Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think that Russia's 20th century development would have looked like had the Bolshevik coup of 1917 failed?
For instance, do you think that Russia would have become a developed country by now?
Also, do you think that Russia would have retained all of the territories of the Russian Empire other than Poland and perhaps Finland?
Do you think that Russia would have become a huge industrial powerhouse like the U.S. is right now?
Do you think that a lot of Central Asians and Caucasians would have moved to the Russian interior during the 20th century in this scenario in a Russian version of the U.S.'s African-American Great Migration?
Do you think that the Caucasus and/or southern Central Asia would have become Russia's version of the U.S.'s Sun Belt in the late 20th and/or early 21st century?
Any thoughts on all of this?
1.) Some kind of coup was needed. The rule of the Czar's was doomed to end regardless. Russia had alot of potential, still does, based on it's mineral wealth. At the very least it would be populated by tens of millions more - those that lost there lives under the rule of communism due to famine and purges. WW2 would be the wild card.
2.) Russia lost most of it's empire because of the disasterous treaties of WW1, gained much of it back after WW2. It would be a wash most probably.
3.) Yes I think so. Again the key to Russia wealth is the exploitation of its mineral wealth. Russia in the 20's to 50s communist rule was barely able to feed it's own population, so was not set to exploit it's mineral wealth.
4.) Not sure I understand your question, the caucasus is the Russian interior for one thing. But remember this - Russia was and is still a lose confederation of states, cultures, languages, etc. I don't see any great migration.
5.) See #4.
We see an example today, perhaps, of what Russia would have looked like at least in the 20s and 30s if communism did not take hold (which was bad enough). An empire broken up into various states after ethnic struggles, a corrupt leadership ruled by gangsters, a government still distrustful of the western powers. The real question is what the Russia then, or the Russia now will look like in the next 50 years.
[snip] OP, how would we know?? Would Russia have caught up with the West? I doubt it, although Russia had some brilliant people. But remember, WWII still would have happened, leaving the country in ruins. Though I suppose it would have accepted the Marshall Plan, so it would have been able to rebuild to some extent. But it's such a vast country, and the conditions are very challenging.
Russia is no longer a "vast" country. That region of the world is chopped up into smaller sovereign countries since the USSR broke up. Russia was far from ruined during WWII. Germans did not penetrate very far into "Russia proper". They were stopped at crucial battlegrounds, the greatest battle in my opinion was Stalingrad. Russians will never be caught up in the West because it is not desirable to them. They annexed Ukrainian territory of Crimea when that country was on the verge of being accepted into NATO.
I am Ukrainian- Canadian and my friend is a Russian-born doctor. I know I bit about it.
It is perfectly reasonable to ask about the immediate aftermath of a failure of the October Revolution. Would Kerensky hold on? Would the Tsar be restored? Would Russia drop out of the war?
But the situation was so chaotic in Russia at the time that in a matter of months, or even weeks, things become very blurry. To ask specifics about how this proposed change in history - a very significant one, but also very vague as posed - would manifest itself in years, decades, even a century hence? Sheer folly.
A question like "If the October Revolution fails, is Kerensky still head of the Provisional Government a year later?" is reasonable. A question like "If the October Revolution fails, is Tblisi in 2018 just like Atlanta in 2018?" is absurd.
Yes. Better to ask, "If the October Revolution had failed, would Russia have stayed in WWI?"
It is an intriguing question whether the former parts of the Russian empire, such as the Baltic countries, Ukraine, Georgia and others would have achieved independence. I'm unlikely to have any doubts about Finland and Poland. The Provisional Government granted autonomy to the Baltic countries in the spring of 1917. But because of the Bolshevic coup, the Russian Civil War broke out, and the civil war, in turn, allowed the Baltic countries to separate from Russia completely.
I think maybe there would have been no difference only in the military sense. Capitalistic republic (?) of Russia thanks to natural resources of Russia would probably have been able to win Germany in 2nd World War, although with efforts, if 2nd WW had happened. However, it is still questionable whether the industrialization of Russia would have occurred in the same way as it did without Stalin's industrialization. The industrialization helped to build Russia's/Soviet's arms industry.
What do you think that Russia's 20th century development would have looked like had the Bolshevik coup of 1917 failed?
For instance, do you think that Russia would have become a developed country by now?
Also, do you think that Russia would have retained all of the territories of the Russian Empire other than Poland and perhaps Finland?
Do you think that Russia would have become a huge industrial powerhouse like the U.S. is right now?
Do you think that a lot of Central Asians and Caucasians would have moved to the Russian interior during the 20th century in this scenario in a Russian version of the U.S.'s African-American Great Migration?
Do you think that the Caucasus and/or southern Central Asia would have become Russia's version of the U.S.'s Sun Belt in the late 20th and/or early 21st century?
Any thoughts on all of this?
