You are (then-future) Russian Tsar Nicholas II in 1893; what exactly do you do?

Feb 2019
1,134
Serbia
Pontus is such a small territory that I doubt that the other Great Powers would actually give a damn if Russia were to also annex it, though.
Fair enough, I agree.

That's certainly true, but not stopping a genocide in order to strengthen the position of one's country seems rather nasty, no?
Yes, but in international politics interests come first and since this would be beneficial to Russia it would be better. Stopping the genocide is better than nothing but not stopping gives Russia a casus beli to gain more territory and then stop the genocide.

Yes, but I'm highly doubtful that I'm actually going to win.
Considering I have future vision and a country that has a far larger manpower pool I'm confident I can win.

Agreed that Prussia provoked that war but France shouldn't have taken the bait.
Prussia shouldn't have put the bait down to begin with, but yes France shouldn't have taken it.

But just how exactly do I avoid losing or giving the impression that I'm losing?
I have future vision, I'll just not do everything bad that led to the disasters in real life. As for giving the impression that I'm not losing: I don't take the personal command of the army or try to negotiate a peace that ends the war in very small diplomatic concessions and then try to lie to the public that Russia won the war. Something in the manner of what the Madison administration did after the War of 1812.

TBF, though, it probably helped increase the ethnic Kazakh presence in northern Kazakhstan.
Maybe, but I still don't see it as some high necessity.

They actually did get to Kiev in early 1918, no?
Only after Russia had their revolution and started to withdraw from the war. In a normal scenario they shouldn't be able to reach it.

Because larger cities are more fun and more interesting and have much more things to do and to see within a short distance. This is why living in a major metropolitan area such as the Los Angeles metro area is so much nicer than living in a much smaller metro area such as the Omaha metro area.
A metro area and a city are not the same thing, but I still disagree. As someone who lived pretty much all his life in a small-ish city I suppose I've just gotten used to it not being crowded and being able to walk almost anywhere within half an hour.

France actually does have the Paris metropolitan area--which I believe has a total population of 10+ million. Anyway, I guess that you and I simply disagree about the importance and value of large cities. Honestly, if I lived in Serbia, I would probably prefer to live in Belgrade than in some provincial city such as Nis.
When counting the metro area then yes, but when counting Paris itself it only has about 2 million people. I have visited most larger cities,including Niš, Kragujevac and Belgrade. I found it fine in the first 2 but in Belgrade I found it overcrowded and simply uncomfortable, I often had to wait too long to do something as simple as crossing the street. I think it's just that I'm used to different conditions and as such prefer smaller and mid-sized cities. Everything over 1 million people is not comfortable for me.

I just have an aversion to ruling over the Poles--a people who had a proud and powerful country of their own for centuries. This isn't like ruling over Latvia and Estonia--both of whom were never independent states before the early 20th century.
Fair enough, I disagree.

Vojvodina is Serbia's nicest area (other than perhaps Belgrade) and also probably it's most diverse area, no?
Depends on who you ask. I have not been there that much and much prefer the central and eastern parts. Some places might be nice and some less so. It's a bit simplistic to credit diversity for what Vojvodina is now. It was the most industralised part of Serbia after WWI due it being under Austria for centuries and as such was richer than the rest of Serbia. The diversity did do some good things and arguably made the place nicer, if you ask someone else such as a Serb nationalist they might say that diversity damaged it. I personally like the Austro-Hungarian influenced parts with their architecture, food etc. because I prefer that kind of culture, many will probably disagree. Diversity has to have a stopping point, if you have too many people that won't assimilate or get a mishmash of various ethnicities and cultures that produce something which looks bizarre. I would find limited immigration fine but larger ''cultural enrichment'' not so much.

I'm just wary of the risk of revolution.
Fair enough.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
Fair enough, I agree.
OK.

Yes, but in international politics interests come first and since this would be beneficial to Russia it would be better. Stopping the genocide is better than nothing but not stopping gives Russia a casus beli to gain more territory and then stop the genocide.
By that logic, though, if Israel could actually get away with expelling the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank en masse, should it actually do this? After all, such a move would provide much more additional living space for Israel. (FTR, I would certainly oppose such a move since while I am fascinated by the idea of living space, I certainly don't want to combine it with ethnic cleansing. I'm much more of a fan of settling sparsely populated territories while allowing their existing population to remain in place.)

