What would have been better: USSR or Czarist Russia?

[Sirota]

After the Revolution of 1917, the old Romanov Dynasty finally came to a brutal end and the throne was replaced with a socialist republic. Now, what if the Czar was never shot or at least replaced, would this have been better for all of the Russias then the new Communist government? Would the Russians have prevailed equally, worse or better during the Great Patriotic War and/or Cold War? Would there even be a Cold War?

[dogukan]

Before commie haters vote for Czartists...............things were not awesome in Russia before communism. Keep that in mind.

[Sirota]

Before commie haters vote for Czartists...............things were not awesome in Russia before communism. Keep that in mind.

That is true, that is why I left the option of having a new Czar. But was all the mediocore transformation of Russia worth so many deaths during the Stalinist regime too?

[dogukan]

That is true, that is why I left the option of having a new Czar. But was all the mediocore transformation of Russia worth so many deaths during the Stalinist regime too?

Revolutions are bloody...it is not communism's fault that it happened that way. It is how the revolutionary leaders decided.
Not even all did that...

And well, Czarists had a lot of blood in their hand earlier against their own people too.

[alhoon]

Well... a more "modern" type of Monarchy, like the one in Spain for example, or the one in England would have worked better in my opinion.

[Dr. Croccer]

Communism. For purely practical reasons, mainly. Without Stalin's action, industrialisation of Russia would've taken far longer. Asuming that the rest of history went as it did historically, Russia would be overrun by Germany, Hitler would have his Lebensraum and might've even won the war. Russia probably wouldn't exist by now, in such a case.

But was all the mediocore transformation of Russia worth so many deaths during the Stalinist regime too?

It won the war for them and prevented Russians from being exterminated and/or becoming illiterate Helots for the Germans.

[il padrino]

Communism. For purely practical reasons, mainly. Without Stalin's action, industrialisation of Russia would've taken far longer. Asuming that the rest of history went as it did historically, Russia would be overrun by Germany, Hitler would have his Lebensraum and might've even won the war. Russia probably wouldn't exist by now, in such a case.

It won the war for them and prevented Russians from being exterminated and/or becoming illiterate Helots for the Germans.

Well,Hitler would have had less excuse for attacking Russia,if they weren't communist...


And i think there would have been no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact,and many other things,but let's not turn this into another "what if" thread


I voted for the 3 option,because i think that the Monarchy up to that time,mad many mistakes,but the Communist leaders were not better in many aspects,so like we say in Serbia.

Russia "fell from a horse,to a donkey"

Meaning that it changed from bad to worse.

[Heathen Hammer]

Third option might have worked in theory, but... Who would be the new Czar? And what kind of monarchy would it be?

[Monarchist]

Nicholas II genuinely wanted to reform Russia's autocracy, and tried to do so in the 1906 Duma (Parliament) declaration. It was actually his wife Alexandra Feodorovna who wanted to keep the old tyranny going. His reforms were gradual, and peace had mostly returned by 1913.

The 1905 tragedy was not the fault of the Tzar, as we know the peasants lead by Gapon expected to meet the Tzar in front of the Winter Palace on Oct. 17. The despicable and irresponsible State Secret Police had placed agents in the revolutionary movements to "monitor" them. The problem is that the so-called police agents kept inciting riots and actually starting revolutions, not reporting on them as they were ostensibly supposed to. I actually believe the State Police were secretly revolutionaries; they undermined the Tzar constantly from 1898-1913, and hardly seem to have been loyal. Gapon himself was just a police agent, and probably lead the peasants knowing Nicholas II would be in Tsarskoye Selo on Oct. 17, not in the capital. It didn't start out as a revolution; the people, on that day, had icons and pictures of Nicholas in their hands. It only became the Revolution of 1905 after the evil Secret "Police" shot at the people for absolutely no reason. To blame the Tzar for this would be totally unfair, and yet he was called "Nicholas the Bloody" ever-after, unjustly.

