For Want of a Word – Stolypin endures

Kiev 1911 - A stuttering Bogrov
Kiev, august 1911

The assassin paused for a second [1]. He wanted to say something, to utter an immortal sentence that would echo in the centuries, or at least in the revolutionary circles to which he belonged. After a second that felt like eternity, he managed to utter in a shrieking voice: “Sic semper, ehm, eh…”

This second of hesitation proved fateful. Stolypin lurched sideways – the first bullet hit him in the shoulder, the second hit poor old Count Frederickz, who died instantly. There was no third bullet – Bogrov was pushed aside by an officer of the Guards who ran into him like a bull. Seconds later, he was on the floor, disarmed, held by three policemen. The assassination had failed. Bogrov hung, Stolypin lived, conservative and monarchist newspapers fell over themselves about the “miraculous hand of God” who had, once again, saved the Prime Minister’s life.

The Tsar, who had entertained the thought of dismissing Stolypin, now felt compelled to let him stay in office, at least for a few months. Stolypin, whose attempted murder had raised his profile in conservative circles, used that respite to strengthen his position and hold onto power, ending up surviving the political crisis of summer 1911 like he had the previous ones.

1912: The War Minister Sukhomlinov obtains the dismissal of his deputy, Polivanov, who is (rightly) suspected of links with liberal parliamentarian circles. Polivanov’s dismissal spells the end of the « military renaissance » provoked by the defeat against Japan. The “Young Turks », as were dubbed the energetic and reformist officers close to Polivanov, are gradually set aside.

1912-1913: Crisis in the Balkans - Stolypin's dismissal

As he had done during the Bosnian crisis of 1908, Stolypin spoke firmly against war. Like four years earlier, Russia was simply not ready to jump into a continental war against Austria and Germany. His reforms needed at least ten more years of peace to deflect the threat of revolution. The reconstruction of the armed forces was still far from complete (something that Sukhomlinov, the War Minister, could not dispute). Stolypin advocated for a diplomacy of restrain and cautiousness, a rapprochement with Germany in order to inspire some sense into Vienna and, on the domestic front, a crackdown of the nationalist, panslavist campaign which raged in Russia, fanned by firebrand Slavophiles like Guchkov and Grand Duke Nikolaï Nikolayevich.

The restraint and cautiousness showed by the Russian government during the crisis of 1912-1913 brought nothing good to Stolypin: he suffered a steep loss of popularity within Slavophile and nationalist circles. Most crucially, Stolypin lost his good standing amongst Octobrist and Nationalist parties, his only allies within the Duma.

For the Sovereign and the Court cliques, this was the perfect occasion to get rid of Stolypin, who had long overstayed his welcome. In March 1913, Stolypin tended his resignation after one of his domestic projects (better social insurance for the workers) was rejected by the State Council. It was not the first time that Stolypin had used the threat of resignation to strong arm the Sovereign into supporting his policies, but, this time, Nicholas accepted, while privately thanking him for his reforms and his uncompromising stance in favour of peace during the Balkan crisis's of 1908 and 1912-1913. To be sure, the Tsar was not unhappy to be rid of such an overbearing figure, who had crystallized so much hate and rancour at the Court and within educated society.

The dismissal of Stolypin did not spell the end of his influence, which played a key role in the appointment of his successor. Indeed, Stolypin convinced his close ally, Minister of Agriculture Krivoshein, to take the helm of the government. Stolypin knew that in Krivoshein he had a devoted and capable ally, who would unfailingly pursue his agrarian reforms. Not only was Krivoshein a much more faithful ally of Stolypin than Kokovtsov, he was also more widely respected than the Minister of Finances, whose venomous relations with most of the other ministers would have deprived his premiership of any authority. Krivoshein was reluctant at first to jump into the spotlight, but Stolypin’s insistence eventually convinced him to accept[2].

The appointment of Krivoshein would ensure that the agrarian reforms of Stolypin remained the linchpin of the government for the years to come. As Krivoshein would tell Krizhanovsky (another devoted ally of Stolypin, who retained his post of deputy Minister of Interior under Krivoshein) in December 1913: “If we keep up the pace of agrarian reform for the next ten years, we will succeed in turning the Russian muzhik into a conservative landholder”. This was echoed by Stolypin who, from his country estate of Kovno, wrote to Prince Kudashev, deputy head of mission to Vienna: “I feel optimistic for Russia. Our reforms are taking hold. The society and the press will soon realize that we have done far more for Russia that all their liberal and so-called socialist rants. The only thing that disquiets me, as you know, is the international situation. What you told me in your letter about this feeling of bellicose desperation gripping Vienna… One must hope that Sazonov and Krivoshein will keep a steady hand”.

Alas, it was not to be. Before long war came against on Russia's doorsteps, and, this time, the challenge would be answered.

1914: The July Crisis

As soon as began the crisis which would engulf Europe into the Great War and bring Russia to the edge of the abyss, Krivoshein had written to Stolypin, asking him to return to Petersburg where his counsel and political clout were much needed. Stolypin arrived in the Capital in the last days of July (this “last summer of Europe” that Russian poets would so eloquently sing in the 20’s), as mobilization against Austria was discussed. Received by the Emperor, Stolypin pleaded for restraint, like he had done in 1908 and 1912-1913*. The Emperor listened to him silently without giving much more in return than polite words, as was his custom. Then, a few days later, Krivoshein broke to Stolypin two shocking news: first, the Emperor had, reluctantly, decided for mobilization (a decision that would decisively lead to war, as British historians are ever fond of reminding us). But the other news was even more important, to Stolypin at least: on the advice of Krivoshein, the Emperor had called upon him, His humble servant Peter Arkadyevich, to head His government in these times of trouble.

Stolypin immediately accepted: a deeply devout man, he knew instantly that this was the reason why the Lord had deigned to spare him so many times, in so many brushes-up with death: he, Peter Arkadyevich, was born to lead Russia into this great trial. Immensely proud, Stolypin could not refuse the chance to become, once again, Russia’s saviour. The Emperor formally appointed him on 1st August, the very same day that Germany declared war upon Russia. This was a sad irony that Stolypin, who had always admired Germany and dreamed of himself as a Russian Bismarck, was now tasked with getting the country behind the merciless struggle against Germanic aggression.​


[1] This is the POD.
[2] OTL, Krivoshein was offered the post twice, in August 1911 (after Stolypin's assassination) and in 1914 (after Kokovtsov's dimissal) – he refused each time, believing that he would be more influential behind the scene. It was mostly true, but it would prove dramatically incorrect in July 1914 (a good Stolypinist, Krivoshein was very cautious about entering the war) and in 1915 (where Krivoshein argued against Nicholas II assuming the command of the armed forces).
* My first idea was to get Stolypin to convince the Emperor to avoid mobilization, which would then have permitted to defuse tensions and allow Kaizer Willy's change of heart to play a role in restraining Austria... I toyed with the idea for a while, but after much attempts, I came to the conclusion that it was exceedingly unlikely that Russia would have fallen back against what appeared like a very aggressive move of Austria, aimed at Russia's last ally in the Balkans.​
 
Last edited:
1914 - 1916 - Defeat, Rancour and Disorganization
(thanks for the feed-back. Hopefully it shouldn't be too much of a Tsarist wanking, but, yes, the presence of Stolypin will prove decisive)

1914 – 1916: defeats, rancour and disorganization

The re-appointment of Stolypin at the helm of the government was well received by the opinion, whether conservative or liberal – Stolypin’s energy and determination were acknowledged even amongst his enemies (and they were many). The general consensus amongst "educated society" was that, however unbearable Stolypin had been during his first stint as Prime Minister, he was the very man to steer Russia through these fateful times. As a matter of fact, he was the only minister who could challenge the liberal article of faith that the government was thoroughly incompetent and that society would of course do a better job at ruling the country. He was, the general consensus went, the right man to head a wartime government. Even Lenin, in Zurich, lamented the nomination of Stolypin, as he wrote to Kollontaï : “without the hanger-in-chief, we could rely on them to thoroughly bungle this war – with him at the helm, I’m not so sure”.

The pessimism of Lenin seemed unwarranted. The Great War started badly for Russia, which suffered dramatic defeats, especially at Tannenberg in 1914 and Gorlice-Tarnow in 1915. Disorganization, poor leadership and logistics, obsolete doctrines, conspired to inflict heavy defeats to the Russian army.

