What is common between Nicholas II and Joseph Stalin?

4
What do Nicholas II and Stalin have in common? If I had to answer this question, I would say that both of these people ruled our country. With a little more reflection and presenting their portraits, I would have noticed that both wore a mustache. I do not find other similarities.

And I would be wrong.





Unexpected Survey Results

The fact is that this year, to mark the centenary of the beginning of the Civil War in Russia, VTsIOM conducted a survey. Among other questions, respondents were asked to name political figures of the XX century, causing them the greatest sympathy. Nikolai II and Joseph Stalin became the leaders. Moreover, 54 percent of the respondents voted for Nikolai, and 51 percent for Stalin. Simple arithmetic shows that some of the Russians, and no small ones, sympathize with both rulers of Russia at the same time.

A control shot in my brain was the fact that Vladimir Lenin, guilty of the execution of Nikolai Romanov and his family, took the third place with a minimum margin (49%).

There is no reason not to trust the results of VTsIOM. This is a respected organization that has repeatedly proved its objectivity and professionalism. So, Russian society, indeed, finds features of similarity between Stalin and Nikolai II, causing him feelings of sympathy.

How can this be explained?

If we leave out the price and methods that accompanied Stalin's achievement of his goals, the choice of his candidacy is more or less clear. He adopted a weak and backward agrarian country, and after him remained one of the largest industrial powers.

Nikolai Romanov had a mirror situation. He got a relatively stable country under control, not burdened by unsolvable contradictions and having a workable the economy, and brought her to complete collapse.

I suppose that a considerable part of those who sympathize with Nikolai believe that he fell a victim to his own humanism and philanthropy. Although, I think this statement is very controversial. Others did not vote for the former emperor, but for the Russian Empire, a powerful and respected country that we lost. Indeed, of the Russian emperors, only Nicholas II ruled in the 20th century. Other, more worthy candidates ruled much earlier, and therefore could not be named.

And Stalin, if we forget about all the crimes he committed, returned the respect to our country. As a result of his reign, the Soviet Union turned from an outcast into a powerful state, one of the most influential in the world.

If we draw historical parallels, then Stalin can be compared with Napoleon. Both of these people came in the wake of the revolution that destroyed the monarchy and became emperors of their countries, making their power even more absolute than under the previous monarchs. And both of them were charismatic to such an extent that the population idolized them.

Perhaps, if we consider the issue from this point of view, then there is a sense in the results of the survey. Perhaps the Russians have a need for strong power. They sympathize with the people who run a strong and powerful Russia, whose authority in the world was undeniable.

I do not pretend to be the ultimate truth, I’m just trying to understand what the Russians want from the current government when they discuss the previous rulers.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

4 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    28 June 2018 13: 40
    The article is replete with a variety of pseudo-historical myths:

    Vladimir Lenin, guilty of the execution of Nikolai Romanov and his family, took over

    What does Lenin have to do with the decision of the Ural Regional Council, which at that time consisted almost exclusively of Left Social Revolutionaries, who at the same time raised an anti-Bolshevik uprising? Add directive No. 666.

    If we draw historical parallels, then Stalin can be compared with Napoleon. Both of these people came in the wake of a revolution that destroyed the monarchy.

    It’s only in Russia that the monarchy was overthrown during the February Revolution, and not the October Revolution, what does Stalin have to do with it, if at that time he was an ordinary member of a small and not very popular party?

    ... and became emperors of their countries, making their power even more absolute than under the previous monarchs

    Generally controversial statement

    You can treat Stalin, Lenin, the USSR, their "crimes" and achievements as you like, but by weaving such anti-scientific nonsense into your article, you largely discredit it.
    1. +1
      28 June 2018 15: 34
      I am categorically against the black and white picture of the world. I believe that there have never been angels or demons among people.
      Let's point by point.
      1. The Ural Regional Council, regardless of the party affiliation of its members, was subordinate to Moscow, and therefore to Lenin. By the way, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks were then associates and like-minded people. Without the knowledge of the top Moscow leadership, it would be impossible to shoot the former leader of the country. And if this happened, the heads of those who gave the order would fly for arbitrariness. Is it logical?
      2. It seems to me, I think, it is not unreasonable that the February Revolution did not end in February 1917. A little more than six months passed, and the "unknown and unpopular" Bolshevik party took power into its own hands. The October and February revolutions cannot be regarded as two unrelated events, these two events were links in one chain, the continuation of which was the Civil War.
      3. And about Stalin and Napoleon. Both people rose up in the wake of the revolution and reached the pinnacles of power. And both enjoyed the universal love of the people. What exactly am I wrong here? Perhaps in the fact that Stalin had more power, wider powers than the emperors of the Russian Empire? So this is a fact that is difficult to argue with. If Nicholas II depended on the Duma, politicians, wife, Rasputin and God knows from whom, then Stalin could afford to make independent decisions on any issues. If this is not absolute power, then what is it?
      And I didn’t even express my attitude to Stalin and Nikolai II, this topic is too broad for a separate article.
  2. 0
    28 June 2018 16: 18
    Stalin was a landowner, like Kolya II? Stalin had accounts in foreign banks? Instead of sitting and managing, did Stalin go to shoot cats, dogs, and crows? Stalin got drunk to madness? Did Stalin decide everything without the Politburo and his associates? Stalin abandoned the country?
    1. +1
      30 June 2018 22: 39
      This is surprising. Two completely different figures are almost equally popular in society. And arithmetic also suggests that some of the respondents sympathize with one and the other at the same time. What kind of cocktail do people have in their heads?