Why did Russians turn their backs on the family that turned Russia from a backwater feudal shithole to a modern European empire?
because it still was a feudal shithole and nicky wanted to keep it that way
Because it was feudal shithole even during reign of Romanovs, because the industrialization was slow and because the transition to capitalism was progressing slow too.
And because landlordship wasn't abolished.
Because the elements of capitalism in Russia were hypermodern and concentrated in critical locations and industries. Because the rate of extractive profit in Russian agriculture was very high. Because peasant communities had a historical memory of success in the removal of serfdom, the expectation of more, and a hatred of landlords. Because literacy was the work of socialists and narodniks. Because the Russian ruling class and bourgeoisie were incompetent at repression and democracy. Because the Romanovs were horribly incompetent at statecraft. Because Russia lost a major war.
Because they didn't turn it into a modern European empire. the 1905 revolutions prove that little what they were doing was actually helping the people.
Russians didn't really kill them. The Jews did.
>>1043646
>>1043675
The Romanovs freed the serfs and tripled Russia's territory
And the Russian people didn't think that was enough.
disgusting.
>>1043682
>success in the removal of serfdom
Yeah, success. They were so fond of the emancipation conditions they have started a mutiny. "The will of czar is misinterpreted by the landlord! We should be free with our land!"
>>1043704
>"freed" the serfs
>put them at the whim of landowners who now had no excuse to keep them fed and on their land
>implying peasants who have never seen the next farm over care about having "heaps of territory"
you have such a skin deep view of history.
>>1043704
Who gives a fuck? Most of the territory is uninhabitable. The minorities are uneducated and unable to live as people. The half-assed emancipation has left everyone unsatisfied.
>>1043704
And it only took them three centuries.
It wasn't the Russians, it was the Jewish Bolsheviks.
FYI Nicholas is canonized as a martyr in the Russian Orthodox Church
>>1043740
Oh it was the Jews? Well that is convenient I guess the discussion is over then.
>>1043726
>And it only took them three centuries.
to conquer the biggest contiguous empire in the history of mankind. yeah.
>>1043740
Canonized in 1990s. Before that
Russian Orthodox Church have been tied with KGB and the Orthodox Church of immigrants have supported Hitler.
It's a political move, nothing more.
>>1043704
>The Romanovs freed the serfs
Before XIX century life of serfs only worsened under Romanovs, it was not so harsh under Ruriks.
>>1043751
It's not.
>>1043704
oh look another internetsmart person
please leave and never come back
>>1043632
Lenin became popular with a campaign that highlighted 3 things for the Russian people
>Peace (WW1)
>Land
>Bread
Things were rosy AF under Tzar rule :^)
Russia stopped existing in 1918 and will never come back. The modern "Russia" is the Cleveland Browns of history, an abortion of a country that clings to the glory of something they are hardly connected to other than existing in the same geographical area.
>>1043707
Yeah, because the Romanov family was precisely what was meant by the ex-serfs in relation to the will of the tsar.
Why do western youth turn their backs to the system that turned the miserable subsistence life of their ancestors into a whole life of luxury, unimaginable technological power and little to no real problems?
Marxism appeals to rebelious idiots.
>>1043854
Lenin became popular because the Germans funded a massive propaganda effort.
>>1043707
>serfs are freed
>some serfs become rich and start being dicks to the poor ex-serfs
>this somehow means serfdom was not abolished
>>1044364
Lenin was popular mostly in the cities, villages didn't care. And as we know from our times, cities are full of nothing but delusional cucks and retards.
Who /rurallife/ here?
>>1044384
Literally uncivilised.
>>1044415
Says the effete cucklord. Rural life breeds men, urban life brees sissies.
>poltard making his upteenth thread about muh royal family
get lost already you uneducated retard
>>1044420
Since industrialisation cities have made the hard men mate.
>>1044424
>CAPITALISM IS THE GREATEST INJUSTICE KNOWN TO MAN! PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN HORRIBLE CONDITIONS AND WERE POOR, DO YOU HAVE NO HEART?
>Children being killed? lol who cares
>>1044452
i dont give a shit about some spoiled royalty
get fucked poltard and die in cancer
>>1044469
Stay mad you hypocritical trash.
>>1044484
Communism > Tzarism
At least the gommies practiced some form of meritocracy
>>1044490
>meritocracy
>oh I see, you're the comrade deputy's cousin, well here's a well paid job for you!
>this other guy? He has an uncle who's a notorious anti-communist, he won't be able to study!
That's how socialism "worked" in practice.
t. Eastern European
>>1044503
Yes, it did, see Sheila Fitzpatrick's account of 'meritocracy' in the 1930s new class.