Considering I have future vision and a country that has a far larger manpower pool I'm confident I can win.
Manpower isn't everything, though. If it was, we'd be winning in Afghanistan right now.

Prussia shouldn't have put the bait down to begin with, but yes France shouldn't have taken it.
Prussia felt like it needed to bait France into a war in order to get the south German states to agree to German unification, no?

I have future vision, I'll just not do everything bad that led to the disasters in real life. As for giving the impression that I'm not losing: I don't take the personal command of the army or try to negotiate a peace that ends the war in very small diplomatic concessions and then try to lie to the public that Russia won the war. Something in the manner of what the Madison administration did after the War of 1812.
When did Nicky try to negotiate a separate peace with the CPs?

Maybe, but I still don't see it as some high necessity.
Ukraine showed that the risk of Russian separatism is very real, though.

Only after Russia had their revolution and started to withdraw from the war. In a normal scenario they shouldn't be able to reach it.
TBF, though, the Germans didn't focus on Russia in 1916 in real life. If they did, there's a chance that they could have gotten further.

A metro area and a city are not the same thing, but I still disagree. As someone who lived pretty much all his life in a small-ish city I suppose I've just gotten used to it not being crowded and being able to walk almost anywhere within half an hour.
TBH, I personally think that living in a safe, prosperous, and not-too-large city within a huge metro area is probably be best option.

When counting the metro area then yes, but when counting Paris itself it only has about 2 million people. I have visited most larger cities,including Niš, Kragujevac and Belgrade. I found it fine in the first 2 but in Belgrade I found it overcrowded and simply uncomfortable, I often had to wait too long to do something as simple as crossing the street. I think it's just that I'm used to different conditions and as such prefer smaller and mid-sized cities. Everything over 1 million people is not comfortable for me.
Makes sense. Anyway, I don't care too much whether the 5+ million people is going to be only for the city or for the city plus the metro area. Either way works fine for me. :)

Fair enough, I disagree.
OK.

Depends on who you ask. I have not been there that much and much prefer the central and eastern parts. Some places might be nice and some less so. It's a bit simplistic to credit diversity for what Vojvodina is now. It was the most industralised part of Serbia after WWI due it being under Austria for centuries and as such was richer than the rest of Serbia. The diversity did do some good things and arguably made the place nicer, if you ask someone else such as a Serb nationalist they might say that diversity damaged it. I personally like the Austro-Hungarian influenced parts with their architecture, food etc. because I prefer that kind of culture, many will probably disagree. Diversity has to have a stopping point, if you have too many people that won't assimilate or get a mishmash of various ethnicities and cultures that produce something which looks bizarre. I would find limited immigration fine but larger ''cultural enrichment'' not so much.
Completely agreed with all of this. Of course, here in the West, if one talks about slowing down demographic change, one could often get a huge amount of criticism for this. Just look at what happened to Enoch Powell in the UK:


Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the demographic argument. Expecting people to tolerate rapid demographic changes might not always work out. This is why I would have supported the 1947 partition of India (albeit not its bone-headed, stupid, and negligent implementation on the ground or the mass violence that it tragically resulted in) as well as France's 1962 withdrawal from Algeria. Basically, I would have viewed these cases as being a good way to increase ethnic and/or religious homogeneity in India and France.

Fair enough.
OK.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
I personally enjoyed living in metro areas with large populations throughout my life--Jerusalem (Pisgat Ze'ev), Phoenix (Scottsdale), Dallas (Coppell), Los Angeles (Torrance), and Orange County (Irvine). :)
 
Feb 2019
1,134
Serbia
By that logic, though, if Israel could actually get away with expelling the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank en masse, should it actually do this? After all, such a move would provide much more additional living space for Israel. (FTR, I would certainly oppose such a move since while I am fascinated by the idea of living space, I certainly don't want to combine it with ethnic cleansing. I'm much more of a fan of settling sparsely populated territories while allowing their existing population to remain in place.)
We are looking at the world from a perspective of Tsar Nicholas II, for him and for Russia advancing national interests would've been the most important thing. If Israel did this it would be good for them but not for the Palestinians, it depends entirely on your personal opinion.

Manpower isn't everything, though. If it was, we'd be winning in Afghanistan right now.
Different conflict, different time, different political circumstances. In this case you have the power to see the future and would know what to do to win.

