AHC: Make Russian an accepted part of the west.

[alexmilman]

The problem is that MODERN Russians' view of politics has been built around autocracy (since the 16th century, before Russia was very decentralized and serfdom wasn't even common among peasantry).

In the early-/mid-XVIII the rest of Europe was mostly autocratic to one degree or another.

Western Europe's and Russia's meaning of modernity diverge greatly.
Whereas in Europe it means more rights for the people and restrictions of the King's power,

Indeed. Following this definition the most modern country in Europe of the XVIII was the PLC. Everybody knows how well the “modernity” worked for it. 😂

in Russia it means more centralization, more autocracy with the Tsar's powers reinforced and more popular commitment to the State/Nation (self-sacrifice, the collective structure over the individual).

“It depends”, if applicable to the Europe of the XVIII - early XIX and hardly true for the Russia of the late XIX - early XX. Putting aside a liberal reign of AII, conservative reign of AIII involved much less monarch’s power than, say, one of NI, which saw much less monarch’s power than the reigns of the XVIII century. The same goes for the “centralization”: the low level elective institutions existed since the reign of AII and the elective town councils even earlier. The “collective structure” existed only in the rural communities and mostly due to the purely economic reasons but did not involve any self-sacrifices. Rather it was other way around: it was easier to cheat the local administration for a group than for individual. Even it was slowly dying prior to the wwi.

If You want to make Russia a liberal country, you'll have to make a PoD around 1500, but it would have changed a lot of things about Russia's formation.
As for the English and French political worldviews, they're not the same. The English favor Liberty (Liberalism)

As in forcing the “Chinese barbarians” (who had extra few thousands years of a well-developed culture comparing to the Brits) to buy opium at a gun point, doing some very creative looting and killing around the globe, starving huge numbers of Hindu to death, creating the biggest colonial empire in the world? “Liberty” for whom?

whereas the French favor Egality (Socialism).

AFAIK, it was “egalite”, which means “equality”. Socialism came noticeably later. Did not prevent them from creating a big colonial empire as well.

 

[AllthetTropesMan]

There’s no doubt that other European saw them as poor and backward, but honestly it was in same way as other European saw the Spanish and Portuguese as poor and backward. Europeans have had a long history of looking down on their neighbors while still recognize a degree of kinship and Russia was no different.

I see your point there. It would be interesting to see though how propaganda would react to a Soviet Union founded not in Russia but rather the central west of Europe. Here, instead of fears about a savage east of radicalized yet uneducated peasants corrupting the post war world, the paranoia instead would be on the avant garde nature of communist France-Germany that is smack in the middle of the Allies'plans for border redrawing. A revolution in the colonies of Africa or Asia would mix the Red Scare with an event greater dose of orientalism as the west clings together in its push against the loss of empire to the communists.

 

[holycookie]

No it hasn't. Russia has occupied a space between fully European and outside of Europe since the Mongol occupation.

This is one of the biggest nonsense I've ever seen. The country is European, there are moments in its history when it is closer to central and western Europe and there are moments when it is further away. Its peak of influence occurred in the imperial era when the country was one of the greatest European powers. This idea of the Mongols is something more Anglo from what I've seen, but it's still nonsense. The idea of Russia as something strange and foreign comes from the Anglo sphere. With the very idea of Western today being basically the USA and its sphere of influence.

True, and that's why I say this would be the ideal opportunity to let go of its medieval distance from the progress of Europe and attempt to liberalize its economy and government.

First liberalization is not necessary to be a Western country. Imperial Germany was very authoritarian and was part of the "West". Although I don't like the Western term because it is wrong in the vision of the world of the period. The idea of the Western world involving liberalism comes with the cold war and being parte of the usa sphere. The question is whether the country will be accepted as part of Europe, and the biggest question is power. If Russia industrializes but maintains a semi-democratic and authoritarian government it will be accepted (as it was in OTL). Especially if the Franco-Russian alliance continues to this day in some form (especially Latin Europe). Now whether the Anglo world will accept Russia is another matter.

 

[Kronistry]

It depends”, if applicable to the Europe of the XVIII - early XIX and hardly true for the Russia of the late XIX - early XX. Putting aside a liberal reign of AII, conservative reign of AIII involved much less monarch’s power than, say, one of NI, which saw much less monarch’s power than the reigns of the XVIII century. The same goes for the “centralization”: the low level elective institutions existed since the reign of AII and the elective town councils even earlier. The “collective structure” insisted only in the rural communities and mostly due to the purely economic reasons but did not involve any self-sacrifices. Rather it was other way around: it was easier to cheat the local administration for a group than for individual. Even it was slowly dying prior to the wwi.

