4 ms·

"Russia was a backwards country in 1917" Russia has lost a war in 1917. It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread. Surely

"Russia was a backwards country in 1917" Russia has lost a war in 1917. It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread. Surely, it lacked in some areas, but it was already industrializing fast, building ships, cars, planes, railroads and stuff. Then came soviets and took credit for all aforementioned.

ivan_gammel 11y ago
It was, but not because it did not industrialize. It did build the railroads and factories, of course, and it was at the peak of economical power by 1913, we all know that. It was a backwards country because of 99% of population still living in extreme poverty (the level of social and political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept), corruption and incompetence, which lead to defeat in war with Japan 10 years ago, and backwards political system, unable to solve challenges of the time. The Empire was doomed, and noone should cry about it.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Citation needed. Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty". Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured themselves out. "the level of... political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept" is especially fun to read for a citizen of Putinist post-Soviet Russia. I not only understand political inequality but also experience levels of it that exceed what 1914 had to offer. For example, they had real Duma with real parties! That didn't always vote the same! Hundred years passed and yet today we are far worse off.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    I found this paper [1] which tends to show that pre-Soviet Russia wasn't that bad off. However, it's only based on data from St Petersburg and Moscow, so it's difficult to say how representative the conclusions are compared to the rest of Europe at the same time period. As for the Tsarist Duma, come on. It was only established after the revolution of 1905, and after 1907, the electoral laws were engineered to favour the ruling class and the pro-Tsarist currents, and the Tsar retained most of his authority. 1: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b425c6ef3.pdf http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b4...
    - guard-of-terra 11y ago
      Still it seems to be a better Duma than the one Russia has today. Modern Duma is young too, but really degenerate: voting unanimously, no opposition parties due to very high barrier to entry (by both not registering new parties and 7% elective barrier) and general monopolization of power in Russia. Rules now change before every new elections.

ivan_gammel 11y ago

It was, but not because it did not industrialize. It did build the railroads and factories, of course, and it was at the peak of economical power by 1913, we all know that. It was a backwards country because of 99% of population still living in extreme poverty (the level of social and political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept), corruption and incompetence, which lead to defeat in war with Japan 10 years ago, and backwards political system, unable to solve challenges of the time. The Empire was doomed, and noone should cry about it.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
Citation needed. Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty". Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured themselves out. "the level of... political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept" is especially fun to read for a citizen of Putinist post-Soviet Russia. I not only understand political inequality but also experience levels of it that exceed what 1914 had to offer. For example, they had real Duma with real parties! That didn't always vote the same! Hundred years passed and yet today we are far worse off.
- mercurial 11y ago
  I found this paper [1] which tends to show that pre-Soviet Russia wasn't that bad off. However, it's only based on data from St Petersburg and Moscow, so it's difficult to say how representative the conclusions are compared to the rest of Europe at the same time period. As for the Tsarist Duma, come on. It was only established after the revolution of 1905, and after 1907, the electoral laws were engineered to favour the ruling class and the pro-Tsarist currents, and the Tsar retained most of his authority. 1: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b425c6ef3.pdf http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b4...
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Still it seems to be a better Duma than the one Russia has today. Modern Duma is young too, but really degenerate: voting unanimously, no opposition parties due to very high barrier to entry (by both not registering new parties and 7% elective barrier) and general monopolization of power in Russia. Rules now change before every new elections.