While the Russian soldier was fighting in desperate conditions against the German onslaught, Stolypin was waging his own battles on the domestic front, against many enemies: the Stavka of Grand Duke Nikolay Nikolayevich, which has become an empire unto itself; the “society” who vociferously criticized the government; and the Court faction of the Empress who was forever plotting to replace able ministers (e.g. Krivoshein or Interior Minister Schcherbatov) by worthless and servile creatures of Rasputin and Alix. But most important of all, Stolypin and Krivoshein were faced with the daunting task of organizing the Russian war effort, in cooperation with War Minister Sukhomlinov.

In 1915, following a string of defeats and the shameful mismanagement of the Russian war effort, the Stavka and the opposition teamed up to ask Sukhomlinov’ dismissal and his replacement by the much more competent Polivanov, who had been vice-minister of War until 1912 and had been dismissed for his links with liberal circles. Stolypin supported Polivanov’s appointment, but forcefully opposed Guchkov’s smear campaign against Sukhomlinov and his collaborator Miosayedov[1].

But Sukhomlinov was not the only one to go. The same year, the Emperor himself took to the idea that He should lead the armies himself. The decision of the Emperor to dismiss Grand Duke Nikolay and assume command was met by the unanimous opposition of the government. This was indeed a risky decision, which would make the Emperor responsible for any defeat or military failure, as Stolypin tried to explain to the Sovereign. As the events of February 1917 would show, if the Emperor had left behind a weak government, this could well have spelled the end of Russia. It is fortunate for us, then, that in Stolypin the Emperor had in Petrograd a strong-willed and charismatic prime minister, whose actions would prove decisive during the bloody and uncertain days of the February Emergency.

Stolypin’s forceful interventions before the Duma and the press during the war are credited to have helped countering the deleterious atmosphere spinned by the opposition, the wild rumours of treachery and “German plotting” which otherwise would have gone unchallenged. Stolypin also had to fight to protect his ministers against the whims of the “Court party” and the Empress, who were forever petitioning the Emperor for ministerial reshuffles. Most notably, Stolypin stood behind his brother-in-law Sazonov and Minister of War Polivanov, whom the Empress had wanted to replace with incompetent sycophants. Stolypin went even further: in November 1916, he forced Rasputin into exile to Siberia, despite the Empress’s furious protests (and thus, possibly inadvertently saving Rasputin’s life, if Prince Yussupov’s memoirs are to be believed).

As 1916 was coming to an end, the situation was slowly improving for Russia’s war effort[2].Thanks to the efforts of Polivanov, Krivoshein and Stolypin, industrial production, transports, food supply slowly and incrementally improved, as did the situation of the troops on the front. After the extremely costly “success” of the Brusilov Offensive in the summer of 1916, the Stavka decided to stay on the defensive for a while, urged in that by Polivanov and Stolypin, who, during one of their monthly visits to Mogilev, had managed to convince the Emperor that time played in Russia’s favour.

In October 1916, general Alekseyev, who as Chief-of-Staff to the Emperor was the real commander of the Russian armies, took sick leave. He was replaced by General Gurko[3], an appointment welcomed by Stolypin, who deeply distrusted Alekseyev, seeing him as too close to Guchkov, Rodzianko and other windbags too liberal for his taste.



[1] OTL Guchkov’s campaign against Sukhomlinov did much to undermine what little faith the educated society retained in the government. For political gains, Guchkov (and later Milyukov) spread noxious talks of treachery. As for the unfortunate Miosayedov, he was made the scapegoat and executed as a German traitor.
[2] As OTL, only marginally better thanks to having a better, and more stable government. This margin will have somewhat of an impact in February, as does the fact that the Stolypin government is not as discredited and ridiculed as were the last Tsarist governments in 1916-1917.
[3] As OTL. If Alekseev had not returned from sick leave in February… Well this could be a very interesting, late-minute POD. Alekseev was instrumental in getting Nicholas to abdicate, while Gurko was a known firebreather.
 