Needless to Say that I was speaking of a very long-term process. Your point on Europe being significantly autocratic in the 18th century is interesting, whereas the term "modernity" changed in Western Europe during the 19th century, in Russia it didn't. The Bolshevik revolution could be pointed out, but in reality Russia diverged during the Tsar's reigns when it stayed autocratic and refused any 'democratic' or 'liberal' reforms, hence my point on Russia growing autocratic and their own version of modernity. In some ways, the Bolshevik Revolution and the USSR just went further in terms of autocracy and collectivization but didn't destroy the old tsarist system as often stated (the same happened with the French Revolution in my opinion, a radicalization but not a complete change).

 

[alexmilman]

Needless to Say that I was speaking of a very long-term process. Your point on Europe being significantly autocratic in the 18th century is interesting, whereas the term "modernity" changed in Western Europe during the 19th century

Yes, during the XIX century it was updated to include creation of the opium wars, de-industrialization of India with a death toll presumably in the tens of millions, colonial expansion with killing big numbers of the natives, etc. The technical means of the previous centuries were not quite adequate for the tasks of such magnitude.

, in Russia it didn't.

Actually, it did quite significantly during the XIX - early XX. And even the colonial practices were pretty much the same as the British and French.

The Bolshevik revolution

The Bolshevik revolution did produce an ideological split which made “western” notion meaningful but this is post-1900 and belongs to a different forum. Totalitarian regimes were not unique in post-wwi Europe but Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not cease to be considered the “western” states because of their regimes.

could be pointed out, but in reality Russia diverged during the Tsar's reigns when it stayed autocratic and refused any 'democratic' or 'liberal' reforms,

Actually, there were plenty of reforms, including the liberal ones, during the XIX - early XX century and since 1905 Russia was a constitutional monarchy. Not too different from German Empire or AH.

hence my point on Russia growing autocratic and their own version of modernity.

Well, this point is in a serious contradiction with the widely known facts but, of course, you are entitled to have it.

 

[Jürgen]

It should be said that the modern perspective on Russia as fundamentally non-western is not just about USSR, it’s also about the Russian regime having spend years establishing itself as a counter pool to Western values, and as a Eurasian power.

 

[Ambusher11]

Following this principle, one may start questioning if, say, today’s UK is “western” anything, taking into an account ethnic identities of the PM of Britain, PM of Scotland, Mayor of London and the fact that Muhammed seems to be the most popular boys name in the UK (

https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/18kj2kl

). Similar questions could be asked about many other European countries but I never heard that France is “African” country.

Well, Adolf Hitler (who was of course, to put it lightly, a MASSIVE racist who also believed that the Russian Empire was successful due to the Tsars and the ruling class in general having German blood, he believed that Slavs were incapable of forming successful states) in the 1920s did believe that France was turning into an "African" country:

Looked at purely from the territorial point of view, the area comprised
in the German REICH is insignificant in comparison with the other States
that are called World Powers. England must not be cited here as an
example to contradict this statement; for the English motherland is in
reality the great metropolis of the British World Empire, which owns
almost a fourth of the earth's surface. Next to this we must consider
the American Union as one of the foremost among the colossal States,
also Russia and China. These are enormous spaces, some of which are more
than ten times greater in territorial extent than the present German
REICH. France must also be ranked among these colossal States. Not only
because she is adding to the strength of her army in a constantly
increasing measure by recruiting coloured troops from the population of
her gigantic empire, but also because France is racially becoming more
and more negroid, so much so that now one can actually speak of the
creation of an African State on European soil. The contemporary colonial
policy of France cannot be compared with that of Germany in the past. If
France develops along the lines it has taken in our day, and should that
development continue for the next three hundred years, all traces of
French blood will finally be submerged in the formation of a
Euro-African Mulatto State. This would represent a formidable and
compact colonial territory stretching from the Rhine to the Congo,
inhabited by an inferior race which had developed through a slow and
steady process of bastardization.

