeded identically right up until the Russina Revolution of 1917 - which didn't happen! (however an almost identical event, called the Russian revolution, did).

 

[skeptichaggis]

I've got a real interest in the Russian army in world war one and in the Russian civil war. I don't rally know however what to say to this. In the shape of brusilov the Russian army in 1916 -17 had one of the few good generals of the war against the central powers but it was far to late. Too many lives squandered, too long bread queues, too much political confusion.
In the run up to ww1 there had been some efforts to modernize Russia's creaking semi-feudal system but it was often one step forward two steps back. The seeds of the revolution were deep seated and long lasting. The November revolution in the 1820s, the assassinations of later, the loss to japan in 1904-5 combined with economic stagnation meant the revolution was inevitable.
A far better and more interesting question is could it have happened differently ,maybe without the horrors that were to come. Yes ,well probably tsar nich seemed to be like Charles the sixth and first of Britain in that he seemed to always make the desicion that would most inflame a given situation. If his son had been healthy 'if he kept his wife out of politics, if he avoided the wars with japan and Germany and if previous years had allowed true reform then maybe Russia could have become a constitutional monarchy,maybe.
It should also be remembered that even though the revolution occurred there was no inevitability about the Bolsheviks seizing power. They were not ,contrary to there claims the party of the people, there were other more numerous and less brutal political party's but the swiftness and decicevness of the Bolshevik party mixed with there brutality swept them to power.

 

[Hans]

But if the Tsar did try to radically change the government/society would the nobility/clergy have revolted against him for trying to do so?

 

[Craig B]

But if the Tsar did try to radically change the government/society would the nobility/clergy have revolted against him for trying to do so?

They were both more subservient than their counterparts in Western Europe. They might well have submitted to the Czar's ukases.

But the problem was Czarism itself, described justly by one commentator (I forget who) as a "Byzantine-Mongol monstrosity".

 

[skeptichaggis]

Hans has a point any liberal policy's proposed were usually blocked ,if not by the tsar then by the clergy or nobles or even by the tsars ministers who spent much of there time infighting. The duma made some proposals that were passed in a watered down way. Too little too late, but it should be remembered that many of the mistakes that allowed the Bolsheviks to seize total power were made by other pro revolutionary groups after the tsar was deposed.
The tsar had total autocratic power yes, but no longer in the way his predecessors had. There had been liberalising policy's enacted by previous years which had the effect of not decreasing societal pressure but increasing it. Most of these policy's were later made weak by later reforms. The tsar in1917 had to listen to his chief nobles-he had too-and there advice was often no better than the tsarinas.

 

[catsmate]

But if the Tsar did try to radically change the government/society would the nobility/clergy have revolted against him for trying to do so?

The nobility possibly, or indeed his own ministers/advisors, but probably not the clergy. The Orthodox church was basically part of the Russian state at the time.
A plan to gradually extend power, strengthening the Duma could have been managed.
Factionalism was rife in the Russian government and it wasn't uncommon for the Tsar's orders to be 'modified' down the line.

 

[skeptichaggis]

The clergy had power through the influence they had on many nobles including the tsar. The Orthodox church preached a unified pan-slavic peoples united under the church and tsar. In the run up not just to the first world war but also the Crimean war and the russo-turkish war there is real religious fervor in the private letters and diarys of many high placed officials and officers.
In short the powers of the clergy had officially waned but in reality the clergy stall had considerable say in state politics. They were not as relevant as they once were but could still exert considerable influence.