"Historically Inevitable? Turning points of the Russian ..." Topic

… revolution

"This year is the centenary of the Russian revolution of 1917, so we can expect a fair few volumes on the subject. My first dabble has been Historically Inevitable?, edited by Tony Brenton.

There has been a broad sway of opinion amongst historians, not just in the old Soviet Union, that the revolution was inevitable. A rotten, autocratic Tsarist regime was replaced by the Bolsheviks, whose ideals were corrupted by Stalin. Others argue that the Tsarist regime was being modernised and liberalism would have been the outcome had the Bolsheviks not seized power.

The essays in this book, by leading historians of the period, look at key moments in the period and asks them to describe the background and the events, before engaging in a bit of 'what if?' history…."

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

A goverment change followed by some kind of internal violent conflict may had very well been over-determined as to be inevitable. But whether it would had taken the form it did, and has been won by who it was won by is the open question.

That said Stolypin's assasination is important imho. If Stolypin leaves, a Eastern onset for WWI becomes less likely, as he was opposed to any great power war before he felt his reform program was put in place. In a world were both Stolypin and Franz Ferdinand survive WW1 in 1914-1917 becomes very unlikely. Of course the Third Balkan War still happens in 1914.

Whether that is enough to save the Empire is a question. A counter-move against Stolypin was bound to happen, one led by parts of the old aristocrats, and like in France, that could open up the space for other classes to demand a part of the political pie, and might open the way to a loss of the political situation and radicalization. But who knows how it would had turned out. Maybe better than history, or maybe worse, or maybe meh.

Maybe… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand