Russia's 20th century development without Communism (WWII, war, Roman, Britain)

[Futurist110]

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?

[Ruth4Truth]

Mod cut: Off-topic. 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.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I don't understand these "what if history had been different" topics. Especially this one. 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.

I'm not sure if there would have been a World War II in this scenario. It's unclear if Hitler and the Nazis would have still come to power in Germany in this scenario and, even if they did, Germany would have probably been stopped in 1938 in this scenario since Russia would almost certainly be willing to fight over Czechoslovakia and since a Russia which isn't Communist would be more trusted by the British and French.

If World War II breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, then it is probably much, much less bloodier for Russia in comparison to real life's World War II.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

I'm not sure if there would have been a World War II in this scenario. It's unclear if Hitler and the Nazis would have still come to power in Germany in this scenario and, even if they did, Germany would have probably been stopped in 1938 in this scenario since Russia would almost certainly be willing to fight over Czechoslovakia and since a Russia which isn't Communist would be more trusted by the British and French.

If World War II breaks out in 1938 over Czechoslovakia, then it is probably much, much less bloodier for Russia in comparison to real life's World War II.

I don't understand your thinking. The conditions leading to the Nazi phenomenon and their ambition to take over Europe had nothing to do with Russia.

[Anhityk]

Before the so-called communism (in fact: socialism) there was Romanov monarchy in Russia. I have got an impression that I haven't heard Russians talking with big enthusiasm about that Romanov monarchy and I have got an impression that they have sort of meh attitude towards it.

[jelenap]

It’s not just about Russia, you’d have to consider what would happen with the rest of the world. The socialist revolution had a huge “ripple effect” on the whole planet. If it didn’t happen in Russia, would it still happen in another country or would socialism just never exist?

It also depends on whether another great leader (or a tiran) have emerged and what their agenda would be. Historically, Russians seem to gravitate to “good czar” or “strong leader”. (Putin is a very typical representative of that. ) Despite all the horrible things we know now, Stalin has been fondly remembered by some of the older generations because he “steered the country with a strong hand”. The guy was a dillusional homicidal maniac for cripes sake.

There are too many variables to consider in the “what if” scenario. In general though, Russia is a large country, rich with natural resources and overall pretty intelligent population. Plus there is always mysterious “Russian soul”. I think the country would do just fine whether or not the revolution happened.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I don't understand your thinking. The conditions leading to the Nazi phenomenon and their ambition to take over Europe had nothing to do with Russia.

I have previously heard that the fear of Communism might have made more people willing to support the Nazis in Germany. Also, I'm unsure that Hitler would have gone into politics if it wasn't for the 1917 Revolution in Russia given how rabid his hatred of Bolshevism was.

In addition to this, in any case, a non-Bolshevik Russia would have been trusted more by Britain and France and thus Britain and France might have actually willing to fight on behalf of Czechoslovakia--together with Russia--in 1938 in this scenario.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

I have previously heard that the fear of Communism might have made more people willing to support the Nazis in Germany. Also, I'm unsure that Hitler would have gone into politics if it wasn't for the 1917 Revolution in Russia given how rabid his hatred of Bolshevism was.

Let me start right here, because the whole "Bolshevism" as the reason for the war that Germany unleashed on Russia is a bogus. The REAL reason behind it was Hitler's goal of building his "Third Reich" which needed Russia's natural resources and Russian territories free of Russian population.
The whole Hitler's idea of the "world domination" was based on establishing this empire, ( or the Reich) that would dominate Europe, and whoever rules Europe, rules the world. ( or so they thought.)


"The Führer gave expression to his unshakable conviction that the Reich will be the master of all Europe. We shall yet have to engage in many fights, but these will undoubtedly lead to most wonderful victories. From there on the way to world domination is practically certain. Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world.

-  Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda and close associate of Hitler, 8 May 1943[4]"

( Overall historians still didn't come to consensus whether Hitler REALLY planned to take over the world, or he was aiming at building his "Third Reich" in Europe only.
However, whatever Hitler's end goal was, none of it could have been achieved without conquering Russia, completely destroying its population, replacing it with the "Nordic race" ( or whatever it's called) and obtaining Russia's natural resources. Without all this the "Third Reich" couldn't have been created.
And that's why the second world war became predominantly all about Germany and Russia, that's why practically all major battles took place there, that's why the death toll for both civilians and military was so high - because this was the war that targeted the elimination of the whole "race" of people.