This French tendency will in no way be changed by the fact that the French Folk suffer from no lack of
territory. For in France policy for centuries has least been determined by sheer economic distress, but much
more by impulses of feeling. France is a classic example of the fact that the sense of a healthy territorial gain
policy can easily change over into its opposite, once Folkish principles are no longer determining, and so called
governmental national principles take their place. French national chauvinism has departed from Folkish points
of view to such an extent that, for the gratification of a mere power titillation, they Negrify their own blood just
to maintain the character of a grand nation numerically. Hence France will also be an eternal disturber of world
peace for as long as a decisive and fundamental lesson is not administered to this Folk some day. Moreover,
nobody has better characterised the nature of French vanity than Schopenhauer with his utterance: Africa has its
monkeys, Europe has its French.
French foreign policy has always received its inner impulse from this mixture of vanity and megalomania. Who
in Germany wants to wait and hope that, the more France is estranged from rational clear thinking, in
consequence of her general Negrification, she will yet one day undertake a change in her disposition and
intentions toward Germany

 

[walmart]

If being Eastern Orthodox makes you non-western, I guess Greeks are foreign Easterlings as well.

This is the case

 

[walmart]

Having a Catholic Russia would be the way.

 

[alexmilman]

True, and that's why I say this would be the ideal opportunity to let go of its medieval distance from the progress of Europe and attempt to liberalize its economy and government.

Can you, please, elaborate on what “liberalization” of the economy means within the context of the second half XIX century - early XX? To be more specific, how was it liberalized or not liberalized during the reigns of AII and his successors. Not general slogans, but specific facts with the actions and consequences.

 

[alexmilman]

This is the case

The map is meaningless because it does not specify what is “western”. The same goes for “African” (implication is that the Muslims who live in Africa are not the Africans). The Central Asia is not “Orthodox” but mostly Muslim. 😉

 

[Kronistry]

Yes, during the XIX century it was updated to include creation of the opium wars, de-industrialization of India with a death toll presumably in the tens of millions, colonial expansion with killing big numbers of the natives, etc. The technical means of the previous centuries were not quite adequate for the tasks of such magnitude.

Easy argument to make, but I have already answered that one.

The Bolshevik revolution did produce an ideological split which made “western” notion meaningful but this is post-1900 and belongs to a different forum. Totalitarian regimes were not unique in post-wwi Europe but Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy did not cease to be considered the “western” states because of their regimes.

I agree with you. It's like those who seem to consider that Japan or South Korea are Western countries just because they're democracies. From their point of view, the West is an ideological term, not a cultural one.

Actually, there were plenty of reforms, including the liberal ones, during the XIX - early XX century and since 1905 Russia was a constitutional monarchy. Not too different from German Empire or AH.

Do you really belive this? From this point of view North Korea is a paradise for the Workers and Iran is the purest nation on earth. There were economic reforms that greatly helped to industrialize but politically it is laughable to compare this to Germany. In Germany a peaceful manifestation wasn't crushed by troops (Bismarck entertained this idea and was sacked because the members of his coalition thought he would provock a civil War). I dislike it when people think Germany was an horrible dictatorship during it's whole History when In fact they only remember the Nazism part. Also Germany was significantly wealthier, thus preventing many problems encountered by the Russians. Even After 1905, Russia was a de facto Autocracy (I didn't Say tyranny) and very far from a Democracy, let alone a liberal country, unlike Getmany were the Reichstag wasn't dissolved because the Kaiser thought it to be too in contradictions to his views.

Well, this point is in a serious contradiction with the widely known facts but, of course, you are entitled to have it.

I'm not sure to understand, do you think I'm the only to think Russia has been an autocracy for the past 400 years. I would rather Say that on this point I'm seriously lacking originality.

 

[St. Just]

Prevent the wider Anglophone bloc from setting the terms of the debate. The German Drang nach Osten fringe aside, Russia has been cast out of the West due to its 200-year geopolitical spat with the Anglophone seapower, in both its British and American guises. While the UK did intermarry with the Russian monarchy, there's also been a current among the English to regard the Russians as an "other" going back to the Muscovy Company, further deepened and exacerbated by the Great Game and then by Whiggish opposition to Tsarist domestic policies. Liberal invective against Russia goes back even before the Enlightenment -- frex, when the local elites of New Amsterdam wanted to kvetch about Stuyvesant, they sent a letter to the VWC regents in the Netherlands calling him a "Muscovy Duke" -- i.e. a tyrant.

