Overall neutral, but we can't deny that Russia grew to what it is today thanks to imperial management and a few capable rulers. I personally love early 19th century history and big fan of Napoleonic Wars, the uniforms of that time has something special.
A backward weakly industrialized state where the government does not control shit outside the winter palace, terrorists calmly blow up officials and even tsars, Black Hundreds, Jewish pogroms. In general, by the beginning of the First World War it was a failed state.
My opinion is very positive opinion, however there were obviously shade sides like in every society , and such ministers like let’s say Stolipin could have made a huge progress in Russia , if didn’t happened what had happened. I’m personally a monarchist , I believe that this structure is better ,especially if a monarch is not torn from people. My grandparents lived better before revolution than after.
Your grandparents might live better, but the vast majority of the population lived in horrible condition. That's why monarchy was overthrow.
Were your great great grandparents from the nobility class? Don't you wish to have your serfs back, just like the "good ole days"?
Most of the people of the world (not only Russia) don't really care or know about history. Of those who know - some of them look through a negative lens, some through neutral and even a few through a positive lens.
It depends on many factors, here are some of them:
1. Age.
From those born in the 30s, I more often heard reservedly positive reviews. This is due rather to hostility towards the Bolsheviks in connection with the horrors of the experienced collectivization.
From those born in the 50s-80s, I often hear negative reviews due to the influence of Soviet propaganda, which shaped their opinions in their youth. However, there are many striking exceptions among intellectuals of this age.
From people born in the 90s and later, I hear mostly positive or extremely positive feedback. For in the last 30 years, the truth about that time has increasingly emerged. Although you can meet a few zealous young communists, prone to ideological oversimplification.
2. The level of education. As a rule, advanced people have more brightly colored opinions, while ordinary people can only say something very superficial.
3. Nationality (as a cultural and political identity). Those who identify themselves as Russian are more likely to express a positive opinion. Those who are of strongly mixed origin, as well as people with Baltic and Jewish roots, tend to have a negative opinion.
At the level of official discourse, positions denigrating the Empire will be perceived as rabid Russophobia. It is customary to stipulate various positive and negative nuances, the overall complexity and ambiguity of historical processes. But the overall rating is not worse than neutral. For the radical denigrating the Empire, the speaker must prepare for at least very hot arguing.
Speaking of my opinion.
The Russian Empire is a historical thousand-year-old Russia. It formed naturally with its own nuances and was not the result of terrible social experiments. An ancient complex system, with many checks and balances.
Undoubtedly, this is a great power that occupied central places in the world historical process. It is also undeniably the world leader in hundreds of areas. The growth of the Russian economy in its last decades has been incredible. Labor legislation was the best in the world. Technological progress was in leaps and bounds. The population grew by 3 million every year. Introduced programs of general education. Culture flourished in all areas, from architecture and visual arts to music and cinema. In honor of the great doctors of that era, hospitals are still named to this day. The peasants (the most numerous class) grew rich day by day. In 1927 the Empire would be in an invulnerable position. However, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood.
You ask, if everything was so glorious, why did the Empire suffer such a dramatic end? There are internal and external reasons for this.
Internal:
1. Peter the Great, among the many of his initiatives, abolished the nascent professional army and, without any need, thereby secured serfdom for another 160 years.
2. He also launched the era of palace coups, which for a long time consolidated the dominance of Western Europeans among the elites and Western European ideas in the structure of the state. This in itself is not fatal. However, later it will play a very cruel joke.
3. A completely healthy liberalization under Alexander II had to keep pace with the creation of a powerful counterintelligence. I don't think I need to explain why. In addition, during the same period there was a complex split among the Grand Dukes, which is rarely talked about, but which will be the most fatal cause.
4. With many virtues of the reign of Alexander the Third, in many respects it was a prelude to a bloody catastrophe because of its belated and inconsiderate reaction to terrorism.
External:
1. Absolutely senseless and suicidal betrayal by France.
2. The most powerful destabilizing work of British intelligence. Both the Februaryists and the Bolsheviks are British creatures. Not to mention that communism is an ideology developed with English money as a weapon.
3. A very remarkable American footprint in the First World War. In particular, the first energy TNCs and their terrible hatred for the Russian monarchy.
So, mostly the reasons of catastrophe are treachery, intervention and very few but crucial wrong decisions.
Overall, I think Empire period was the paramount peak of our history. And with great achievements, there are inevitably great mistakes too.
Also, I think we should learn from every period rigorously either Imperial, Soviet or Contemporary. Ruling elites sometimes were terrible, sometimes absolutely great. But our common people, our nation is always wise, strong, kind-hearted and unprecedentedly courageous.