You cannot say that Russia's industrialization would have been slower under the Tzars than the Communists, because we know from Nicholas' diaries that in 1913 he was already worried about huge factories in Moscow. He complained of old Red Square being "loomed over" by the shadows of industrial smoke stacks. It wasn't all backward, mud-pie eating peasantry... If there had not been WWI (a pretty big if), the industrialization might have continued much more smoothly. Tzarist Russia died in the doldroms of a gigantic, world-enflaming war. You can't really judge them for eternity based on that.

I obviously vote to retain the Tzars over that evil regime of the U.S.S.R. Nothing in history would ever let me choose the Soviets. I'd rather live under the Nazis than in the U.S.S.R. It is just a bonus that I am a monarchist.

The first option is my choice; the second is evil, as I said, and the third... was impossible. Even though Nicholas desperately wanted to resign (to allow his younger brother Mikhail to take his place), his mother and the family refused. They believed that the line of succession must be kept strong in order to legitimize the Romanov Family forever and ever. Their stubbornness probably cost them the entire dynasty, as Nicholas turned out to be a good, timid, shy, and easily-convinced person. As Radzinsky said in The Last Tsar, those qualities may be good for the man on the street, but they are disastrous for world leaders and kings.

Poor Nicholas! I mourn him! The Tsarevitch Alexei might not have made a bad Tzar, if they could keep his Hemophilia down, which they successfully did for what was his short life. I always have hope, especially when the alternative is that demonic criminal Lenin.

[Faramir D'Andunie]

Should we assume that in this what if scenario no civil war takes place in Russia, do they pull out of WWI, does the revolution take place at all... this has sooo many variables.

And one has to wonder how will the peace treaty agreements following WWI go with a Russia still standing. What would there stance be regarding Ottoman Empire, or Austria-Hungary and the many states that arose during that era. Or if the communist movement really become that important without a successfull revolution in Russia? Gives a headache to think of the many possibilities.

Not sure on what to vote, definately not Communists but not sure for the other two choices as well.

[Dr. Croccer]

Nicholas II genuinely wanted to reform Russia's autocracy, and tried to do so in the 1906 Duma (Parliament) declaration. It was actually his wife Alexandra Feodorovna who wanted to keep the old tyranny going. His reforms were gradual, and peace had mostly returned by 1913.

No he didn't. He expanded autocracy and, if it weren't for revolts, had continued on with little to no changes. He was hardly a moderniser or reformer, the few reforms he made were either forced upon him or were made to make his empire even more centralised and autocratic. For example, Finland had been an autonomous duchy in Russia since 1809. It had it's own parliament, it's own army, it's own state language. In 1901 he suspended the Finnish army and installed conscription and the year later he declared that Russian should be made the official language and he withdrew Finnish self-rule, installing a Russian governor-general instead. There were protests and the Czar responded by installing a hardliner, Bobrikov, as governor-general in 1903. He was assassinated the next year. In 1905, with the Revolution, the Czar reinstalled Finnish self rule. Similair things happened in Poland. In 1902 schools were closed because Poles refused to sing the Russian athem. Poland had been under the direct rule of a governor-general for over 40 years.

The 1905 tragedy was not the fault of the Tzar, as we know the peasants lead by Gapon expected to meet the Tzar in front of the Winter Palace on Oct. 17. The despicable and irresponsible State Secret Police had placed agents in the revolutionary movements to "monitor" them. The problem is that the so-called police agents kept inciting riots and actually starting revolutions, not reporting on them as they were ostensibly supposed to. I actually believe the State Police were secretly revolutionaries; they undermined the Tzar constantly from 1898-1913, and hardly seem to have been loyal. Gapon himself was just a police agent, and probably lead the peasants knowing Nicholas II would be in Tsarskoye Selo on Oct. 17, not in the capital. It didn't start out as a revolution; the people, on that day, had icons and pictures of Nicholas in their hands. It only became the Revolution of 1905 after the evil Secret "Police" shot at the people for absolutely no reason. To blame the Tzar for this would be totally unfair, and yet he was called "Nicholas the Bloody" ever-after, unjustly.