And I do think the geopolitics is the cause -- the Russians supported the Union in the ACW and America's relations with Russia were on the whole normal and uncolored by this invented civilizational schism until New York and Washington replaced London as the center of the Anglophone universe.

I will say that although Russia's status as "Western" has largely depended on its relations with the wider European world, I also think its state evolutionary path -- from a Russian splinter principality vassalized by Mongols to a state free of the yoke looking to Eastern Rome for inspiration -- differs heavily from the many permutations of post-Carolingian continental Europe and the property rights regime of the British Isles and that it should be considered its own civilizational axis as opposed to being part of the West.

 

[Godot]

This is one of the biggest nonsense I've ever seen. The country is European, there are moments in its history when it is closer to central and western Europe and there are moments when it is further away. Its peak of influence occurred in the imperial era when the country was one of the greatest European powers. This idea of the Mongols is something more Anglo from what I've seen, but it's still nonsense. The idea of Russia as something strange and foreign comes from the Anglo sphere. With the very idea of Western today being basically the USA and its sphere of influence.

This really isn't accurate to perceptions inside or outside of much of Europe through quite a bit of history. Russia being a great European power does not somehow diminish the significant controversy over that inclusion over history - it isn't just 'Anglo nonsense.'

It moving towards Western Europe, such as with the move to St. Petersburg, was very tellingly a deliberate move to bring Russia into the European system of politics. It begs the question, if Russia has always been seen as securely European in outlook, why would such a move be deemed necessary by Peter?

It's tricky because it depends on how you define 'European,' but Russia has undeniably not been privy to many of the particularities of European politics and economics, or arrived to it quite late.

But Rousseau (hardly an Anglo!) id it out quite plainly in the Social Contract:

Russia will never be civilized, bacause it was civilized too soon. Peter had a
genious for imitation; but he lacked true genious, which is creative and
makes all from nothing. he did some good things, but most of what he did
was out of place. He saw that his people was barbarous, but did not see
that it was not ripe for civilization: he wanted to civilize it when it needed
only hardening. His first wish was to make Germans or Englishmen, when
he ought to have been making Russians; and he prevented his subjects
from ever becoming what they might have been by persuading them that
they were what they are not. In this fashion too a French teacher turns out
his pupil to be an infant prodigy, and for the rest of his life to be nothing
whatsoever. The empire of Rusia will apsire to conquer Europe, and will
itself be conquered. The Tatars, its subjects or neighbours, will become
its masters and ours, by a revolution which I regard as inevitable. Indeed,
all the kings of Europe are working in concert to hasten its coming

To quote the Norwegian Philosopher Odd Westad:

"After the fall of the Soviet Union there was – for a time – a commonly held view that Russia had been a normal European state before the Communist experiment (and that it would return to being one after the end of Communism). The first part of that judgment is certainly untrue. The Russian empire, until the very end of its development, had very little in common with the other main European powers in terms of ideology or state structure."

And to quote the Director of Carnegie Center Moscow, Dmitri Trenin,

“contemporary Russia is neither the East, nor the West, neither Europe, nor Asia [...] [there is a] civilizational uniqueness of Russia.”

 

[alexmilman]

Easy argument to make, but I have already answered that one.

The way you answered it makes your argument pointless: you were talking (if I looked at the right post) about the elite, not the whole population. Which has little to do with the democracy. In the cultural terms the Russian elite was quite “western” with a big part of it being “modern” and liberal. If not necessarily to the same degree as Prince Kropotkin or Count Lev Tolstoy. But one thing is definite: the Russian culture and “educated classes” were much more open and much less xenophobic than the British.

I agree with you. It's like those who seem to consider that Japan or South Korea are Western countries just because they're democracies. From their point of view, the West is an ideological term, not a cultural one.

Do you really belive this? From this point of view North Korea is a paradise for the Workers and Iran is the purest nation on earth.

North Korea is post-wwii phenomena and we are in a wrong forum to discuss it. Anyway, it has nothing in common with the Russian Empire of the late XIX - early XX while the similarities between the three empires I mentioned are rather clear: all of them had been constitutional monarchies.

There were economic reforms that greatly helped to industrialize but politically it is laughable to compare this to Germany. In Germany a peaceful manifestation wasn't crushed by troops (Bismarck entertained this idea and was sacked because the members of his coalition thought he would provock a civil War).

