Would the Russians have been better off if Nicholas II had stayed ruler?

Comments ( 5 )

1. Spellbound says

   In no way.
   Nicholas was a medieval despot. His aristocracy were living in palaces whilst the people were living in abject poverty. The literacy rate under Nicholas was about 5%, under Stalin that rose to over 95%. Electricity came to the countryside under Lenin and agricultural output went up enormously (even after the disastrous start to collectivisation). Women had almost no rights under Nicholas, under Stalin they were allowed to hold office, to vote, to have careers, to instigate divorce and to have abortion on demand.
   Nicholas's greatest failing as a ruler was that he was stupid and incompetent, this led to great suffering for his people. Stalin was cruel, very cruel, and millions certainly suffered and died, but for most Russians, life became a lot better. Stalin turned a backwards, peasant country into a superpower in less than 20 years.
   Stalin's greatest achievement was beating the Nazis, had his ruthless industrialisation programmes not been put in place then the Nazis would have rolled over the country, probably leaving the Tsar as a figurehead over a country devoid of Jews, where the people lived as slaves to the Germans who had taken their land for Lebensraum.

   Reply

2. Jingizu says

   This is a truly difficult question to answer seriously. I do not think Stalin was "a million times" worse than Nicholas. The tsars and nobles buggered up Russia thoroughly. They decimated the peasant population. The oppresion of the peasants was even worse than it was in France before the Revolution. Just about the only tsarina who tried to initiate reform was Catherine the great and she could only do so much without the nobles ganging up against her [they didn't want to lose their cheap labour force]. They systematically ground the peasantry into the mud. If not for their cruel and pathetic rule, the Bolsjeviks would never even have stood a chance in winning the revolution.
   Besides, Stalin didn't take over from Nicholas you know. Lenin was the first to rule in Russia after the tsars and he had quite high ideals and ideas. He even warned his followers against Stalin but unfortunately Stalin was in a much stronger position than Trotski after Lenin died and took control.
   Yes, Stalin did horrendous things and millions were killed or sent to the gulaghs in his time. But IMHO, I do not think Russia would have been any better off had the tsars stayed in power.
   A question for the ages really…

   Reply

3. Morpheus says

   Oh God – what a horrible history poor old Russia has. I think anything which happens in Russia is about always the WRONG thing. For 300 or more years, the Mongolians controlled Russia, and they just tore the crap out of it – and after that, they had a series of the most despotic rulers in the world who cared nothing for the Russian people.

   Then you add some alcohol – and you got a bad situation right down to today.

   Actually Nicholas was probably too liberal for the Russians – there was too much freedom – not enough stupid raw savagery in the Kremlin. And Russia came apart – and then the very worst person in the history of the Universe clawed his way into power – Georgie Bush… no wait – it was Stalin.

   If SOMEHOW Nicholas could have stayed on the throne – stopped that stupid damned war with the Germans – worked with his new Parliament for the good of the Russian people – it might have worked. But No – for poor Russia, that would have been too good an outcome. What Russians do best is suffer – and they sure suffered from Stalin.

   Reply

4. Matthew P says

   Absolutely. The czarist régime had its problems, but the systematic annihilation of the peasantry was not one of them. It should be a truism by now that whatever the faults of the incumbent régime, the revolutionary régime promising the brave new utopian world will always be worse.

   Reply

5. Omer N says

   find it here selectbuddy.com

   Reply