Prussia felt like it needed to bait France into a war in order to get the south German states to agree to German unification, no?
Yes.

When did Nicky try to negotiate a separate peace with the CPs?
To my knowledge never. If I were Nicky (what this thread is all about) I would negotiate a separate peace if things turn bad and try to get modest terms so I can convince the Russians that I won and as such avoid the revolution.


Ukraine showed that the risk of Russian separatism is very real, though.
True, but I don't see the only solution being moving the capital.

TBF, though, the Germans didn't focus on Russia in 1916 in real life. If they did, there's a chance that they could have gotten further.
Probably yes, but in this scenario I don't want to fight Germany alone and would force them to be stretched.

TBH, I personally think that living in a safe, prosperous, and not-too-large city within a huge metro area is probably be best option.
I disagree, though it's entirely a matter of personal opinion.

Completely agreed with all of this. Of course, here in the West, if one talks about slowing down demographic change, one could often get a huge amount of criticism for this. Just look at what happened to Enoch Powell in the UK:

Honestly, I'm sympathetic to the demographic argument. Expecting people to tolerate rapid demographic changes might not always work out. This is why I would have supported the 1947 partition of India (albeit not its bone-headed, stupid, and negligent implementation on the ground or the mass violence that it tragically resulted in) as well as France's 1962 withdrawal from Algeria. Basically, I would have viewed these cases as being a good way to increase ethnic and/or religious homogeneity in India and France.
Forcing large changes on the population too quickly is guaranteed to create radicalism. I don't support altering demographics too much to see ''what happens'', I support something like immigration quotas to allow a certain amount of workers specialising in fields that the country needs workers in to migrate but I don't support massively altering demographics and importing people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,547
SoCal
We are looking at the world from a perspective of Tsar Nicholas II, for him and for Russia advancing national interests would've been the most important thing. If Israel did this it would be good for them but not for the Palestinians, it depends entirely on your personal opinion.
Sometimes advancing one's national interests involves a price that's way too high to pay, though. For instance, a victorious Nazi Germany could have advanced its national interests by deporting tens of millions of Slavs to Siberia and/or Central Asia, but this wouldn't have exactly been a moral thing to do. Basically, my point here is that one shouldn't completely view national interests as being something separate from morality; rather, the two should be viewed as being intertwined--with the latter affecting the former. In other words, if something advances the national interests but is extremely immoral, then one really should think twice before one actually does this. This is why, for instance, I support settler colonialism but only for sparsely populated territories where the odds of success of this would have actually been pretty high and only without actually expelling the native population of these territories.

Different conflict, different time, different political circumstances. In this case you have the power to see the future and would know what to do to win.
I just fear that some factors that could hurt Russia could be too much for just one Russian Tsar to change. For instance, the lack of railroad mileage in Russia that would allow enough food to be delivered from the countryside to the cities during wartime. In his February 1914 memorandum, Pyotr Durnovo actually explained the various factors that could hurt Russia in the event of a future Great War:


OK.

To my knowledge never. If I were Nicky (what this thread is all about) I would negotiate a separate peace if things turn bad and try to get modest terms so I can convince the Russians that I won and as such avoid the revolution.
The problem is, though, that things are never going to get so bad for Russia that the Russian people are actually going to be compelled to support a separate peace as long as the Russian monarchy will remain in place. In WWI in real life, Russia actually wasn't losing--with its troops still being stationed on Ottoman and Austrian soil when the Russian monarchy was overthrown in early 1917. Rather, what really did Russia in was Bolshevik defeatist propaganda (which spread among the Russian troops on the front lines) as well as Bolshevik subversion.

True, but I don't see the only solution being moving the capital.
Moving the capital could significantly help in regards to this, though.

Probably yes, but in this scenario I don't want to fight Germany alone and would force them to be stretched.
Very true, but Germany is capable of holding its own against several enemies for a while.

I disagree, though it's entirely a matter of personal opinion.
OK.

Forcing large changes on the population too quickly is guaranteed to create radicalism. I don't support altering demographics too much to see ''what happens'', I support something like immigration quotas to allow a certain amount of workers specialising in fields that the country needs workers in to migrate but I don't support massively altering demographics and importing people.
Agreed. Indeed, there's a type of resentment among nationalists in the West in regards to how various other countries get to keep their current demographics while any attempt to stop or slow down demographic change in the West is often classified as racism and condemned.