When the bureaucratic networks were motivated more by the survival of the nomenklatura, catalysed by the purges, more adept operators circulated upwards.
>>1044503
Can't say it's any better in the West
>oi you the son of the guvanah rite? Welcome aboard m8, you're unqualified as shit but your father ain't 'alf important, have a cushy job
>No connections to anyone but still highly qualified? Alright mate, we'll see what we can do for ya, don't get yer hopes up, this is a prestigious institution you know
>>1044519
On the other hand I don't think the capitalist west denied you an education simply because you were a communist. In socialist countries that kind of shit was commonplace.
>>1044529
>On the other hand I don't think the capitalist west denied you an education simply because you were a communist.
No, you were denied an education simply because you were working class.
>>1044531
Literally how and when? Maybe in the US where education is unreally expensive, but in Western Europe it's pretty affordable (if not free) for everyone.
>>1044515
>Sheila Fitzpatrick
Like I give a fuck about what some deluded westerner has to say.
>>1044550
>this triggers the western commie
>>1044515
>nepotistic upwards mobility = meritocracy
Communists, everyone
>>1044567
I adequately described the meritocratic elements and their limits. Nor did I suggest that this was communism.
The lying scum, ladies and gentlemen.
>>1044577
There was no meritocracy at any point. Literally generals were being given their ranks because they were Stalin's drinking buddies and it took the massive failure in Finland and the early stages of Barbarossa for him to panic and replace them with competent officers. Purges are the opposite of meritocracy because they removed competent people for being "dangerous" and replaced them with loyal imbeciles.
>>1044598
>loyal imbeciles
Read Fitzpatrick idiot.
>>1044602
Why can't you just explain it yourself?
>>1044602
No thank you. I don't need to read some deluded bitch and her mental gymnastics to know that socialists meritocracy was one massive sham.
>>1044607
I already have summarised Fitzpatrick, >>1044515 "More Adept operators circulated upwards."
There is a moderate correlation between adept operating in nomenklatura conflict, "modernisation" of industrial systems of HRM ("Stakhanovism", Stakhanov himself being a party member foreman, not a worker), and competence in the operation of bureaucracy.
While this is not a general "merit" criteria, nor did I suggest that it was, it is a merit criteria in particular areas which, while a purge is live, encourages success over failure. (Djilas)
>>1044619
You really are pretty thick, aren't you? There was social mobility, but people were rewarded based on LOYALTY rather than MERIT. Legitimately good artists were blacklisted and imprisoned because they refused to tow the party line, while complete hacks writing socialist realist literature were given awards and their books got printed by the thousands.
In my country, we had "kádrový profil" (I honestly have no idea how to translate this) that evaluated your class origin as well as your entire family. You had a brother who defected to the US and was an outspoken anti-communist? Tough shit, you can't study engineering despite having good grades, it's manual labor for you.
>>1044647
As I have repeatedly cited with Fitzpatrick, merit existed in the operation of the nomenklatura. Thick, I may be, but I am thick in the defence of well reviewed scholarly monographs.
>In my country, we had "kádrový profil"
So you're a Hungarian fascist, I suppose you believe 1956 was nationalist?
>>1044682
>he can't tell Hungarian apart from Czech/Slovak
>all Hungarians opposed to communism are "fascists"
You're a literal retard.
>>1044689
No, no I can't tell Hungarian from Czech obviously. But yes, yes there is a deep fascist streak in Hungarian remembrance that attempts to nationalise 1956.
>>1044700
Confirmed
>>1043751
muh mongolia mufugga
Partly because Tsarist Russia was one of the few places shitty enough for communism to be an improvement.
But mostly because the war was utterly destroying society for ridiculous reasons. WW1 would make anyone fed up with monarcuckism.
>>1044503
as if it doesnt work like that anymore
>>1044763
It doesn't.
>>1043704
Why would anyone care about "The Romanovs"? it isn't like Peter the Great was chilling around with Nicky.
Ignore the anons in this thread, they are Bolshivist cocktail suckers, Nicky did absolutely nothing wrong.
>>1044490
Meritocracy begins to fall apart at the top of the government, otherwise it attracts too many manipulative sociopaths.
>>1046661
Romanovs as a whole tried their best to drag Russia out of shit. Peter I tried his best to westernize Russia and get rid of backwards Mongoloid traditions, Alexander II abolished serfdom and strengthened rule of law, Alexander III and Nicholas II oversaw Russia industrializing at a crazy rate, building the Transsiberian railroad, etc.
>>1046683
People don't care what your great grandfather did when assessing your skills.
>>1046754
Most of them do, especially with monarchs.