Last edited:
Last Weeks of 1916
Last weeks of December 1916

Stolypin's second term as Prime Minister had seen him mostly acting as a lightning rod: he had worked tirelessly to protect his ministers from the relentless attacks of both the Court party and the opposition. A powerful orator in his own right, he had spent hours every day in the Duma, defending the action of the government and the Stavka against the diatribes of the liberals. When, in November 1916, Kadet leader Milyukov attacked the government with his famous “Stupidity or idiocy” speech[1], Stolypin responded with a powerful and resounding speech (“probably the best of his career”, according to Schcherbatov), in which he defeated in detail the accusations thrown by the Kadets.

If Stolypin’s uncompromising defence of the government’s action did little to endear him to the liberals, it nevertheless won him the grudging respect of the nationalists, and even of a fraction of the Octobrists, while his order to expel Rasputin in the same month was unanimously welcomed by all members of the Duma.

But the most dangerous threat against his survival in office would not come from the Duma: it would come from the Court.

Almost since the first days of the war, Empress Alix had pressured her husband to dismiss Stolypin and replace him with “someone we can trust, like Stürmer or Trepov”. The influence of the Empress over Nicholas had only accrued since the Emperor had left for the Stavka in 1915. The expulsion of Rasputin from the capital on 18th November 1916 was the final straw: from that day, Alix wrote daily letters to Nicholas, pleading with him to dismiss Stolypin (and most of his ministers, whom she hated with a passion).

Excerpt from a letter of Alix to Nicholas, 1st December 1916:

Yes, I know you think your dear Wify is a fool to get in such a state, but it cannot be endured, no, it cannot be endured anymore! This boorish man has done grievous harm to You and to Your authority by sending away Our Friend [Rasputin]. You cannot tolerate that! You are the Sovereign, you alone, not him! I fear he wants to usurp Your power, yes, Our Friend thought that as well, that’s why he exiled him! Please let not that insult go unpunished! Send him away, please, him and all his henchmen, or better, hang them, all of them!”

Assailed by such frantic pleas, the Emperor’s resolve started to founder. By mid-December, Nicholas was seriously contemplating dismissing Stolypin, Sazonov (who was after all Stolypin’s brother-in-law), Polivanov and Schcherbatov. On 16 December, the Emperor had consulted with Krivoshein, offering him the head of the government (where most ministers were to be replaced by “friends” recommended by Alix). Krivoshein, who had no desire to be back in the spotlight, demurred, and pleaded in favour of Stolypin. Nicholas then tried to offer the job to former PM Goremykin, a servile bureaucrat as ever was, but the old Goremykin was now 77, and, after profuse apologies, politely suggested that Stolypin be kept in office at least a little while, until a proper replacement could be found[2]. After these rather unsuccessful probes, the Emperor, hesitant as he always was, dithered for the following weeks. This delay may have saved Stolypin’s tenure and, perhaps, the Russian empire itself.


[1] OTL the famous “Stupidity or treason” speech. It was a sign of the thorough discredit wherein had fallen the government that Milyukov fell authorized to spew such grave accusations. Here, against a more solid government, Milyukov does not dare to echo accusations of treachery: he goes for “Stupidity or idiocy”, which is quite redundant, but that’s the Kadets for you.
[2] OTL Goremykin became PM again in 1914. He was already quite decrepit by then. I think it conceivable that in late 1916, with the political climate so noxious, he would have declined the job.
 
So basically he is saved because nobody wants the job in these circumstances.

I can't wait to see how goes that February Emergency. In the altered political landscape, Nicholas II's abdication may not be forced on him as it was OTL but I think the gravity of the situation and his personal involvement in the war after he decided to head the army himself makes it unavoidable as he is directly tainted by the deteriorating situation. At this point, with a Stolypin who is a political force on his own right instead of spineless and incompetent court affiliated ministers, I can well imagine him succesfully manoeuvering to put Grand Duke Michael on the throne and avoiding the political chaos the advent of the Provisional Government ushered in.
 
So basically he is saved because nobody wants the job in these circumstances.

I can't wait to see how goes that February Emergency. In the altered political landscape, Nicholas II's abdication may not be forced on him as it was OTL but I think the gravity of the situation and his personal involvement in the war after he decided to head the army himself makes it unavoidable as he is directly tainted by the deteriorating situation. At this point, with a Stolypin who is a political force on his own right instead of spineless and incompetent court affiliated ministers, I can well imagine him succesfully manoeuvering to put Grand Duke Michael on the throne and avoiding the political chaos the advent of the Provisional Government ushered in.