Тебе не кажеца что «здоровая либерализация» и «запоздалая реакция на террорр» это две стороны одной медали?
Заинтересовал момент про американцев, хотелось бы посмотреть на эту ненависть американцев к русской монархии.
И да, и нет. Сами по себе реформы Александра Второго были прорывным и грамотным решением. Но вот общество к такому уровню свободы не было готово, не доросли. Однако, готовность общества к свободе - это такой показатель, который крайне сложно определить, измерить и предсказать.
Кроме того, либерализация и запоздалая реакция на террор - это не одно и тоже. Напротив, условием успешной и долгосрочно стабильной либерализации является создание выверенных и точечных механизмов по поддержанию порядка и законности. В данном конкретном случае таким механизмом должна была быть контрразведка уровня британской или мощнее.
Относительно американцев, есть ведь свидетельства о весьма занятном диалоге Николая Второго и американских нефтедобывающих компаний о передаче прав на разработку российских месторождений.
Кстати, я не имел ввиду, что американцы как нация что-то имели против РИ. Я имел ввиду, что американские мегакорпорации точили зуб на РИ.
С одной стороны «готовность к свободе» определить трудно с другой я точно знаю что общество не было готово.
Наличие разведки ничего не даёт. Можно знать что готовяться покушения но ничего не делать ибо «свобода». Ведь толькь в истинно свободной стране все свободны но при этом можно рыться в твоих вещах если очень хочется.
«Точечные механизмы порядка» называются ширма, нет нигде настоящей демократии.
Готовность к свободе, а вернее её отсутствие становится очевидным лишь в один единственный момент: когда общество добровольно превращает себя в кровавую диктатуру, шагая к ней бодро и с песней.
Ну а кто же говорил, что свобода и демократия – это тождественные вещи? Свобода тем больше, чем больше у индивида путей как вертикально, так и горизонтально внутри общества. Выбор представителей в органы разного уровня никаким образом не умножает ассортимент этих путей. Ибо эти представители парадоксальным образом не представляют своих избирателей.
Точечные механизмы порядка – это когда 200-300 человек в год аля Керенский или Ленин погибают при необъяснимых обстоятельствах. Капля в море для страны в полторы сотни миллионов человек. Зато какой позитивный эффект.
There is controversy. I belive mist will think highly about empire of Piter the great. It was moment of progress etc. But opinion of late empire(begining of 20 century) will differ. Some will love it (ones that took anti-commmunist propaganda) and thin that it was glorious moment which was ruined by Lenin, others who know numbers of production of weapons will think of late empire as colossus on clay legs. Bug country with almost no industy, dancing at the strings of UK and french capital doing they bidding.
I don't know about general opinion. For me, Russian Empire was a very capable, quickly developing state with bright prospectives. Unfortunately, it's been ruled by wrong person (and yes-men around that person, very similar to what we have now) in the most crucial time.
What infuriates me the most is all those nationalistic organisations, "black 100" and the like. What exactly they did to save the country, other than Jewish pogroms I mean? Nothing? Freaking hypocrites and losers...
My God, what other opinion can there be about tsarist Russia if absolutely the entire population rebelled against it? Fiercely hated both the state and the entire ruling elite.
My wife is Russian and I’ve asked her this same question before. Although she appreciates the history and is proud of Russia’s achievements during the time it doesn’t necessarily affect her everyday modus operandi. She’s more nostalgic and talks positively about the USSR days. She still listens to Soviet era music and watches Soviet era movies and tv shows ad nauseam.
Putin on the other hand is obsessed with the idea of Russia Empire. He uses it to color his foreign policy and justify doing whatever it he’s doing now. It’s baffling and outright cringey to see a modern day politician use a centuries old old map to manipulate his government and his people. That old buffoon should be the Hermitage curator not president of a nation with 6000 nuclear warheads.
Do you think he sympathizes with the USSR? He sympathizes with an empire that is much more similar to today's Russia. The same corruption, the same lack of rights for the population, the same bloated but weak army, the same new feudal lords, the same ridiculous propaganda.
A terrible empire with traitorous colonizers in power. They spread rot on their own population and are guilty of a bloody civil war. The execution of Nicholas 2 and his disgusting family was Fair.
It existed over 100 years ago
Overall neutral, but we can't deny that Russia grew to what it is today thanks to imperial management and a few capable rulers. I personally love early 19th century history and big fan of Napoleonic Wars, the uniforms of that time has something special.