Bringing up the Bloody Sunday as a typical example is a subject beaten to death and it did happen before RE became the constitutional monarchy. Anyway, “similar” is not the same as “identical”. BTW, the Brits had been firing at the peaceful manifestation in India.

I dislike it when people think Germany was an horrible dictatorship during it's whole History when In fact they only remember the Nazism part.

Taking into an account that I did not say anything of the kind, how this is relevant?

Also Germany was significantly wealthier, thus preventing many problems encountered by the Russians.

So the “modern” and “western” means “wealthy”?

Even After 1905, Russia was a de facto Autocracy (I didn't Say tyranny) and very far from a Democracy,

It was a constitutional monarchy. Being “western” does not require “democracy” (a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives). In Britain the universal suffrage was introduced only in 1928

let alone a liberal country, unlike Getmany were the Reichstag wasn't dissolved because the Kaiser thought it to be too in contradictions to his views.

This is quite irrelevant. The relevant question was this act constitutional? If yes, then it is not an autocracy.

I'm not sure to understand, do you think I'm the only to think Russia has been an autocracy for the past 400 years. I would rather Say that on this point I'm seriously lacking originality.

I just said that your point of view contradicts to many widely known facts. Nothing about your point of view being original.

 

[Rhymehouse]

This is the case

Ah, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations map. I thought this was laughably debunked in the 2010s, yet here it is, still getting posted!

I don't even know where to begin? An undeveloped jungle state like Papua New Guinea being part of the Western world. The Guianas being half African for some reason, but Haiti and Jamaica are Latin American. Indonesia, Albania, and Bangladesh being grouped up with other Muslims just due to religion despite the fact that their cultures has nothing in common with Arabians. Latvia being a Western country, but Greece isn't despite Greeks creating the western identity and European identity. South Korea is Sinic, but Japan is its own category. The Philippines being whatever strange monstrosity it is! East Thrace being of a different civilization than the rest of Turkey. What hack thought that this was relevant to geopolitics?

If it wasn't for African being its own thing, this would simply be a religion map. Just replace Western with Protestant, Latin American with Catholic, make Japanese Buddhist, and paint a few European countries different colors.

 

[alexmilman]

It should be said that the modern perspective on Russia as fundamentally non-western is not just about USSR, it’s also about the Russian regime having spend years establishing itself as a counter pool to Western values, and as a Eurasian power.

Of course. But this is a post-1917 phenomena which belongs to the different forum.

 

[Jürgen]

Of course. But this is a post-1917 phenomena which belongs to the different forum.

But it’s a post-1917 phenomena that Russia is not Western or real European, a person in the 19th century would understand the concept but find it stupid.

 

[alexmilman]

But it’s a post-1917 phenomena that Russia is not Western or real European, a person in the 19th century would understand the concept but find it stupid.

Unless it could be profitably exploited. As was done by de Custine, Dumas (father) and others: the “exotic” stories sell (ditto for Spain, Corsica, Balkans, Southern Italy, Lithuania). But at the same time it worth noticing that during his trip Dumas was stopping at the houses of the Russian fellow-writers with whom he was freely communicated in French. 😉

 

[walmart]

Ah, Huntington's Clash of Civilization's map. I thought this was laughably debunked in the 2010s, yet here it is still getting posted!

I don't even know where to begin? An undeveloped jungle state like Papua New Guinea being part of the Western world. The Guianas being half African for some reason, but Haiti and Jamaica are Latin American. Indonesia, Albania, and Bangladesh being grouped up with other Muslims just due to religion despite the fact that their cultures has nothing in common with Arabians. Latvia being a Western country, but Greece isn't despite Greeks creating the western identity and European identity. South Korea is Sinic, but Japan is its own category. The Philippines being whatever strange monstrosity it is! East Thrace being of a different civilization than the rest of Turkey.

I disagree with the geopolitical impact and the exact borders of each "civilization". The lines given do roughly correlate with perceived civilizational spheres with the exception being Africa, Latin America, and Japan but those are open to a degree of debate.

Latvia being a Western country, but Greece isn't despite Greeks creating the western identity and European identity.

Latvia is protestant and only came under Russian rule in the 1700s. Orthodox Europeans have always been viewed as distinct from Catholics and Protestants, even if counted as "Western". Even as late as the 1990s, many Europeans wanted to only support the Catholic Croats in the Yugoslav wars.