6 ms·

Yes Russia was a extremely well developed nation with good education, healthcare etc until those pesky bolsheviks came along and ruined everything...

golergka 8y ago
Yes, it actually was, in many different areas, one of the most developed countries in Europe in 1914.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
What kind of argument is this supposed to be? 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%9392)#Economic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...
- jahaja 8y ago
  > If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule. 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.
- jkabrg 8y ago
  Which "comparable western nations" are you referring to?

golergka 8y ago

Yes, it actually was, in many different areas, one of the most developed countries in Europe in 1914.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

What kind of argument is this supposed to be? 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%9392)#Economic_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Russia_(1855%E2%80%...

jahaja 8y ago
> If Russia had stayed Tsarist, or -- even better -- become a normal western democracy, it would have been much better than the Bolshevik rule. 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.
jkabrg 8y ago
Which "comparable western nations" are you referring to?