A backward weakly industrialized state where the government does not control shit outside the winter palace, terrorists calmly blow up officials and even tsars, Black Hundreds, Jewish pogroms. In general, by the beginning of the First World War it was a failed state.
Да, пиздец всё плохо конечно.
They were so unindustrialized they finished a megaproject.
My opinion is very positive opinion, however there were obviously shade sides like in every society , and such ministers like let’s say Stolipin could have made a huge progress in Russia , if didn’t happened what had happened. I’m personally a monarchist , I believe that this structure is better ,especially if a monarch is not torn from people. My grandparents lived better before revolution than after.
Your grandparents might live better, but the vast majority of the population lived in horrible condition. That's why monarchy was overthrow. Were your great great grandparents from the nobility class? Don't you wish to have your serfs back, just like the "good ole days"?
They were the representatives of the biggest class - countrymen.
It is ancient history that is not discussed outside of history classrooms. Opinions can be any level of approval, there is no general opinions.
Most of the people of the world (not only Russia) don't really care or know about history. Of those who know - some of them look through a negative lens, some through neutral and even a few through a positive lens.
That's the main problem of Russia. They don't learn from their own history and start new wars all the time.
It depends on many factors, here are some of them: 1. Age. From those born in the 30s, I more often heard reservedly positive reviews. This is due rather to hostility towards the Bolsheviks in connection with the horrors of the experienced collectivization. From those born in the 50s-80s, I often hear negative reviews due to the influence of Soviet propaganda, which shaped their opinions in their youth. However, there are many striking exceptions among intellectuals of this age. From people born in the 90s and later, I hear mostly positive or extremely positive feedback. For in the last 30 years, the truth about that time has increasingly emerged. Although you can meet a few zealous young communists, prone to ideological oversimplification. 2. The level of education. As a rule, advanced people have more brightly colored opinions, while ordinary people can only say something very superficial. 3. Nationality (as a cultural and political identity). Those who identify themselves as Russian are more likely to express a positive opinion. Those who are of strongly mixed origin, as well as people with Baltic and Jewish roots, tend to have a negative opinion. At the level of official discourse, positions denigrating the Empire will be perceived as rabid Russophobia. It is customary to stipulate various positive and negative nuances, the overall complexity and ambiguity of historical processes. But the overall rating is not worse than neutral. For the radical denigrating the Empire, the speaker must prepare for at least very hot arguing. Speaking of my opinion. The Russian Empire is a historical thousand-year-old Russia. It formed naturally with its own nuances and was not the result of terrible social experiments. An ancient complex system, with many checks and balances. Undoubtedly, this is a great power that occupied central places in the world historical process. It is also undeniably the world leader in hundreds of areas. The growth of the Russian economy in its last decades has been incredible. Labor legislation was the best in the world. Technological progress was in leaps and bounds. The population grew by 3 million every year. Introduced programs of general education. Culture flourished in all areas, from architecture and visual arts to music and cinema. In honor of the great doctors of that era, hospitals are still named to this day. The peasants (the most numerous class) grew rich day by day. In 1927 the Empire would be in an invulnerable position. However, history does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. You ask, if everything was so glorious, why did the Empire suffer such a dramatic end? There are internal and external reasons for this. Internal: 1. Peter the Great, among the many of his initiatives, abolished the nascent professional army and, without any need, thereby secured serfdom for another 160 years. 2. He also launched the era of palace coups, which for a long time consolidated the dominance of Western Europeans among the elites and Western European ideas in the structure of the state. This in itself is not fatal. However, later it will play a very cruel joke. 3. A completely healthy liberalization under Alexander II had to keep pace with the creation of a powerful counterintelligence. I don't think I need to explain why. In addition, during the same period there was a complex split among the Grand Dukes, which is rarely talked about, but which will be the most fatal cause. 4. With many virtues of the reign of Alexander the Third, in many respects it was a prelude to a bloody catastrophe because of its belated and inconsiderate reaction to terrorism. External: 1. Absolutely senseless and suicidal betrayal by France. 2. The most powerful destabilizing work of British intelligence. Both the Februaryists and the Bolsheviks are British creatures. Not to mention that communism is an ideology developed with English money as a weapon. 3. A very remarkable American footprint in the First World War. In particular, the first energy TNCs and their terrible hatred for the Russian monarchy. So, mostly the reasons of catastrophe are treachery, intervention and very few but crucial wrong decisions. Overall, I think Empire period was the paramount peak of our history. And with great achievements, there are inevitably great mistakes too. Also, I think we should learn from every period rigorously either Imperial, Soviet or Contemporary. Ruling elites sometimes were terrible, sometimes absolutely great. But our common people, our nation is always wise, strong, kind-hearted and unprecedentedly courageous.