Except that the troops who fired at the protestors led by Gapon were Cossacks, extremely pro-monarchistic troops, not the State Police. The Cossacks themselves were instructed not to show mercy in surpressing insurrection, by the state, ergo, the Czar. This wasn't the first time nor the last time troops fired on protestors on a Czar's orders.

You cannot say that Russia's industrialization would have been slower under the Tzars than the Communists, because we know from Nicholas' diaries that in 1913 he was already worried about huge factories in Moscow. He complained of old Red Square being "loomed over" by the shadows of industrial smoke stacks. It wasn't all backward, mud-pie eating peasantry... If there had not been WWI (a pretty big if), the industrialization might have continued much more smoothly. Tzarist Russia died in the doldroms of a gigantic, world-enflaming war. You can't really judge them for eternity based on that.

We can look at basic differences between the two, for one.

[Pious Agnost]

Nicholas II genuinely wanted to reform Russia's autocracy, and tried to do so in the 1906 Duma (Parliament) declaration. It was actually his wife Alexandra Feodorovna who wanted to keep the old tyranny going. His reforms were gradual, and peace had mostly returned by 1913.

The 1905 tragedy was not the fault of the Tzar, as we know the peasants lead by Gapon expected to meet the Tzar in front of the Winter Palace on Oct. 17. The despicable and irresponsible State Secret Police had placed agents in the revolutionary movements to "monitor" them. The problem is that the so-called police agents kept inciting riots and actually starting revolutions, not reporting on them as they were ostensibly supposed to. I actually believe the State Police were secretly revolutionaries; they undermined the Tzar constantly from 1898-1913, and hardly seem to have been loyal. Gapon himself was just a police agent, and probably lead the peasants knowing Nicholas II would be in Tsarskoye Selo on Oct. 17, not in the capital. It didn't start out as a revolution; the people, on that day, had icons and pictures of Nicholas in their hands. It only became the Revolution of 1905 after the evil Secret "Police" shot at the people for absolutely no reason. To blame the Tzar for this would be totally unfair, and yet he was called "Nicholas the Bloody" ever-after, unjustly.

You cannot say that Russia's industrialization would have been slower under the Tzars than the Communists, because we know from Nicholas' diaries that in 1913 he was already worried about huge factories in Moscow. He complained of old Red Square being "loomed over" by the shadows of industrial smoke stacks. It wasn't all backward, mud-pie eating peasantry... If there had not been WWI (a pretty big if), the industrialization might have continued much more smoothly. Tzarist Russia died in the doldroms of a gigantic, world-enflaming war. You can't really judge them for eternity based on that.

I obviously vote to retain the Tzars over that evil regime of the U.S.S.R. Nothing in history would ever let me choose the Soviets. I'd rather live under the Nazis than in the U.S.S.R. It is just a bonus that I am a monarchist.

The first option is my choice; the second is evil, as I said, and the third... was impossible. Even though Nicholas desperately wanted to resign (to allow his younger brother Mikhail to take his place), his mother and the family refused. They believed that the line of succession must be kept strong in order to legitimize the Romanov Family forever and ever. Their stubbornness probably cost them the entire dynasty, as Nicholas turned out to be a good, timid, shy, and easily-convinced person. As Radzinsky said in The Last Tsar, those qualities may be good for the man on the street, but they are disastrous for world leaders and kings.

Poor Nicholas! I mourn him! The Tsarevitch Alexei might not have made a bad Tzar, if they could keep his Hemophilia down, which they successfully did for what was his short life. I always have hope, especially when the alternative is that demonic criminal Lenin.

I agree completely, and I would add that, supposing the monarchy DID continue, then there would have been less effort to appease Hitler in order to be a bulwark against Communism, Russia probably would have remained allied to Britain and France.

I think the outcomes of Stalin's furious industrialization would have been roughly equal to a Russia which retained its friendship with the Allied powers.

