6 ms·

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 parasiti

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.

Melchizedek 8y ago
Lenin's brother was tried and executed after trying to assassinate the Tsar. Comparing that to butchering children in secret is pretty rich.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar, and exported their incompetency to many other countries, with the last major eruption of Bolshevik violence happening in the 1970s in Cambodian by the Khmer Rouge (the Khmer branch of the Bolshevik/Leninist party). 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.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  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?
- lostlogin 8y ago
  > Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar 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.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the November revolution: Germany collapsed from the Kiel mutiny onwards, and turned from a monarchy into a socialist anti-war state in 1918. 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.
    - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
      Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the February Revolution [1], the first of two revolutions which took place in Russia in 1917. It was the February revolution that lead to the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. For various reasons no decisive new leadership emerged, until the Bolsheviks took over in October. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
  - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
    wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany In what sense? 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-germans-purposefully-arrange-to-send-lenin-to-russia-to-start-a-revoluti https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14608/did-the-ge...

Melchizedek 8y ago

Lenin's brother was tried and executed after trying to assassinate the Tsar. Comparing that to butchering children in secret is pretty rich.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar, and exported their incompetency to many other countries, with the last major eruption of Bolshevik violence happening in the 1970s in Cambodian by the Khmer Rouge (the Khmer branch of the Bolshevik/Leninist party). 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.

amaccuish 8y ago
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?
lostlogin 8y ago
> Those Bolshevik soldiers and their leaders the proceeded to make the situation a lot worse than Tsar 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.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the November revolution: Germany collapsed from the Kiel mutiny onwards, and turned from a monarchy into a socialist anti-war state in 1918. 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.
  - YorkshireSeason 8y ago
    Everyone remembers the October revolution, but few remember the February Revolution [1], the first of two revolutions which took place in Russia in 1917. It was the February revolution that lead to the abdication of Czar Nicholas II. For various reasons no decisive new leadership emerged, until the Bolsheviks took over in October. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_Revolution
- YorkshireSeason 8y ago
  wasn’t a very good strategy for Germany In what sense? 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-germans-purposefully-arrange-to-send-lenin-to-russia-to-start-a-revoluti https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/14608/did-the-ge...