"We need grain and timber. For the grain I need space in the east; for the timber I need a colony, only one [colony] ... Our harvests in 1938 and in this year were excellent. We can survive, in spite of the triumphant cries of others that we will starve ... However, one day the soil will have had enough ... What then? ... I do not harbor any romantic aims. I have no wish to rule. Above all I want nothing from the West; nothing today and nothing tomorrow. I desire nothing from the thickly settled regions of the world ... All of the notions that are ascribed to me by other people are inventions. However, I must have a free hand in the east. To repeat: it is a question of grain and timber, which I can find only outside of Europe."

"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war." [5]

Generalplan Ost - General Plan East


Now when it comes to the whole "Bolshevism" theme - it was just an excuse to proceed with the "Third Reich" plan; an attempt to gain sympathy of the "civilized world" ( the Anglos first of all I'd think,) as justification for the attack.
I'm sure some German soldiers totally bought it; the narrative among the troops about the "evil bolsheviks" that they came to rid Russia of, was quite persistent among them during the first few months of the war.
Part of Russians bought it too in the very beginning of the war. Keeping in mind that the civil war in Russia ended only twenty years earlier, and the life in the country side in particular was very harsh under Stalin ( who seemed to hate peasantry as a class,) it is no surprise that some Russians were looking forward to that aforementioned "liberation."
However, when the reality settled in, and the brutality of German troops towards the civilians - women and children became known, those hopes were done and over with. Russians didn't have any illusions left, many of them turned to guerrilla war behind the front lines, which in turn brought more fear and brutality towards civilians in Germans, and so on and so on.

[Hulsker 1856]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

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?

Yes.

Mod cut: Off-topic.

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.

[erasure]

Mod cut: Quoted post deleted.

I already commented on the relevance of "communism" when it comes to Hitler's attack on Russia.
But when it comes to the Russian Empire and its future, I'd start with the economic analysis of the country, on the cusp of the twentieth century;

On one hand -

"The economic historians are unanimous on the fact that between 1891 and 1900 Russian economy really did grow. This period is also known as the period of industrial 'boom' in Russia and it was during that time that the industrial output of the country raised from 5% per annum (figures of 1861-85) to 8-9% per annum. Such industrial output ranked among the highest such levels ever measured prior to 1914. Many of the industrial areas were growing rapidly. As Clive Trebilcock puts it, "the Tsarist empire, Europe's largest economy, has by 1900 ousted France from fourth pace in world iron production and had taken fifth pace in steel output. Its railway system … increased in mileage by 87 percent between 1892 and 1903, while oil extraction more than tripled between 1887 and 1898."



On the other hand -

"... it is obvious that any industrialization requires much capital. Russia was unable to provide it in sufficient quantities and, hence, foreign investment was widely encouraged. Eventually, some of the industries ended up being predominantly 'owed' by foreigners. For example, in steel industry - 69% of the invested capital was foreign capital; in mining - 85% of the capital investment was foreign. According to Gregory, by the outbreak of the Crimean War, Russia was the world's largest debtor nation. This war was one of the major obstructions that stood on the way of further Russian economic progress. It was one of the main reasons for Russia's further inability to keep the pace of the 'boom' (as so much energy and finances were directed to supporting the war against Britain and France)."
https://russianlegacy.com/russian_cu...st_economy.htm


So...what future such country would have, and this is not to mention Russia's internal social problems - the absence of "middle class," the "communal way" of agriculture, ( that comprised 80% of the country,) and on and on we go.
So what do you think?
My guess is that Bolsheviks with their "unhinging" Russia off the foreign debt and later with Stalin's rapid industrialization were the ones that saved the country from the ultimate destruction in the WWII. The WWII didn't come as the result of any "fight with Bolshevism," but as the direct result of the WWI, which in turn was the result of internal European problems most likely.