In Q 16, there are quite a lot correct answers besides the White Army such as Czechoslovakia, UK, France, USA, Japan ... you know ... there are reasons why the Soviets distrusted them since 1919...
funny how stupid knows no political ideology. I got people on my "Are You Too Dumb to Live?" quiz (which takes on such low-hanging fruit as Jewish blood libel, Holocaust denial, and 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories) accusing me of being "liberal," as if that's a bad word, and here on a quiz about two-bit thug and gangster Vladimir Lenin, we've got accusations of the whole site being "primarily right-wing." Bonkers. But truly no "side" has a monopoly. They're everywhere.
Lost an election and took control anyways, lied about creating a democratic process by making it a one-party and one-candidate state, and accepted even worse people than himself into the party, leading to the many atrocities towards the end of his life and into Stalin's
At the time that the Bolshevik faction split the party was known as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. The answer to number 3 implies this should be the answer to number 2. I tried several versions of the RSDLP, and got the answer to number 2 wrong before trying Communist. It was not the Communist party until 1918.
He may not have been as evil as Stalin but he was still quite an evil man. He even had children murdered who opposed his views. Burn in hell, you'll get yours. What comes around goes around. Nobody is an exception to that.
Was liking this comment for the first half then the 2nd half turned into empty and untrue platitudes. Plenty of men who do evil things escape justice. And having visiting his corpse in Moscow I have it on good authority that it's not presently on fire.
Read gzx5's comment 2 comments above yours. Lenin was certainly not as evil as Nicholas II or Joseph Stalin, but was a dictator all the same. He shared political power with no one during his reign. He only had people assisting him and carrying out his orders, like Stalin, Trotsky, and Kalinin. He crushed rival factions and murdered several people. By today's definitions, he was certainly a dictator maybe comparable to Ayatollah Khomeini or Nicolas Maduro.
Well, he pretty much sucked in every way. He was an autocrat almost as much as Lenin was, he lost war after war, allowed Sakhalin to be annexed by Japan, created famines while the peasants starved, did nothing to alleviate the poverty of the serfs, shot protesters dead on Bloody Sunday (1905), etc.
I suppose evil is a bit of an overstatement, but Nicholas was not a good leader whatsoever. Lenin, although as brutal as Nicholas, was a good leader.
From what I've read about him, he seemed like a person who always genuinely tried to do the right thing but just wasn't able to. I wouldn't classify him as evil. But most of what I know is from a single book.
Yeah, I'll admit I probably know less about this than you and Quizmaster probably do, but from what I can tell, Nicholas's fault was less that he was evil and more that he was incompetent. For example, his coronation was a mess. That being said, the Wikipedia article states, "The Tsar wanted to stay in his chambers and pray for the lives lost, but his uncles believed that his absence at the ball would strain relations with France... Thus Nicholas attended the party; as a result the mourning populace saw Nicholas as frivolous and uncaring."
So I don't think Nicholas had bad intentions--he just had no clue what he was doing and allowed himself to be pushed around by bad people. Lenin I would say is the opposite--a bad person who was shrewd enough to make good political decisions. (Though as you said, Stalin was way worse.)
not that anyone needs to hear my 2 cents, but my view of the last tsars is also one more of incompetence than evil. Not that they were especially great people, or good leaders, or that their obscene wealth or retaining a monarchy in any country especially one as poor as Russia could ever be justified, but they were better than Lenin, Stalin, and company. Less popular, arguably. Though that's hard to gage as if you made known your dislike of the latter you were more likely to be shot than polled for your opinion.
Henry: "Bolshevik."
Klinger: "No, honest."
didn't know this was a tsarist site
But I guess he's a good guy now
I suppose evil is a bit of an overstatement, but Nicholas was not a good leader whatsoever. Lenin, although as brutal as Nicholas, was a good leader.
That said, this is just my personal opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_and_Alexandra_(book)
Also just want to note that serfdom had been abolished by his grandfather in 1861.
But, yes, you are right about his grandfather abolishing it. I guess both Lenin and Nicholas stank in their own way.
So I don't think Nicholas had bad intentions--he just had no clue what he was doing and allowed himself to be pushed around by bad people. Lenin I would say is the opposite--a bad person who was shrewd enough to make good political decisions. (Though as you said, Stalin was way worse.)
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Moldova
Depending on how the question is interpreted, possibly also:
Khiva
Bukhara
Crimea
Don Republic
Kuban Republic
Karelia
North Ingria
Tungus Republic
Transcaucasia (Georgia+Armenia+Azerbaijan)
Caucasian Empire (Chechnya)
Caucasian Republic
Turkestan