Communists industrialized Russi

>Genocide, famine, gulags, losing all your resources, and general mass murder is required for development
Or, you could keep to the status quo and accept the fact that monarchy was better than c*mmunism

Looks like the Russian people couldn't accept that.

>The Russian people chose communism
They were literally forced into it by gun point in a civil war that took millions of lives

>killing most of it
What about dose demographics tho?

>he doesn't understand why Imperial Russia or Qing China were plagued by insurrections and why communist revolutions naturally succeed in failed states

>Russia after 1905
>absolute monarchy

It pretty much was but with a few strings attached. Not being able to outright shutdown the presses hardly makes it a constitutional monarchy

This. And the Russian Empire would have been flooded with German, American and British goods.

Russian Industry wouldn't have been competitive against Western Industries and the Elite would have done little to change that.

The First Duma ran for 73 days until 8 July 1906, with little success.[4] The Tsar and his loyal Prime Minister Ivan Goremykin were keen to keep it in check, and reluctant to share power.[...]
The Tsar dissolved the Duma, reportedly saying 'curse the Duma. It is all Witte's doing'.

In frustration, Paul Miliukov and approximately 200 deputies, mostly from the liberal Kadets party decamped to Vyborg, then part of Russian Finland, to discuss the way forward. From there, they issued the Vyborg Appeal, which called for civil disobedience. Largely ignored, it ended in their arrest and the closure of Kadet Party offices.

After that, they had a second Duma for less than a year, before
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_June_1907
>This act is considered by many historians to mark the end of the Russian Revolution of 1905,

The Tsar's government [insisted] that since the Emperor had granted the Fundamental Law to begin with, he had the God-given right to unilaterally alter it (even though the Fundamental Law clearly said otherwise) in extraordinary instances, such as Nicholas claimed this to be. The manifesto of June 3, 1907 announcing this change specifically appealed to the Tsar's "historical authority" as the legal basis for these changes, which Nicholas asserted "cannot be enacted through the ordinary legislative route" since the Second Duma had been "pronounced unsatisfactory" by him.[11]

The Tsar clearly indicated that his own authority, which he claimed to have received from God himself, superseded the authority of any law, even the Fundamental Law itself, which he himself had granted.[12] This convinced many Russians that Nicholas had never embraced constitutionalism to begin with and that Russia ultimately remained an absolute autocracy hiding behind the facade of a constitution.
This, in turn, caused many of his subjects to eagerly embrace the next revolution when it finally came.

even if that were the case the commies didn't took down the Monarchy, the February revolution did, commies took dow the first democratic republic Russia ever had

Bingo! I got a bingo on my buzzword card what do I win?

correct version

are you implying commies didn't:
start civil war?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
>armed insurrection in Petrograd on the 25th of October
genocide and gulaged it's subjects?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union
caused famines?
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

nice revisionism you got there senpai,

...

>Great purge was just one guy

>1 guy killed 66 milion people even when there isnt a single source proving that

no one said Stain killed 66 million
the communist regime from the civil war up to 1991 killed 60 million

Hey guise I'm just going to leave this here:

brown.edu/academics/economics/sites/brown.edu.academics.economics/files/uploads/Mike Golosov_Industrialization Russia_Paper.pdf

jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/46000/URN:NBN:fi:jyu-201505221958.pdf;sequence=1

And who is to say that Marxist-Leninism wasn't its natural development :^)

wew lad, what about some source

Witte was ok, but decades overdue. Really Russia needed someone like him in the 1860s

Interesting, there is no doubt nicky's court was a corrupt shitshow, however the fact Witte was allowed into the halls of power at all proves that the Russian civil service and business interests were rising in power.

