Who was Russia better off under Stalin or Tsar Nicholas II?

Question

Who was Russia better off under Stalin or Tsar Nicholas II?

Answer 1

Even Tsar Nicholas II could have defended Russia against Hitler's assault as the primary defense was the terrain and weather.  The people of Russia post WWII would easily have been been better off under the rule of the Tsar rather than Stalin.

Answer 2

This is a question of which was the least of two evils. Stalin was the most evil. He killed million. He desensitized a culture. He push Russia back decades in productivity,isolated Russia from the rest of the world, etc.

The Tsar never committed such evil on his own people as Stalin. He was no angle but he was the least of these two evils  

Answer 3

Why not ask the Russians themselves?

The most recent polls about the Russian attitude towards Stalin is that 30% approve of him.  And, chances are most of these 30% would probably think Stalin was tough, but necessary.

Most Russians, then, would not think Tsar Nick II was nearly as bad; probably the main reason he was deposed - as is the case for most revolutions - is that he raised expectations that he could not meet.

Answer 4

No contest, Russia would've been better off under Tsar Nicholas II.  Although as incompetent as he was, Nicholas was a much more benevolent ruler than Stalin.

Stalin was the epitome of evil; he was practically the antichrist.  He had gulags, secret police, and a personality cult.  Those are all classic signs of a dictator or a ruler with dictatorial tendencies.

Nicholas was inept, lacked experience (and the education), and believed that he was in charge; not the Duma.  However, he was not ruthless or paranoid.  He never demanded that the Russian people cater to his every whim.

Answer 5

For those that were not targetted by Stalin's paranoia Russia was much better off under Stalin.

For an average family they had a house or apartment, not a wooden hut, they had employment, not serfdom, they had electricity and not candle light.  As his regime developed they had machinery to work the fields and boats to put the barges, not human muscle.

Hitler would have easily defeated the backward, impoverished medieval country that Russia would have been under Nicholas - it HAD to have industrialised to defeat the n***s.

Yes, life was terrifying - the knock on the door in the middle of the night could come for anyone, but life was getting better for most Russians.

Answer 6

Tsar Nicholas is by far the one I would choose for Russia being better off. One we know what Stalin did during his reign. It wasn't pretty. The serfs or common people suffered under Tsar Nicholas. And he botched the first world war. But given the circumstances he was in and given another year or two to govern I think alot of reforms would have been attempted. Two Stalin was not about to reform or change his method of rule. And millions suffered and died.

Answer 7

Stalin is supposedly responsible for the deaths of millions of Russians during his regime. The total numbers are debated and are for various reasons. Nevertheless, probably no historian would estimate the deaths he is responsible for at less than 3 million. His brand of ruthless, leftist, authoritarian dictatorship was rivaled only by Adolf Hitler.