Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Need a break from politics? Tired of crossword puzzles? Had enough sodoku? Try this:
In a series of lectures he delivered in 1853, John Henry Newman sided with the Russians against the Ottoman Empire. (Newman’s lectures were later collected in a brief book, History of the Turks in their Relation to Europe, which you can find on Amazon.) The British government ignored Newman, joining the French and Ottomans against the Russians in the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856. The British and their allies forced back the Russians, who had been placing increasing pressure on the Ottomans by advancing down the coasts of the Black Sea while expanding the tsar's Black Sea fleet.
The Crimean War involved quite a few bad moments for the British, French, and Ottomans—remember the charge of the light brigade?—but it preserved the Ottoman Empire, which would remain intact, more or less, until the end of the First World War. As for Russia? The War proved devastating. Russia saw its land forces humiliated and its Black Sea fleet virtually eliminated.
Now suppose that, instead of ignoring Newman, the British government had taken Newman's advice. If the British had refused to fight on behalf of the Ottomans, the French would almost certainly have stayed out of the fight themselves. The Ottomans would have been forced to face Russia virtually alone. Russia would have gained territory along the Black Sea and won rights to unhindered naval passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, enhancing its international prestige while gaining self-confidence.
Question: Would the world have been a better place?
My very tentative take: Why, yes, I think it might. Without the wound it suffered in the Crimea, tsarist Russia would have retained the confidence—the civilizational poise and energy—to make growing accommodations with the modern world. The Bolshevik revolution would have become unlikely, perhaps impossible. And the twentieth century would have been spared Lenin, Stalin, and an evil empire.
Now? Into the Ricochet mosh pit.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
And you would never have written, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Careful, Peter....
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Ooh. You're right. I hadn't thought that far....
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
As a contributing condition for toward the Bolshevik Revolution, I think the Crimean War ranks right down there with the switchover to metallic strings for balalaikas. Russia's loss in Crimea did not cause them to undertake the vast military, social and cultural changes necessary to forestall the reds. I would think a Crimean victory would be even less likely to result in a non-revolution, as it would encourage the status quo to go right on quoing the status. As for Russia's standing in terms of foreign policy, she might have gained marginally better access to the Eastern Mediterranean with a (by 1900) obsolete fleet, but she still would have gotten her nose bloodied if she attempted to build on her success and threaten India along the Northwest Frontier. Instead of picking off red coats in the Khyber with no help, the Afghanis would have been knocking off Ivan in the Kush with British help. Sounds familiar . . .
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
And Tennyson would've never written "Charge of the Light Brigade." Why, this is a disaster for writers all around, man.
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
"Cannon to the right of them/Cannon to the left of them/Cannon in front of them/Volley'd and thunder'd."
After Tripedis's post, I know how the Light Brigade felt.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Seems to me the big question is whether a Russian victory (even with its international prestige enhanced) would have changed any of the internal rot of Tsarist Russia? I don't know the answer (paging Robert Conquest), but if not, we may have had to deal with and even stronger Soviet threat.
No Tennyson, but Peter would still have been able to convince President Reagan to tell Gorbachev to "tear down that wall."
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Call me a hopeless romantic, but the thought of the Russians expelling the Turks from Constantinople and demolishing those triumphal minarets around the Hagia Sophia sounds lovely.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
I have to disagree with you, Peter. Russia has throughout history lagged behind the rest of Europe socially and politically by 250 years. Peter the Great (circa 1700) had to drag Russia out of the middle ages literally by the beards of its nobility. Russian serfs were not emancipated until 1861! The enigma wrapped in a riddle has been ruled by authoritarians for its entire history with but the briefest of democratic interregnums. Russian victory in the Crimean War would have done nothing to address Russia's essential backwardness. Turkey at least had its Kemal Ataturk. Russia has no equivalent.
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Parenthetically, I can't bear reading Newman because I fear that all his observations may be right, and that therefore I'm in love with the wrong country. That book really, truly depresses me sometimes when I'm having a low day.
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
And Tennyson would've never written "Charge of the Light Brigade." Why, this is a disaster for writers all around, man.
And no Florence Nightingale, either. Actually, that might have had the greatest effect.
Sep '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
And didn't Russia actually gain much of what you mention in the war of 1877-1878?
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Below, Newman on the Ottomans. (Claire, make sure you read this only when you're about to go to the gym. You'll need to kick-box it out of your system.)
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Btw, Claire, Newman was hardly alone. Here's Gladstone:
May '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Can't think why that Diplomacy game never took off. Peter as Tsar Nicholas, Claire as Sultan Abdul Hamid, sigh... The Black Sea tussle would've been a nail-biter.
From Britain's perspective it made complete sense, of course. Support the Sick Man, keep Europe divided. Sort of the cornerstone of their policy. In the end, I think the Russian military was headed for a fall. Sure, they could've beaten the Ottomans, but eventualy that would have emboldened them to take on a real army, with disastrous results. As in fact happened with Germany in the Great War, which really caused the collapse. This was presaged by their disastrous performance against Japan.
So betaing the Turks would've provided a temporary ego boost, but it was the later defeats that caused revolution.
Jul '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Peter Robinson: Btw, Claire, Newman was hardly alone. Here's Gladstone:
Ouch! I always knew there was a reason I liked Gladstone.
People forget who the Turks were - one of the bloodiest, most brutal hordes ever to sweep out of the plains of Asia. Their adoption of Islam gave an organizing impetus to conquest, but it in no way tempered their innate cruelty - just ask the Arabs, the Greeks and the Armenians.
How much have the Turks changed? I don't know, really.
But I do know Western leaders have changed. Can you imagine any statesman today voicing anything remotely similar to Gladstone's plain truths?
Sep '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
One need only read Gladstone's phrase "the Chivalrous Saladins of Syria" to realize the fruitlessness of this excersize...fun though it is, they saw things somewhat differently. I wonder what effect British neutrality would have had on commerce throughout the levant but especially with India.
Jun '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Kennedy Smith: "From Britain's perspective it made complete sense, of course. Support the Sick Man, keep Europe divided."
What made sense in 1850 would completely change by 1869. The completion of the Suez Canal quickly became a vital concern for the British, dependent as they were on the Royal Navy for the maintenance of empire. The Egyptian pasha was only nominally sovereign. He was in practice a client ruler dependent on Turkey for support. The clash over this vital waterway was avoided only because Benjamin Disraeli had the acumen to purchase it when the pasha suddenly found himself short of money.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Interesting, Paules. I was under the impression that the Sultan had lost effective control of his satraps by then.
Aug '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
Kudos, Peter, for a fascinating and credible thesis. I'm a believer in historical junctures; pivot points that cause transformational events. If Russia had gotten its warm water port access, economic development might have flourished. A strong and vibrant religious Russia might never have succumbed to Bolshevism.
If we believe in free will at all, we must allow for the free will of nations. Otherwise we're all victims of destiny, stuck on a one-way railroad track to perdition.
May '10
Re: Ricochet Counterfactual of the Week. (And Maybe of the Year. We'll See How This Goes)
That was you, Peter?! I didn't know. Thank you! I still get tears every single time I watch that clip.