Pyotr Stolypin had predicted that if Russia could enjoy a period of 20 years of uninterrupted peace, it would emerge as the most powerful nation in Europe, if not the world. However, he also told the Tsar that if another war (the Russo-Japanese War being the first one) happened before that, then it would be the end of the monarchy, and perhaps the end of Russia.

was bogrov a commie or a reactionary

Stolypin was a monarchist. Everything he did was an attempt to preserve the Tsarist regime. His program was designed to turn create a Russian middle-class as a bulwark against radicalism. However, he understood that this wouldn't happen overnight, and that it would take a long time for his reforms to have the desired effect. What Russia needed was 20 years of uninterrupted peace, and he often pleaded with the Tsar to avoid another war. This made him extremely unpopular with pan-slavists and he was assassinated in 1911.

>Russia 1914
>1905 brought some reforms
>after some dificult years 1910-1914 were literallu the best years for russians so far
>war breaks out then 80 years of communism

Imagine what could have been.

No, it really wasn't. It was a kleptocratic shithole who couldn't even keep itself into power properly. Only people that would support Tsarist Russia are /pol/tards who have not read the history and background of the Russian Revolution.

Filthy communist

t. indoctrinated boomer and/or poltard

>It was a kleptocratic shithole who couldn't even keep itself into power properly

>Tsardom of Russia: 1547 - 1721 = 174 years
>Russian Empire: 1721 - 1917 = 196 years
>Soviet Russia: 1917 - 1991 = 74 years

It appears that the communists are the ones who couldn't keep themselves in power properly. They lasted less than a century.

>being this dumb

Can you differentiate between what actual rulers do in power? There were obviously good Russian Tsars, but Nicholas wasn't one of them. Or can dumb poltards only think in epic ideologies?

Nicholas II certainly made mistakes, but any sensible person would pick him over Stalin.

incoming /leftypol/ quote that majority of Russians support stalins legacy while disregarding the part of the study that says the vast majority would never want to live under him again

Any western cucked liberal who wants to nurture and weaken Russia and turn it into one of their spineless "nations", sure.

ok

rt.com/politics/394158-russians-name-stalin-most-outstanding/

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11506970/Proportion-of-Russians-who-respect-Stalin-is-growing-poll-suggests.html

Now how about some sources of your own, dumb westfuck?

Even Lenin himself tactily admitted this when he started the NEP. Enjoy arguing with communists themselves.

>Triggered tankie is so triggered he relies on his cucked nu-media instead of the study itself and makes himself my bitch in the process

LOL

>it's a 50/50 split roughly

What's your point?

>67/17 is a "50/50 split"

tankies confirmed for colorblind

The combined yes is 51, the combined no is 49. The others don't matter because they actually aren't Russian and were pretty much territories since the old Russian Empire. That's like doing a survey and asking if Balkans want to return to Ottoman rule.

>This willing doublethink in the face of facts

DURRR 33+34 EQUALS 51

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

>being this much of a braindead Amerilard

Also you ever gonna post a source on that survey, to make sure it wasn't run by your God and Master Soros?

>I cannot do basic arithmetic
>but you're a dumb American!

You have the sources for the study. You posted them.

>The Bolsheviks made Russia stronger

Lenin literally said that it was his goal to make Russia lose the war. He called it "revolutionary defeatism." This is the entire reason why Erich Ludendorff supported the Bolsheviks, because he wanted to weaken Russia.

Neither of my links contain any graph of that sort. Are you braindead?

Any sources on that?

>Neither of my links contain any graph of that sort

That's because they're selectively taking from the same study you moron. You can't even do the most basic digging on the internet for sources you posted. You can't add 33+34. What good are you?

You gonna post some proof or what?

>idiot still doesn't realize that he himself posted all the proof I need

Do you want me to open up the fucking pages and give you a print-screen? Jesus you are beyond hope.

>calls out revisionism
>posts even more ridiculous revisionism that even Russia now admits is horseshit

>I cannot dig for information nu-media sources use
>I rely on nu-media for all my information and rage whenever someone points out it's slanted af
>I cannot add 33+34

>f-fake news!
>wants me to respond to an infograph
>without providing the source on it

Both revolutions started as a results of massive failings during WWI and WWII, the revolt started when the newly minted republic refused to reach a peace treaty with the central powers. Before that Russia was rapidly industrialising and land reform was definitely on the table.
The Revolution ironically killed way more Russians than WWI.

