Comments (41)
sorted by:
ChicagoMAGA 37 points ago +41 / -4

Yeah, Tsarist Russia was so great for the peasants. And let's not forget about Rasputin.

The_Gay_Deceiver 32 points ago +33 / -1

Yeah I feel like a lot of people don't know what was going on in Russia prior to the revolution. This is the Russian equivalent to the German "and then, for no reason at all" meme except they actually don't know what was going on lol.

Well, I guess normies don't know about Weimar for the most part either, but I think most people here do.

deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
DannyTheSkyman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Arguably there was Vechevoye Sobraniye/Veche and stuff in Novgorod/Pskov republics and it was there for several centuries. You are talking about Alexander 2 probably

deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
The_Gay_Deceiver 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not familiar with it either, only what happened in Germany. I just know that these things don't happen for no reason.

If I had to take a swing, I would say socialism came about when it did because of expanding wealth of the time making disparities between the rich and poor more clear.

deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
TheWestYearZero 3 points ago +3 / -0

He has cleared up nothing. You are against the Eomanovs (who were idiots but where were jew aware) because they oversaw policies that were lifting Russians out of rank poverty?


The assassination by leftists of the modernizing prime Minister Stolypin was a disaster for Russia.

deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
devotech2 23 points ago +23 / -0

It's a dubious bit of business. But you are somewhat mistaken about the peasants. The urban workers were the ones that were bad off under the monarchy, the actual rural peasants largely supported them. Hence why they were in turn the most targeted by the Bolsheviks (holodomor anyone?)

The monarchy was also doing its damnedest to modernize the country. They really wanted to play catch-up with the west. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is up to your own interpretation. If the Russo japanese war and the first world war had never started, then Tsar Nicholas would've probably been considered Russia's emperor Meiji. The fault in Nicholas goes with how disastrously he managed the country in war time, which is what effectively ended up causing the 1905 rising as well as the Russian revolution and subsequent civil war. Russia wasn't ready, but Nicholas decided to pursue war anyways.

But this is not exactly a dig at monarchy as an institution. Plenty of elected officials have made similar mistakes and suffered similar consequences. It is also true that the Bolsheviks did not have much backing until they got German money (can't say that Kaiser Wilhelm was actually an ally to them, he just wanted to fund a proxy terrorist group to get Russia weakened, and he regretted his decision for the rest of his life after they actually won). But, he did fund them significantly. There's also the banks that funded the Bolsheviks. Considering the fact that they started receiving so much foreign money, and that they were now richer than the tsarist armies, the common man in Russia likely believed that the future was the Bolshevik party, and joined out of fear of being persecuted in the future. Rather than actual beliefs.

drjillsusedscrunchie 17 points ago +17 / -0

I hope more people see this comment, the meme is funny, but this is the actual context behind what led to the fall of Russia to communism.

Behind every Jewish subversion, is a weak leader and/or war hawk begging for their subversion.

samoan62 3 points ago +3 / -0

So basically Jews + the worst Kaiser in German history

AbleistSL 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's a shame the country went to shit due to mismanagement.

Rasputin gaining influence was generally considered a symptom of what happened.

devotech2 5 points ago +6 / -1

Rasputin was overdramatized for Soviet propaganda and for drama purposes. There is no hard evidence that he actually influenced the government at all, or had sex with Alexandra Romanov. It was suspected that he did, and not without good reason, but i have seen no actual proof that he did. History seems to have taken Felix Yusupov's side over everyone else's.

I think Ockham's razor applies to Rasputin. Tsarevich Alexei was deathly ill, Alexandra was a distraught mother, Nicholas was absolutely clueless. He happened to get better around the time he met Rasputin, the man who claimed he was a healer. Alexandra was thrilled about it and befriended Rasputin, and brought him over to heal Alexei fully.

Rahz 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes it fucking was. Compared to the alternative, Tsarist Russians didnt starve.

PepesCovfefe 4 points ago +4 / -0

What’s the deal with rasputin?

KosherConservative 16 points ago +17 / -1

Probably soviet propaganda. If not, apparently the Tsar's wife was quite friendly and potentially inappropriate (platonic as far as evidence is concerned) relationship with some literal magic man who was of extremely hard to kill.

