What do you think Russia would be like today if Nicholas II had not been deposed or executed?

Question

Exactly 90 years ago, tonight, Nicholas his wife, their five children, and three loyal employees were executed in a cellar by Bolsheviks. Their murder lead to many long years of communist rule. Eventually communism was replaced by a democracy, which is its current government. But what if Nicholas and his family had not been executed that fateful day, and Russia still had a Tsar? What do you think the Russian government would be like?

Answer 1

It is interesting to think whether or not the Russians would have joined the Allied forces during WWII if the Bolsheviks had not taken over Russia. It seems to me that the Czars were more friendly with Germany than the Communists. Thus, if Czar Nicholas II had not been executed in 1918, and the Whites/Loyalists had won the Russian Civil War, the Russians might have joined the Axis during WWII, and the end result could have been an Axis victory. Obviously, the world would be much different today. I hope to think the n***s would have been eliminated by this time. The Cold War might have never happened and the Russian economy would never have had to experience Boris Yeltsin's failure and Vladimir Putin revival. The world would be a much different place, not to mention Russia. It is hard to say whether it would be better or worse if the Bolsheviks hadn't taken over. Probably worse. Maybe Nicholas II's alliance with France would spur him to join the Allies in WWII.

Answer 2

There was nothing noble or romantic about this despotic tyrant.  Nicholas was an autocrat and a fool.  His rule saw the beginnings of democratic institutions, and he fought hard to prevent them having any power.

Had Nicholas managed to stay in office in March 1917, and the revolution not gone against him, I believe that his days were numbered:  The people of Russia were fed up with living lives of medieval poverty, of seeing their owners (most were still enserfed) live lives of extraordinary wealth and extravagance.  

Nicholas's only hope would be for the various White armies to join together (they were a ragbag of differing non-Bolshevik armies, that often fought each other) to keep him as a figurehead - whilst they governed.  This was Russia's only hope for a non-Bolshevik future.

Answer 3

whoa! 90 years already!?!?

anyway i'm not russian or of russian descent, but i miss the glorious old russian empire. whenever i think of the empire, i think of faberge' and marc chagall and tchaikovsky. i believe that though now russia may be a better place, it is a place of much less importance

Answer 4

i think tim's said it all lol

wt he said was on my mind

Answer 5

That is an interesting idea. Hitler began speaking out against the Bolsheviks early on, so Stalin anticipated the invasion. However, had the monarchy maintained power, it would be a good question on how Hitler would have viewed Russia.

Was Hitler afraid of the further spread of Communism? Or was Russia just another race he chose to "target"?

Either way, it would have changed the face of WWII, and todays world as we know it.

A very thought-provoking question.

Answer 6

Here are my very long thoughts about how I think Russia would be today if the Romanovs had not been killed:

Nicholas was executed by the Bolsheviks because of the Revolution, and the fact that his people considered him a weak ruler who did not help Russia through her struggle against poverty and unfairness. During the Russian Revolution, people actually conisdered putting the tsar back on the throne, however this idea was over-ruled.

Nicholas's government, the Duma, pressured Nicholas to abdicate in order not to cause a Revolution. Most likely, if the tsar had continued to rule and the peasan'ts had not revolted, Nicholas's son, Alexei, or one of Alexei's children (if he had had children) would be ruling Russia today. All European Royals are related, and Russia was very close to Britain before the Revolution occurred. In some ways, Russia might be better off today if Nicholas and his family had not been killed at the Ipatiev House in 1918, and in some ways, Russia might even be worse.

The Royal Dynasty of Russia was demolished with the last Romanovs. Many Russian peasants were devastated that Nicholas's children and wife had been killed, too. Was this because they only wanted the one man leading their struggle out of the picture, and nobody else? We know that they were killed to end the bloodline of that one family.

The peasant's revolted in Russia because of their unfair living conditions, and because they wanted a better life. As to this day, Russia still remains quite corrupt. I think, if the tsar had continued to rule, Russia would be much the same.

Russia was still starving after the tsar and his family had been exterminated. The government was a dictatorship like you said, and they used propaganda to win over those of Russia who were gullable, whilst those of Russia who were more intelligent could only sit and watch as the nation grew steadily worse. During the revolution, the only source of meat for the peasant's was horse meat. Russia was still starving after the death of the Romanovs.  Poverty did not cease after the revolution.

I think of all the lives lost due to the revolution, however then I remember all the lives lost due to Nicholas's poor leadership. Was much better done by the execution of Nicholas and his family? I can't really come to a conclusion. I think nobody can form an accurate answer. Russia was starving either way, with or without the rule of the Romanovs, which in my opinion would help lead up to the same events that are happening today in that gigantic nation. Communison was abolished of course, but with Nicholas's rule, communism would have never happened!

I really can't come to a conclusion when I weigh all the facts in my head :S