>those pics
Why are commietards so fucking stupid?

>posts the source to the graph himself
>is too stupid to research the nu-media article in detail
>cannot add 33+34

They don't understand economics. What makes you think communists understand basic maths?

Well, they can't even add 33+34. That tells you right away these people are a few bricks short of a chimney.

>still won't provide a direct source

>Any sources on that?

"The Russian Revolution" by Sean McMeekin.

The funny thing is that even the lowest estimates for Stalin's death toll put him well above any of the Tsars. The highest estimate for Ivan the Terrible is 220,000 people. Stalin's great purge by itself killed over 600,000 and that is before taking into account the millions of other deaths that occurred during the collectivization period (1928 - 1940).

Because you provided it yourself. Boris dumb?

>wikipedia
versus
>Unsourced infographic on a pacific islander fishing net board
O am i laffin

The Russian people were forced to become Communists by Imperial decree. Failure to comply carried death penalty. Circa 1860-1865.

>soviet-backed state of Katanga
Lumumba's Congo was Soviet-backed, if anything, the Soviets advocated a stronger takedown of Katanga. Katanga and its leader Tshombe were trying to court US support to counter Soviet influence in the Congo crisis.

ive never seen any source proving that Stalin or anyone from Soviet government had anything to do with supposed "man made famine" except for infographic made by people with names like (((Montefiore))), (((Zinstein))) or (((Rosbaum)))

>Stalin forces collectivization
>Suddenly a famine of unprecedented scale happens immediately afterwards

I'm sure it is just a coincidence. And that's before even taking Lysenkoism into account.

>Stalin forces collectivization
>bad weather happens
>Jewish Kulaks burn food
>its Stalin´s fault
Only because something happened by the time he lived doesnt mean he is reposnible for it kike.
see pic under my previous post

Russia had "bad weather" before. It never caused a famine of this scale. Collectivisation was the primary cause of the famine.

how exactly
btw only because there were never that massive floods in China as in 1931 doesnt mean that Kuomintang did it

Is that trotsky next to him?

Because collectivisation is the least efficient way to run agriculture. Everywhere it has ever been tried, it has resulted in famines.

>BUT IT WAS JUST BAD WEATHER

America had bad weather, too, in the 1930's. It was called the dust bowl. Did millions of people die? No. Why? Because America didn't have collectivisation.

Michail Kalinin. Official head of USSR btw, Kalinigrad was named after him.

With those glasses he looks like trostky

Wtf why do people in highly developed countries with trade relations with entire world and extended infrastructure dont die of starvation like in country that is under embargo of the entire world, is backward and auhorities have no controll over the huge part of country because of noneexistent infrastructure. I quess Bengal famine was also caused by the Stalin collectivizating everything. Still waiting for you to provide me source for that "collectivization caused famine"

Based nazbol poster

lmao at this hardcore revision

>Everything good that happened when Stalin was in office is directly attributable to him.

>But millions of preventable deaths occurring in the Soviet Union during his reign aren't his fault.

Still waiting for your defense of Stalin's Lysenkoism.

Really activates my almonds.

>Russia had "bad weather" before. It never caused a famine of this scale.
hmm

7 million people died during Stalin's famine in 1932-1933. That's 14 times more than the 1891-92 famine. So yeah, Russia definitely had famines before but Stalin made them 14 times worse. Such a wonderful legacy.

this
STILL waiting for you to provide me source for Stalin or anyone from the Soviet government having anything to do with "holodomor" except for fixing it.

historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

>Jews call this a source

hahah yes xD fellow comrade it was the capitalists embargoing Russia haha it was bad weather hahahah it was the kulaks xD

...

>supporting your own cuckoldry by a tyrant
>implying you're not a lemming
no intelligent person would unironically support nsdap unless fate placed them in a position to materially gain from doing so

Nice one but Soviet historical revisionism is the most reddit thing you can do