Russia history question

I hear people in the USA don’t want a socialist government like Russia had…but what was Russia like before it became a socialist “communist” country? Did it need to become that way or was it just pushed on the country by the people that came into power at the time?

Russia has a very colourful and interesting history.

It was one of the last European kingdoms to become literate and a Tsar in the 18th century went on an education drive, adopting the cyrillic alphabet (he saw Greece and its language and culture as the pinnacle to aspire to). As a result Russia became a formidable empire and went to war with Britain and other European powers over the ailing Ottoman Empire's territory in the mid 19th century. About this time it finally abolished serfdom.

Sadly for Russia, the later Tsars (Kings - the word Tsar is a corruption of "Caesar") were too autocratic for the changing world around them. Nicholas II, a man who ruled during the Industrial Revolution clung to the divine right of kings, that was incompatible with modern society. The man was as tyrant who cared little for his people but he relented to the pressures of a the moderates who largely wanted to reform the crown's power into a constitutional monarchy in the way that other European monarchies had reformed.

But the new Parliamentary government was inept, food was running short due to German blockades and the Tsar did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Russian people.

The Russian Revolution broke out in 1917 when soldiers were ordered to fire on people involved in the general strike but many sided with the strikers. Over the course of the next few months, the government collapsed and the soviets seized power from the provisional government. Russia descended into civil war between the Soviets (Red Army) and an alliance of moderate Socialists and constitutional monarchists (White Army).

Perhaps things would have been so much different if the white army would have won but things had become so bad for the average Russian that the promises of the revolutionaries and radical bolsheviks of the Red Army that they had more support.

Russia needed a big change and it was the last country in Europe to undergo such a necessary revolution. Did it need to happen? I would leave that question to people more expert on the period than I am.

Depends, NextPrez, on what you consider socialist. The USSR was beyond that even though the word was part of the name of the country. Things were pretty bad for those people during the USSR years. In my opinion, it wasn't much different than under Nicholas II.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Russia has a very colourful and interesting history.

It was one of the last European kingdoms to become literate and a Tsar in the 18th century went on an education drive, adopting the cyrillic alphabet (he saw Greece and its language and culture as the pinnacle to aspire to). As a result Russia became a formidable empire and went to war with Britain and other European powers over the ailing Ottoman Empire's territory in the mid 19th century. About this time it finally abolished serfdom.

Sadly for Russia, the later Tsars (Kings - the word Tsar is a corruption of "Caesar") were too autocratic for the changing world around them. Nicholas II, a man who ruled during the Industrial Revolution clung to the divine right of kings, that was incompatible with modern society. The man was as tyrant who cared little for his people but he relented to the pressures of a the moderates who largely wanted to reform the crown's power into a constitutional monarchy in the way that other European monarchies had reformed.

But the new Parliamentary government was inept, food was running short due to German blockades and the Tsar did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the Russian people.

The Russian Revolution broke out in 1917 when soldiers were ordered to fire on people involved in the general strike but many sided with the strikers. Over the course of the next few months, the government collapsed and the soviets seized power from the provisional government. Russia descended into civil war between the Soviets (Red Army) and an alliance of moderate Socialists and constitutional monarchists (White Army).

Perhaps things would have been so much different if the white army would have won but things had become so bad for the average Russian that the promises of the revolutionaries and radical bolsheviks of the Red Army that they had more support.

Russia needed a big change and it was the last country in Europe to undergo such a necessary revolution. Did it need to happen? I would leave that question to people more expert on the period than I am.

Nicely put, Matt!

lol thanks, and I thought I rambled a bit too much.

Tex you're right. The White Army were largely socialist. Anybody who would compare Socialism with Communism are ignorant of the differences.

Things were pretty bad for those people during the USSR years. In my opinion, it wasn't much different than under Nicholas II.

As far as I understand it, not until Stalin. And it seems that Trotsky might have been Lenin's choice as successor (but he was mysteriously killed). The kindest thing we could possibly say about Stalin was that he was psychologically disturbed.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:The kindest thing we could possibly say about Stalin was that he was psychologically disturbed.

That and his granddaughter spoke out against him if I remember right.

She lives in Wisconsin apparently having claimed political asylum in the 1960s.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265648/Alive--living-Wisconsin-Stalins-daughter.html

My mistake. His daughter. I knew it was some kind of daughter.