The extent of this was probably a propaganda attempt to discredit the Tsar and Christendom.

deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
TendieMan 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yeah but I wouldn't put it past women.

ImperialTeddy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, it's not as if things got better after the revolution. Also, the Tsarist system wasn't beneficial for the Russian people, but I think that there would've been potential for a constitutional monarchy in Russia at this time. The only two reasons this didn't happen is

a. Problems which had been rooted deeply in Russian society for centuries such as almost non-existent social mobility and a parasitical oligarchy class.

b. Nicholas was a pretty bad ruler and he certainly contributed to the revolution & his own murder through incompetency.

Still, I would rather live under Nicholas than Stalin.

RightSideFunding 7 points ago +7 / -0

their final attack on the goy was the destruction of our aristocrats

Graphenium 5 points ago +6 / -1

Yeah because the Coberg Saxe Gotha line is so much better in the countries where it remains, like the UK

devotech2 7 points ago +7 / -0

The Stuarts were the last legitimate monarchs of Britain.

No, i will not stop shilling the Stuarts.

I am still pissed off about the outcome of Britain 400 years after the English civil war. I am glad that almost my entire family were Jacobites.

drjillsusedscrunchie 3 points ago +3 / -0

Since we're shilling Stuart's, and TD gets their panties in a wad about "muh 1776" if you bring it up over there, is Prince William the first Stuart heir in 400 years because of Diana's direct lineage?

devotech2 4 points ago +4 / -0

technically everyone in the royal family is a descendant. The Hanoverians were related to the Stuarts through Anne. Distantly, yes, but their claim was not a completely illegitimate one. Queen Elizabeth can trace her lineage back to British legend.

The issue is the fact that the monarchy in Britain was subverted by the parliament. And the laws that William of Orange (and prior to him, Oliver Cromwell) enacted that really fucked up their legitimacy and ability to actually rule. Ooh, let's also not mention the fact that William of Orange established the first central bank in Europe (bank of England). Oy vey. I find it funny that retards on TD complain about this, when Lord North did more against the colonies than king George ever could dream of, and the right honorable Earl of Guilford (same man) was a democratically elected official.

devotech2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also, yes I'm replying to my own comment. I don't think it can possibly be overstated how important the English civil war, the glorious revolution, and the Jacobite risings were in the course of western history. It was arguably more important than either world war.

It was the first time Jews were allowed to resettle in a European nation and be given full rights, at the behest of Oliver Cromwell. The bank of England was the first fiat currency producing central bank in European history, which subsequently caused the American revolution. It predated the French revolution in creating a liberal nation, and it forever cemented the English as being enemies of the Celtic nations.




The Jacobite risings were the first reactionary movements in European history. The crushing of them cemented the liberalisation of Europe. Make no mistake, this series of events was the blueprint on which everything going on right now was built off of.

drjillsusedscrunchie 1 point ago +1 / -0

This comment makes me want to ask the admins to make c/history

MAD-3R 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do it, it would be interesting to say the least.

TakenusernameA 1 point ago +1 / -0

American Stuart Monarchy when?

OrganicMolecules 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's Saxe-Coburg und Gotha.

SolidSnakeOil 4 points ago +5 / -1

They were also imbred as fuck.

Call_Me_Kaiser 2 points ago +2 / -0

Never forget what the Bolsheviks did to the Romanovs

deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
Telia 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well technically if they never existed Europeans wouldn't be Christians , Europeans would be worshipping Zeus.

somedaygurl 1 point ago +1 / -0

The last 3 czars were the best Russia ever had.

Fabius 0 points ago +3 / -3

How about you just rule yourself and stop looking for someone else to govern society?

Rahz 2 points ago +3 / -1

Because every nation was first led by a family of nobles or a man who led it to its independence. That family is the royal family, and if it is ordained by God, it is the representative of its nation in this world, and by such, they are bound by God to be the affirmation of this nation identity until the nation ceases to exist. Anything other than that and you are supporting autocrats (including non-godly monarchs such as Napoleon).

Fabius 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry, I kneel before no man. You do you, though.

Rahz 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes, to a righteous king, or kaiser.

deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0