Thanks ! Your comment made me rethink the outline I had in mind. I was going for full-fledged anarchy in a city under siege and the liberal leaders being swept by the revolutionary tide, but I reckon now that some tense negotiations between Stolypin and the liberal leaders will take place. With Gurko slowly cutting off the city from the outside world, Guchkov, Milyukov, Kerensky* et alii will try to negotiate a political way out - which will be more interesting than just pure repression and restauration of the existing order.

* of course Kerensky starts as a member of the Soviet, but he is savvy enough to jump ship once he realises that the government is going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Time to recycle my standard response to "Stolypin lives" posts (sorry for links that no longer work):

---

The problem is that Stolypin was dead politically even before he was
assassinated. The last straw was his proposal for the introduction of
*zemstva* (elected organs of provincial government) into the western
provinces. His proposal was rejected by the upper chamber (the State
Council) because it was alleged that by allowing the Poles a separate
electoral chamber it would encourage Polish particularism. But the real
purpose of the bill's opponents (in the Imperial Court and elsewhere) was
to bring down Stolypin.

What Stolypin did (after the Tsar refused to accept his resignation) was
to persuade the Tsar to prorogue both chambers and then promulgate the
bill under Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws. This was condemned by
virtually everyone in the Duma, and put to an end any cooperation between
Stolypin and the Octobrists. The whole affair also angered the Tsar, who
could not forgive Stolypin for humiliating him. Stolypin was politically
finished.

Even if the "western zemstva" bill hadn't come up, and even if he had
somewhow avoided assassination, I don't think Stolypin could survive
politically. There were just too many groups against him--the United
Nobility, the Imperial Court, liberals, radicals--and even those like the
Octobrists who would cooperate with him on certain issues had strong
reservations about him.* In any event, his reforms would not have
succeeded in solving the agrarian problem. Not only did they not put an
end to the uneconomic practice of *cherespolositsa* or strip farming, but
the communal peasants remained unshaken in their belief that their only
salvation lay in communal appropriation of all privately owned lands.
Those who had pulled out of the communes to form private farms were
resented, and in 1917 the farmsteads they had taken were among the first
objects of peasant assault.

*It is often forgotten that Stolypin's repressive methods (especially the
"field courts") had outraged not only the Kadets--it was a Kadet who coined
the expression "Stolypin's necktie" for the noose--but even some people to
the right of the Kadets. (Guchkov's defense of the field courts as a "cruel
necessity" split the Octobrist party.) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/IkhozpCG410/P2DeWGy0gVkJ

***

In another post, I argued that "Stolypin was an interesting but IMO slightly overrated historical figure. His agrarian reform measures did not succeed--yes, many peasants separated themselves from the communes but the process was already slowing down before his death...Even had Stolypin lived and had the backing of a more intelligent Tsar, I find it hard to see him succeeding." https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/Lt2itofR_Po/E5ZxqQE0BAIJ
 
Time to recycle my standard response to "Stolypin lives" posts (sorry for links that no longer work):

---

The problem is that Stolypin was dead politically even before he was
assassinated. The last straw was his proposal for the introduction of
*zemstva* (elected organs of provincial government) into the western
provinces. His proposal was rejected by the upper chamber (the State
Council) because it was alleged that by allowing the Poles a separate
electoral chamber it would encourage Polish particularism. But the real
purpose of the bill's opponents (in the Imperial Court and elsewhere) was
to bring down Stolypin.

What Stolypin did (after the Tsar refused to accept his resignation) was
to persuade the Tsar to prorogue both chambers and then promulgate the
bill under Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws. This was condemned by
virtually everyone in the Duma, and put to an end any cooperation between
Stolypin and the Octobrists. The whole affair also angered the Tsar, who
could not forgive Stolypin for humiliating him. Stolypin was politically
finished.

