Without Communism, is Russia likely to experience a suburban boom in the late 20th and 21st centuries like the US experienced?

Aug 2014
272
New York, USA
#71
Yeah but that was because the tsar had already been undermined by WWI and associated problems. Of course they were worse than the setbacks of 1904-5, which the tsarist regime weathered, just like it had done since the Decembrists. Without major defeats (and privations) in wartime, the tsar probably would've staunchly clung to power, even as demands for political reform redoubled with progress. The result, by 1941, could've been utterly ruinous.
But he didn't. Russians got rid of the Tsar without communism. The communists did not overthrow the tsar, they overthrew a fledgling democratic Russian Republic.
 
Likes: Futurist

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#72
But he didn't. Russians got rid of the Tsar without communism. The communists did not overthrow the tsar, they overthrew a fledgling democratic Russian Republic.
The main problem was the disastrous war. Without it, the tsar's support wouldn't have evaporated to the point where he'd fall so easily. Lenin promised peace and that helped him a lot. Eventually, without WWI, a growing middle class would've rebelled against the tsar, and there would've been a ruinous civil war at a time Russia could least afford it.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#73
The main problem was the disastrous war. Without it, the tsar's support wouldn't have evaporated to the point where he'd fall so easily. Lenin promised peace and that helped him a lot. Eventually, without WWI, a growing middle class would've rebelled against the tsar, and there would've been a ruinous civil war at a time Russia could least afford it.
Without WWI there'd also be no WWII, though. Also, there's absolutely no chance of a Nazi takeover in Germany without WWI.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#74
Without WWI there'd also be no WWII, though. Also, there's absolutely no chance of a Nazi takeover in Germany without WWI.
I don't know….There probably would've been increasing demands for political reform in Germany too, and the nazis (who wanted much more than what Germany had in 1914) owed their success more to the depression than Versailles.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
19,934
SoCal
#75
I don't know….There probably would've been increasing demands for political reform in Germany too, and the nazis (who wanted much more than what Germany had in 1914) owed their success more to the depression than Versailles.
Does the Great Depression still occur and become as severe if WWI doesn't occur, though?
 

Isleifson

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,976
Lorraine tudesque
#76
I don't know….There probably would've been increasing demands for political reform in Germany too, and the nazis (who wanted much more than what Germany had in 1914) owed their success more to the depression than Versailles.
The depression thing is a myth - depression was everywhere but not the nazi.
 
Likes: Futurist

Isleifson

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,976
Lorraine tudesque
#79
Other nations had a stronger democratic tradition and a bigger middle class than Germany. I don't think there's any doubt the depression gave the nazis their big break.

Well, Germany had a very large middle class, and all the German historian are talking about this large empoverish middle class.

They are probably not wrong - just look at all the Himmler, Heydrich and so on : all middle class. Even Hitler.
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,068
Connecticut
#80
Well, Germany had a very large middle class…..
Not according to Shirer who wrote that Germany lacked a big middle class "which in other nations was the backbone of democracy."

They are probably not wrong - just look at all the Himmler, Heydrich and so on : all middle class. Even Hitler.
It was said that "fascism was a doctrine for middle class failures, who were terrified of drifting back into the ranks of the proletariat."