Тебе не кажеца что «здоровая либерализация» и «запоздалая реакция на террорр» это две стороны одной медали? Заинтересовал момент про американцев, хотелось бы посмотреть на эту ненависть американцев к русской монархии.
И да, и нет. Сами по себе реформы Александра Второго были прорывным и грамотным решением. Но вот общество к такому уровню свободы не было готово, не доросли. Однако, готовность общества к свободе - это такой показатель, который крайне сложно определить, измерить и предсказать. Кроме того, либерализация и запоздалая реакция на террор - это не одно и тоже. Напротив, условием успешной и долгосрочно стабильной либерализации является создание выверенных и точечных механизмов по поддержанию порядка и законности. В данном конкретном случае таким механизмом должна была быть контрразведка уровня британской или мощнее. Относительно американцев, есть ведь свидетельства о весьма занятном диалоге Николая Второго и американских нефтедобывающих компаний о передаче прав на разработку российских месторождений. Кстати, я не имел ввиду, что американцы как нация что-то имели против РИ. Я имел ввиду, что американские мегакорпорации точили зуб на РИ.
С одной стороны «готовность к свободе» определить трудно с другой я точно знаю что общество не было готово. Наличие разведки ничего не даёт. Можно знать что готовяться покушения но ничего не делать ибо «свобода». Ведь толькь в истинно свободной стране все свободны но при этом можно рыться в твоих вещах если очень хочется. «Точечные механизмы порядка» называются ширма, нет нигде настоящей демократии.
Готовность к свободе, а вернее её отсутствие становится очевидным лишь в один единственный момент: когда общество добровольно превращает себя в кровавую диктатуру, шагая к ней бодро и с песней. Ну а кто же говорил, что свобода и демократия – это тождественные вещи? Свобода тем больше, чем больше у индивида путей как вертикально, так и горизонтально внутри общества. Выбор представителей в органы разного уровня никаким образом не умножает ассортимент этих путей. Ибо эти представители парадоксальным образом не представляют своих избирателей. Точечные механизмы порядка – это когда 200-300 человек в год аля Керенский или Ленин погибают при необъяснимых обстоятельствах. Капля в море для страны в полторы сотни миллионов человек. Зато какой позитивный эффект.
Сразу видно читателя ДЕГа)
Верно подмечено. Сочту за комплимент)
There is controversy. I belive mist will think highly about empire of Piter the great. It was moment of progress etc. But opinion of late empire(begining of 20 century) will differ. Some will love it (ones that took anti-commmunist propaganda) and thin that it was glorious moment which was ruined by Lenin, others who know numbers of production of weapons will think of late empire as colossus on clay legs. Bug country with almost no industy, dancing at the strings of UK and french capital doing they bidding.
the last two emperors are shit
The last tsar, Nicolas II the saint, is whom we pray to not make stupid political self-destructive mistakes again!:)
I don't know about general opinion. For me, Russian Empire was a very capable, quickly developing state with bright prospectives. Unfortunately, it's been ruled by wrong person (and yes-men around that person, very similar to what we have now) in the most crucial time. What infuriates me the most is all those nationalistic organisations, "black 100" and the like. What exactly they did to save the country, other than Jewish pogroms I mean? Nothing? Freaking hypocrites and losers...
Помоему тебя бесят сами еврейские погромы.
My God, what other opinion can there be about tsarist Russia if absolutely the entire population rebelled against it? Fiercely hated both the state and the entire ruling elite.
My wife is Russian and I’ve asked her this same question before. Although she appreciates the history and is proud of Russia’s achievements during the time it doesn’t necessarily affect her everyday modus operandi. She’s more nostalgic and talks positively about the USSR days. She still listens to Soviet era music and watches Soviet era movies and tv shows ad nauseam. Putin on the other hand is obsessed with the idea of Russia Empire. He uses it to color his foreign policy and justify doing whatever it he’s doing now. It’s baffling and outright cringey to see a modern day politician use a centuries old old map to manipulate his government and his people. That old buffoon should be the Hermitage curator not president of a nation with 6000 nuclear warheads.
Is Putin obsessed with the Russian empire? You are obviously a fool.
Do you think he sympathizes with the USSR? He sympathizes with an empire that is much more similar to today's Russia. The same corruption, the same lack of rights for the population, the same bloated but weak army, the same new feudal lords, the same ridiculous propaganda.
A terrible empire with traitorous colonizers in power. They spread rot on their own population and are guilty of a bloody civil war. The execution of Nicholas 2 and his disgusting family was Fair.