Even if the "western zemstva" bill hadn't come up, and even if he had
somewhow avoided assassination, I don't think Stolypin could survive
politically. There were just too many groups against him--the United
Nobility, the Imperial Court, liberals, radicals--and even those like the
Octobrists who would cooperate with him on certain issues had strong
reservations about him.* In any event, his reforms would not have
succeeded in solving the agrarian problem. Not only did they not put an
end to the uneconomic practice of *cherespolositsa* or strip farming, but
the communal peasants remained unshaken in their belief that their only
salvation lay in communal appropriation of all privately owned lands.
Those who had pulled out of the communes to form private farms were
resented, and in 1917 the farmsteads they had taken were among the first
objects of peasant assault.

*It is often forgotten that Stolypin's repressive methods (especially the
"field courts") had outraged not only the Kadets--it was a Kadet who coined
the expression "Stolypin's necktie" for the noose--but even some people to
the right of the Kadets. (Guchkov's defense of the field courts as a "cruel
necessity" split the Octobrist party.) https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/IkhozpCG410/P2DeWGy0gVkJ

***

In another post, I argued that "Stolypin was an interesting but IMO slightly overrated historical figure. His agrarian reform measures did not succeed--yes, many peasants separated themselves from the communes but the process was already slowing down before his death...Even had Stolypin lived and had the backing of a more intelligent Tsar, I find it hard to see him succeeding." https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/soc.history.what-if/Lt2itofR_Po/E5ZxqQE0BAIJ

Thanks !

I am fully aware of the objections that you put forth. I think that, for the most part, my TL answers them. Too bad that you recycled your standard response instead of tailoring it to my TL ;-)

For the sake of the argument:

"Stolypin was politically dead": yes, he was undoubtedly in a bad shape, and would certainly have faced the threat of dismissal in the near future. But, as Stolypin's biographer A. Ascher writes, it does not mean that his dismissal was a done thing. He could very well have overcome this challenge and regained the trust of the Emperor as he had done before. We have to remember that Stolypin and Nicholas had a complicated relationship: Nikky hated his overbearing ways, his charisma, etc., but he was also kind of overawed by these very same traits. Of course Nicholas as a rule preferred to appoint non-entities, harmless courtesans à la Goremykin. But the fact remained that he had appointed Stolypin in the first place, and had kept him for quite a long time (compared to other prime ministers).

In any case, in my TL, the fact that he survives (and is wounded in the process) an dramatic assassination attempt in front of the whole society (let's not forget that the Emperor himself was in the Kiev theater that evening), grants him a reprieve. This hypothesis, I think, is not far-fetched. It would have looked quite bad for the Emperor to dismiss his PM only a few weeks after he had been shot at. Remember that OTL Nicholas felt huge guilt after the dead of Stolypin. He castigated himself for having failed Stolypin. Yes, he was like that, our Nikky.

I nevertheless address the fact that Stolypin was politically weakened by having him being made the scapegoat for Russia's attentist policy during the Balkans Crisis of 1912-1913, and being sacked as a result. To move further in your direction, I could have had him being sacked earlier, say end of 1911. This wouldn't make a big difference: Krivoshein would have again been offered the job, and, as I postulate in my TL, Stolypin's advice would have, unlike OTL, convinced Krivoshein to take the job. Cue a relatively more efficient governement than OTL's Kokovstov.

Why, then, would Stolypin be offered the job back in 1914 ? In the Court's and Emperor's eyes, Stolypin was the man who had saved them during the dark, bloody days of 1905-1907, when it seemed that Russia was tethering on the brink of the abyss. It makes sense, I think, that in this grave hour, thrown in a war that he had not wanted, the Emperor would, on the advice of Krivoshein, consider recalling Stolypin.

"In any event, his reforms would not have succeeded in solving the agrarian problem": I am not disputing that. Stolypin's reforms, even pursued by Krivoshein in 1913-1914, won't magically solve Russia's agrarian question. I haven't written anything stating the opposite.

"It is often forgotten that Stolypin's repressive methods had outraged not only the Kadets but even some people to the right of the Kadets": Again, nothing in my TL disputes that... Kadets and Octobrists are still deeply distrustful of Stolypin during his second term of office in 1914. But, the big difference is that they cannot disdain him like they did OTL with the OTL wartime governments. I humbly think that the two previous chapters address that.