[Monarchist]

How about the Fundamental State Laws in 1906? initiated by Nicholas and Stolypin which severely restricted the way the Duma's functioned and who was allowed in them.
Hell Nicholas dissolved the first two Duma's within a year because they were "Too radical"

Those were a problem. You see, Nicholas II was not a very strong man. I don't wish to attack his memory, but facts are facts. His diaries over the years show that he was easily swayed by each argument from both sides. Being a person who was expected to act as an arbiter in disputes, this was probably not the best mindset to have. Regardless, he allowed himself to be swayed by Stolypin, who started off a liberal but was changed after an assassination attempt at his home. Those Commies loved using bombs, but this one only knocked Stolypin off his feet. After that, he said later, he became "less than a liberal". I am sure you know of Stolypin's Necktie - the gallows. It was retribution for the evil revolutionaries killing police and aristocrats across the country.

The first Duma was too radical - it gave lots of power to the lower classes. Russia was a place of slow change, and needed slow change at first. Stalin was proof that fast-paced revolutionary change can only ... curb the excess population.

[Jaketh]

Czarist since anything is better then communism

[Copperknickers II]

Czarist since anything is better then communism

Okhrana? Cossacks? Church controlled by state? That is even worse than Communism in my book.

[Applesmack]

Considering both present hell, I pick the one that is more practical and making the nation more powerful and improving living conditions..BTW, you could argue that Stalin's regime was pretty much a monarchy with a new monarch anyway.

[pericles_plato]

If the new Czar was good then yea. New Czar please. communism was a good government but in the end, So I've been taught by books and teachers. *From a capitalist place* Communism usually fails economically. After seeing USSR and their ECO. I agree now. So no communism.

[Applesmack]

I the ne Czar was good then yea. New Czar please. communism was a good government but in the end, So i've been taught by books and teachers. *From a capitalast place* Communism usually fails economically. After seeing USSR and their ECO. I agree now. So no communism.

Well if we are talking war, then communism is very effective. Just look at USSR in World War 2. But other than that, you're right it does fail.

[Aonghus G. Friedhold]

For a time, U.S.S.R. was better than Russian Empire, but assuming the new monarch was competent, that'd probably be best.

[Gerald The Herald]

Hard to say;the reforms carried out by Nicholas II to reform the Russian Empire, while marginally successful, were far too gradual to truly significantly improve not only the infrastructural, but social and military status of Russia if it weren't for the more...radical actions of the Soviets. While Lenin's New Economic Policy didn't precisely work out, at least Stalin's industrialization movements managed to completely transform the U.S.S.R from a backward agrarian monarchy with uneducated serfs being the majority to an industrial and military superpower, albeit at the cost of personal liberty and quite an appalling number of lives.

While it must be conceeded that the Czarist system attempted (after coercion and revolt) to liberalize the system with the Duma as well as the slight privatization of land reforms that were enacted which placed more responsibility for the russian serf population through their respective village heads, these reforms were neither greatly effective as a whole nor timely enough to prevent an inevitable full-scale revolution; the former was notoriously occupied by relatives and the old autocratic nobility through the Duma which, in itself, had very little power to legislate, only advise whereas the latter was equally infamous for the corruption and manipulation which occured through the various village heads. [Can't remember the exact russian term for the actual process]
In a sense, the Duma's true frailty was most exposed following Nicholas the II's abdication in 1917: it failed to sue for peace with the Central Powers, re-organize a proper foodstuffs supply to the major cities of Petrograd and Moscow itself and couldn't ensure free elections were held before the soviet take-over. Furthermore, it's security itself relied far too greatly with the Red Guard.

Hence, I'd say the Czarist system was doomed for failure in terms of trying to appease the Russian people either through reform or repression.

Besides, revolution would occur inevitably against almost all absolutist monarchist by the end of the middle of the 20th century even with successful appeasement policies by the monarchy; the clamour for reform can't be ignored.

Do note that the U.S.S.R, being an autarkic stalinist regime by the 1930's, suffered no economic damage at all from the Great Depression. On the contrary, it excelled primarily in terms of mechanical production from the Five Year Plans. Although consumer products were largely ignored until the Third Five-Year-Plan which was in turn interrupted by Op. Barbarossa from the Third Reich, there certainly wasn't a lack of employment in the U.S.S.R, provided that one was willing to suffer the bad conditions. I simply cannot envision a monarchist Russia surviving until the end of 1945.