So that's worth millions of people dying, the cities and outlying towns being practically laid to waste, and the country being thrown into an economic super-crisis, which eventually led the Bolshevik authorities to scale back their communist plans for over a decade.unabomberman said:Because, of course, there is nothing wrong with a remnant of a monarchy that opressed the people.RebelRising said:I was named after Czar Nicholas II, the last Emperor of Russia before Lenin, Trotsky, and the other Bolshevik imps laid waste to the empire's government and infrastructure.
I'll side with Mark Twain on this one:
"I am said to be a revolutionist in my sympathies, by birth, by breeding and by principle. I am always on the side of the revolutionists, because there never was a revolution unless there were some oppressive and intolerable conditions against which to revolt."
Enough said.
Sorry for this mini OT rant.
And it's not like Nicholas II was anywhere near the most brutal of Russian leaders, quite the opposite, really. And his whole family was killed in cold blood, for what? Freedom, happiness and economic prosperity? Maybe in your version of the Russia in the early 20th Century.
No offense, but don't apply knee-jerk revolutionary thinking to Russia; the country has never worked like that. The Bolsheviks are almost as bad as the Khmer Rouge.