The biggest impact of Stolypin's survival in this TL is not that he magically butterflies away the February Revolution, or single-handedly solves Russia's social woes. It is, simply, that when the riots start in Petrograd, the government is helmed by a energetic and competent man, a government formed of better ministers who, if they surely don't get the liberals' love, at least command more authority than OTL.

Of course we can posit that it wouldn't have made any difference, that Stolypin, Schcherbatov and Polivanov would have been swept by the revolutionary tide all the same, that sending Gurko and the Special Army rather than the ineffectual Ivanov was pointless... But, I think, we can also , quite realistically, postulate the opposite.
 
Last edited:
I'm watching this closely as adding someone that has more gravitas and practicality to lead the State Council will strengthen Russia's position during the Great War.

I've been in two minds about Sukhomlinov as the literature seems quite split on him, others he was an incompetent buffoon - the other that he was an astute man that made powerful enemies. Either way I think the War Department would have improved without him being at the helm.

Have you given any thought to Lord Kitchener surviving his ship sinking at sea? While he had his flaws his combination with Stolypin could have dramatically improved the military & civilian logistic position for Tsarist Russia.
 
Thanks !

I am fully aware of the objections that you put forth. I think that, for the most part, my TL answers them. Too bad that you recycled your standard response instead of tailoring it to my TL ;-)

For the sake of the argument:

"Stolypin was politically dead": yes, he was undoubtedly in a bad shape, and would certainly have faced the threat of dismissal in the near future. But, as Stolypin's biographer A. Ascher writes, it does not mean that his dismissal was a done thing. He could very well have overcome this challenge and regained the trust of the Emperor as he had done before. We have to remember that Stolypin and Nicholas had a complicated relationship: Nikky hated his overbearing ways, his charisma, etc., but he was also kind of overawed by these very same traits. Of course Nicholas as a rule preferred to appoint non-entities, harmless courtesans à la Goremykin. But the fact remained that he had appointed Stolypin in the first place, and had kept him for quite a long time (compared to other prime ministers).

In any case, in my TL, the fact that he survives (and is wounded in the process) an dramatic assassination attempt in front of the whole society (let's not forget that the Emperor himself was in the Kiev theater that evening), grants him a reprieve. This hypothesis, I think, is not far-fetched. It would have looked quite bad for the Emperor to dismiss his PM only a few weeks after he had been shot at. Remember that OTL Nicholas felt huge guilt after the dead of Stolypin. He castigated himself for having failed Stolypin. Yes, he was like that, our Nikky.

I nevertheless address the fact that Stolypin was politically weakened by having him being made the scapegoat for Russia's attentist policy during the Balkans Crisis of 1912-1913, and being sacked as a result. To move further in your direction, I could have had him being sacked earlier, say end of 1911. This wouldn't make a big difference: Krivoshein would have again been offered the job, and, as I postulate in my TL, Stolypin's advice would have, unlike OTL, convinced Krivoshein to take the job. Cue a relatively more efficient governement than OTL's Kokovstov.

Why, then, would Stolypin be offered the job back in 1914 ? In the Court's and Emperor's eyes, Stolypin was the man who had saved them during the dark, bloody days of 1905-1907, when it seemed that Russia was tethering on the brink of the abyss. It makes sense, I think, that, in this grave hour, thrown in a war that he had not wanted, the Emperor would, on the advice of Krivoshein, consider recalling Stolypin.

"In any event, his reforms would not have succeeded in solving the agrarian problem": I am not disputing that. Stolypin's reforms, even pursued by Krivoshein in 1913-1914, won't magically solve Russia's agrarian question. I haven't written anything stating the opposite.

"It is often forgotten that Stolypin's repressive methods had outraged not only the Kadets but even some people to the right of the Kadets": Again, nothing in my TL disputes that... Kadets and Octobrists are still deeply distrustful of Stolypin during his second term of office in 1914. But, the big difference is that they cannot disdain him like they did OTL with the OTL wartime governments. I humbly think that the two previous chapters address that.

The biggest impact of Stolypin's survival in this TL is not that he magically butterflies away the February Revolution, or single-handedly solves Russia's social woes. It is, simply, that when the riots start in Petrograd, the government is helmed by a energetic and competent man, a government formed of better ministers who, if they surely don't get the liberals' love, at least command more authority than OTL.

