Russian Empire Auto-translated

Basically, that's the question. What would have happened if Russia had remained an empire until today? The territory of the Russian Empire was 22,400,000 km², which is five million km² more than modern Russia. Perhaps there would have been progress. Or perhaps, like all previous empires, it would have collapsed.

Maggot, instead of sitting here, study history. Just because Rome was destroyed doesn't mean that all empires collapse. Empires quietly and peacefully transform into republics, federations, etc., and lose a little (although sometimes a lot) of territory. That's what happened with Russia (although with the additional episode of the USSR). It's that simple.

Siv, when I said "collapse," I meant all sorts of transformations:

Empires quietly and peacefully become republics.

Yeah, very quietly. Civil wars, the execution of the royal family, etc., very peaceful :)

That’s how it was with us. Kings are usually not executed; most states became democracies shortly after World War II, if I remember correctly. After the Germans were driven out, democracy was established, either because the Germans had killed the previous monarchs or because the monarch, though still alive, was captured and removed from office.

Sometimes I wonder what would have happened if all the rebellions had been suppressed, the wars with Nippon and World War I had been won triumphantly, and so on... Regarding the topic, I believe that the Russian Empire would have lasted for another 50 years or so (by the way, Lenin once envisioned a similar timeframe), perhaps even less, and then it would have become a true constitutional monarchy (not the Duma under Nicholas II, which de facto had no real power). Or maybe even a republic, eventually.

It would be amusing if even one empire had survived to this day.
I simply can't imagine a person who holds absolute power in their country right now.

By the way, even though Elizabeth II is a queen, she doesn't really have any power. She's more like a decoration :D

What would have happened if Russia had remained an empire until today?

I think nothing special would have happened. Would it still be an empire? Well, it would be called the "Russian Federation" or the "Russian Empire," so what? Perhaps something would have changed at the political level. But overall, everything would be the same, I think.
What should have changed?

Well, first of all, there wouldn't have been the Soviet Union.

I am more interested in what would have happened to modern Russia if, after all the revolutions and the civil war, one of the liberal parties had concentrated power in its hands. I think their methods of overcoming the post-war crisis and their approaches to industrialization would have been different, and their relations with the West would have been completely different too...

It is also interesting to imagine what the political map of the world would look like if, during the intervention, the Japanese had annexed our Far East.

*reminiscing about the RA, WiC series, and many other games*
Or, perhaps the USSR decided to conquer the world!:smile49:

In essence, the Empire wouldn't have existed anyway, as it had outlived its usefulness as a system in Russia. Perhaps something like the "United States of Russia" would have emerged – with its own government in each "state-country," a common army, and one president. Or, perhaps something similar to the British Empire – a constitutional monarchy, autonomy for its constituent parts, etc. In any case, the advantages would be: – Reduced vulnerability to external enemies (Marshals would be in their positions, not in camps). – Relative order in the country (if there had been no civil war. Otherwise – terror, terror, terror. And a rebellion after a few years). – No economic and human losses from a civil war (and that's a lot...). – The concept of a "symbol" or "national idea" that doesn't imply conquest and/or imposing ideology on other countries. And the disadvantages: – Rigidity and unwieldiness of the system, rampant bureaucracy. – Based on point 1, the cultivation of a "gray citizen." – The possibility (if A.M. is maintained) of under-the-table intrigues that are not beneficial to the state. – Conflict among other peoples besides the Russians, if the "master-servant" relationship is maintained. In general, if there had been no civil war, Russia would have gained more than it lost. And the world map would have evolved to its current state not in the 1990s, but sometime in the 1970s or 1980s. Or, if "Great Russian chauvinism" had been preserved, around the 1940s or 1945. Little would have changed, but World War II would have been easier – there probably wouldn't have been internal sabotage in the form of a "hunt for enemies of the nation." Something for Major Vikhry to ponder – I wonder what it would have been like if Makhno had won, at least on the territory of Ukraine... But in general, it's an interesting question...

Little would change, but World War II would have been easier – there likely wouldn't have been internal sabotage in the form of a "hunt for enemies of the nation."

However, this is questionable. The apparatus of repression played a significant role in the victory over the fascist horde. Let's remember all the democratic countries that were captured quickly, without even offering any semblance of resistance. But in our case, every soldier and officer understood what awaited them in case of cowardice (the same order "Not one step back"). Therefore, this moment in history has always made me think a lot – it turns out that Stalin and communism were a necessary evil at that time.

Siverfale, what about the executions and "imprisonments" of those who were intelligent? And the distrust of their OWN intelligence services! Is that not idiocy? Yes, one can argue about this for a long time... but Russia won the war of 1812, and at that time, the victory was proportionally significant. And even "funnier"... the blocking detachments had machine guns a year earlier than the main troops. What does this say?

The Battle of Borodino
As you can easily see, the Russian army continued its retreat after the battle. This was not a victory. Victory was achieved by exhausting the French army, as there were no effective supply lines at that time, like those that existed in the 1940s. Of course, there were mistakes, many mistakes, to be honest. But there were also many reasonable and, although harsh, but effective measures.
By the way, the blocking detachments were quite small, and it was quite natural that it was easier to arm them.

Siverfale, here. Considering that the Germans also lacked supplies when operating on the territory of the Union from 1942 onwards – at least effective and continuous supplies outside of cities – they “abandoned” the OUN-UPA, and as a result, they also had to deal with very knowledgeable and very angry partisans in the Carpathians, and on other occupied territories, the partisans fully mobilized. I understand the idea, for example, of “if you are captured, have you been recruited?” but it has evolved into “if you are captured, you have betrayed your homeland!” There were reasonable measures, but, damn it, the state of the troops on the first day of the war, about which Sorge reported almost daily for a considerable amount of time… Rokossovsky was dismantling fortifications and moving supplies from warehouses on the 21st! And he left on the 20th… they were not ready. But if they had believed the intelligence and not killed off the generals, perhaps there would have been no need for blocking detachments? Because if a person doesn’t want to retreat anyway (he has his homeland behind him, and a general who has been through countless battles is leading them, perhaps he won’t lead everyone to their doom, and God willing, they will defeat the enemy), then why push him from behind?