• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Russian Best

Russian Life & People Digest

  • Home
  • Articles
  • Questions and Answers
    • History and Politics
    • Culture and Science
    • People and Language
    • Lifestyle and Attributes
    • Russian Sports
    • Food and Drinks
    • Traveling Russia
    • Economy and Geography
    • Russian Military
    • Books & Movies
Browse: Home / History and Politics

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

Question by louise: Would the Russians have been better off if Tsar Nicholas II had stayed ruler instead of Stalin becoming ruler?
In my opinion, Stalin was a million times worse than Nicholas ever was. I think that the Russians would have been better off if there had never been a Revolution and Stalin had never become ruler. What do you think?

Answers and Views:

Answer by Eric
sure.

really doesn’t matter though

unless you have a time machine…

if you do, bring me some good pickles

Read all the answers in the comments.

What do you think?

See other posts in History and Politics

Reader Interactions

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

Leave a Reply to Jingizu Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Popular Posts

Pushkin's Tatiana writing a letter to Onegin

Onegin’s Tatiana Was Only Thirteen?

Russian shashlik

My Favorite Russian Food

Dacha – Home Away From Home

Subway Dog

Subway Dogs of Moscow

Cape Cod on the Rocks

What is a cocktail with vodka and cranberry juice called?

Categories

Recent Comments

  • Pat on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • Ted on Where can i send free SMS messages to Russian mobiles?
  • PutinPow on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • bigdogg on What does Nazdrovia actually mean?
  • HAMISH A McDONALD on What Russia would be like today if Nicholas II had not been executed?

Copyright RussianBest.com © 2025 · About · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer: RussianBest.com is an informational website, and its content does not constitute professional advice of any kind.