Of course we can posit that it wouldn't have made any difference, that Stolypin, Schcherbatov and Polivanov would have been swept by the revolutionary tide all the same, that sending Gurko and the Special Army rather than the ineffectual Ivanov was pointless... But, I think, we can also , quite realistically, postulate the opposite.
Very convincing and you can add one more point: being a competent and energetic administrator, Stolypin could handle mobilization of the Russian economy much better than it was done in OTL when the government was too close to a headless chicken in a hurricane.

Of course, he could not intervene into the purely military affairs but he could improve the supply situation both in front and domestically: effective program of food purchasing could improve things, the military production can be increased both by the intelligent distribution of the orders (something was done in 1915-16) and by not sending the experienced workers of the military plants to the front and replacing them with the unqualified (and more prone to the revolutionary activities) newcomers from the villages. Then probably even the civic administration could do something about keeping disproportionally big number of the reserve troops in the capital: they did not serve any purpose and ready to support anybody who says that they are not going to front.
Probably moving administrative center to Moscow (away from the court) also would be helpful on more than one account.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting! I am always interested in more Tsarist timelines...

One of the most interesting turning points of history is this sometimes baffling period of incompetence by Tsarist Russia that would end it all...

Watched!
 
Very convincing and you can add one more point: being a competent and energetic administrator, Stolypin could handle mobilization of the Russian economy much better than it was done in OTL when the government was too close to a headless chicken in a hurricane.

Of course, he could not intervene into the purely military affairs but he could improve the supply situation both in front and domestically: effective program of food purchasing could improve things, the military production can be increased both by the intelligent distribution of the orders (something was done in 1915-16) and by not sending the experienced workers of the military plants to the front and replacing them with the unqualified (and more prone to the revolutionary activities) newcomers from the villages. Then probably even the civic administration could do something about keeping disproportionally big number of the reserve troops in the capital: they did not serve any purpose and ready to support anybody who says that they are not going to front.
Probably moving administrative center to Moscow (away from the court) also would be helpful on more than one account.
Had to give that one a "thumbs-up" for the "headless chicken in a hurricane" :p
 
Whelp, time to learn how shallow my understanding of Russian internal politics in the era is. I’d like to request a bibliography, if you have time, I’m always down for interesting books

A happier fate for Russia is fundamentally a great premise for a timeline, and this looks well researched and intriguing so far.
 
Whelp, time to learn how shallow my understanding of Russian internal politics in the era is. I’d like to request a bibliography, if you have time, I’m always down for interesting books

A happier fate for Russia is fundamentally a great premise for a timeline, and this looks well researched and intriguing so far.
Seconded from me as I have a gargantuan alternate Russia in the Great War TL that has been picked up & put down several times over the last couple of years.
 
Thank you all for your feed-back, very much appreciated.

I need to do some careful re-reading and re-thinking before posting le plat de résistance, which will of course be about the "February Emergency" (or February Uprising ?). It will probably take a few days. But I will post a bibliography tonight, and maybe a short chapter dealing with the situation in Petrograd in December-January.
 
Whelp, time to learn how shallow my understanding of Russian internal politics in the era is. I’d like to request a bibliography, if you have time, I’m always down for interesting books

A happier fate for Russia is fundamentally a great premise for a timeline, and this looks well researched and intriguing so far.

Honestly, Russia's fate in the XXe century is something upon which I obsess over and over. Contrary to what the boy-scouts of "historical necessity" would have us think, neither February nor October had the character of inevitability. There are literally dozens of realistic POD's littered all over the place, from the XIXe century (Alexander II's assassination and reforms, for instance) to the last minute (Gurko still being Chief-of-Staff when the Revolution starts is a particularly potent one). Military POD's like an altered Russo-Japanese war or having the Stavka sticking to the Palytsin plan of 1913 (focusing on Galicia and staying on the defensive vis-à-vis Prussia) are also quite interesting.

If I manage to successfully deal with the February Uprising and its aftermath, some interesting perspectives will open: How would the Conference of Paris and the post-war order change with Imperial Russia amongst the victors ? How would Russia's society, politics, arts, culture, evolve in the 20's ? Fascinating stuff, endless possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Top