I went to eastern Germany right after reunification and was shocked to see how decrepit and backwards it was. I also went to numerous countries in eastern Europe around then. Since countries that were pretty similar before Communism (east vs. west Germany, Austria vs. Czechoslovakia/Hungary) were radically different in terms of their economic condition, with capitalist countries far more developed than Communist ones, I'm convinced that Communism significantly retarded economic development.
Russia might not be a developed country, but it would be better off than today.
No, multi-ethnic countries were splitting up, Communism or not; look at Austria-Hungary. Or if Russia had kept its territories, it would have been a looser federation than the USSR.
Maybe Russia would be an industrial powerhouse; probably more than it is today.
I don't know enough to answer the last two questions.
I am VERY knowledgeable on this topic and I agree with RFT - it is pointless, "woulda coulda shoulda" one. tis what it is. It happened the way it happened - you maybe should look into what and why happened, that IS actually more than interesting.
But another one along "what if Stalin dies as a child" or "What if Nazi Germany won in WWII" is wasted bandwidth.
Deal with reality, not imaginary fantasies. Reality, just like that movie, is MUCH stranger than fiction, you simply need to get to REALITY, not propaganda.
I think a more interesting scenario is if a third revolution to overthrow the Bolsheviks would've been successful. or perhaps what would've happened if the Bolsheviks didn't disband the assembly?
"In the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly held two weeks after the Bolsheviks took power, the party still proved to be by far the most popular party across the country, gaining 40% of the popular vote as opposed to the Bolsheviks' 25%.[5] However, the Bolsheviks disbanded the Assembly in January 1918 and after that the SR became of less political significance.[6] The Left SRs became the coalition partner of the Bolsheviks in the Soviet government, although they resigned their positions after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (the peace treaty with the Central Powers that ended Russia's participation in World War I). A few Left SRs like Yakov Grigorevich Blumkin joined the Communist Party.
Dissatisfied with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, two Chekists who were left SRs assassinated the German ambassador to Russia, Count Wilhelm Mirbach early in the afternoon on 6 July.[7] Following the assassination, the left SRs attempted a "Third Russian Revolution" against the Bolsheviks on 6–7 July, but it failed and led to the arrest, imprisonment, exile and execution of party leaders and members. In response, some SRs turned again to violence. A former SR, Fanny Kaplan, tried to assassinate Lenin on 30 August. Many SRs fought for the Whites or Greens in the Russian Civil War alongside some Mensheviks and other banned moderate socialist elements. The Tambov Rebellion against the Bolsheviks was led by an SR, Aleksandr Antonov. However, after Admiral Kolchak was installed as "Supreme Leader" of the White Movement in November 1918, he expelled all Marxists from the ranks. As a result, many SRs placed their organization behind White lines at the service of the Red Guards and the Cheka. Later, many Left SRs became Communists."
The picture of Russia at the time is so confused -- there is an interesting biography of Stalin (Young Stalin) that gives a description of Georgia and the region in the early 1900s. We don't have a crystal ball so we have no idea how a post-imperial Russia would have developed but prior to the demise of the Czarist government, there was some significant investment (or intrusion) of foreign capitalists. It Russia had experienced a soft landing after the revolution instead of the take over by the Bolsheviks, that investment/intrusion might have grown and spurred more of a resource boom and development in parts of the country. On the other hand, without the Czarist government, the country might have just broken up with nationalist movements into something similar to the post-USSR configuration.
The picture of Russia at the time is so confused -- there is an interesting biography of Stalin (Young Stalin) that gives a description of Georgia and the region in the early 1900s. We don't have a crystal ball so we have no idea how a post-imperial Russia would have developed but prior to the demise of the Czarist government, there was some significant investment (or intrusion) of foreign capitalists. It Russia had experienced a soft landing after the revolution instead of the take over by the Bolsheviks, that investment/intrusion might have grown and spurred more of a resource boom and development in parts of the country. On the other hand, without the Czarist government, the country might have just broken up with nationalist movements into something similar to the post-USSR configuration.
The mentioned above "foreign investments" would mean the end of independent politics for Russia, assuring her geopolitical interests. That's what the preservation of monarchy would mean. So in essence Bolsheviks saved Russia from destruction. In fact, as soon as the Soviet power was gone, yet another attempt has been made to control Russia via "foreign investments," preventing her from staying her own course.
Russia is no longer a "vast" country. That region of the world is chopped up into smaller sovereign countries since the USSR broke up. Russia was far from ruined during WWII. Germans did not penetrate very far into "Russia proper". They were stopped at crucial battlegrounds, the greatest battle in my opinion was Stalingrad. Russians will never be caught up in the West because it is not desirable to them. They annexed Ukrainian territory of Crimea when that country was on the verge of being accepted into NATO.
I am Ukrainian- Canadian and my friend is a Russian-born doctor. I know I bit about it.
Define "vast", then. Russia is still "vast"; at 6.6 million square miles, which is 2.8 million square miles larger than Canada, Russia is the largest country in the world. It spans ALL of northern Asia, from the Urals to the Pacific, as well as part of Europe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
