Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C19fan
Nicholas II was the same except he did not have the force of personality to pull it off. As one historian described Russia during Nicholas II reign, "'autocracy without an autocrat".

I've always thought that Nicholas II would have been a very good constitutional monarch (as his cousin George V was); however, the Russian nobility was completely opposed to it.

In the 19th century western Europe was embracing democracy and had an ever-expanding middle class while Russia was still clinging to medieval feudalism. Russia effectively skipped the Industrial Revolution and eventually they had to pay the price for it.

4 posted on 07/11/2012 7:42:18 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee

Russia was rapidly expanding in the decade or two leading to Great War. But the fundamentally flawed autocratic state could not handle the pressure from the Great War.


6 posted on 07/11/2012 7:45:02 AM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: wagglebee

That’s the irony, according to Marx, the Communist revolution was to take place in the Industrial countries, a country could not become socialist until it had a significant proletarian population in an industrialized country. Russia was nowhere near that point in 1917.


7 posted on 07/11/2012 7:46:19 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson