And Lenin's brother was murdered by the Tsar's father, and the Tsar murdered many other Russians of his own account.
Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.
Those Bolshevik soldiers sent the parasitical Romanovs to where they belonged - into the dustbin of history.
The world would probably have been a much better place without the Bolshevik, despite, and in full view of the many imperfections of the Tsarist rule.
Russia was at an average level of development in 1918. European parts of Russia (St Petersburg) where relatively modern, and while much of the rest of the country was rural and backwards
* there is no reason whatsoever to assume that it wouldn't have been developed with other forms of government in Russia, whether under a Tsar, or -- even better -- a modern western democracy.
* Bolsheviks retarded the development of Russia. All comparable western nations developed faster, practically all 'Soviet' technology was basically invented in the west. The Soviets had nothing to offer but violence.
For example (from [1]): "Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States."
Let me emphasise: I'm not saying that the Tsarist regime was particularly good, just a lot better than the Bolsheviks. If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...
There's a lot of "if onlys" that could be said about the period between 1905 and Stalin's takeover. To stay Tsarist seems a peculiar focus.
Lenin was exported to Russia by Germany with the specific aim of causing a revolution. To mangle Churchill’s quote, Lenin was sent in as “plague bacillus”. Obviously he acted with a lot of local support, but German intervention wanted and helped fund the revolution to end the war on their Eastern Front.
In hindsight it wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany.
wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany
It did end the war in the East, and delayed the war for dominance in the East (which was seen as inevitable -- as it by the US left today, pace the mainstream press' demonisation of the Trump/Putin connection) by two decades. Even today Germany is wealthier than Russia despite having no natural resources.
The biggest victims of the Bolsheviks were the Russian people (and inhabitants of neighbouring states).
[1] https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14608/did-the-ge...
I think comparing Germany to Russia today is missing the point. Europe self-destroyed through two world wars during the XX century. At the end of the XIX and for about 300 years before it pretty much dominated the world. Now it is a club of mid-size countries that have lost most of their international influence and military might.
The rising demography of developing countries being probably the second biggest factor.
There was a lot of it about. Churchill sent tanks into Glasgow in 1919; during this period Ireland also fought for its independence (and subsequent civil war).
The old authoritarianism was doomed but it absolutely wasn't going to go without bloodshed. Some of it still lies latent to the present day like a dormant virus.