Who ruled the country better, Lenin or Nicholas II?
Nicholas II ruined the country and could no longer rule it, therefore a revolution took place, the people in fact could no longer tolerate a bad leader.
And Lenin did not manage to manage anything, in 6 years he just began to restore and build what was destroyed under the emperor, although I think that as a ruler of the country he would also not be very good, since Lenin was more able to rebuild than to support.
Here, of course, the opinion will be divided, but I think it's Lenin. Under his leadership, the Red Army practically became invincible, industry and agriculture rose by several steps. Well, Nicholas II was little involved in politics.
Lenin did not rule the country - he destroyed it to the ground, as it is sung in the famous revolutionary hymn. And that "наш the new world ", which replaced the social order broken by the Bolsheviks, was filled with chaos and destruction for a long time.
Since 1913, they tried to compare the Russian economy half a century after the salvo of the Aurora.
What country. There was an Empire and there were problems. In short, life was different. Empires perished, then territories changed, and the Ukrainians will now be offended that Vladimir Ilyich gave them so many lands, where they are still demolishing monuments. It seems to me that it doesn't matter who is to blame, you cannot return it back.
But it seems to me that Nikolai surrendered to the onslaught, and Lenin picked up the wave ...
Lenin is better known as the organizer of the revolution, but he did not manage the country for long. Already in 1922, due to serious health problems, Lenin actually left the leadership. And he died before he was 54 years old. All of his leadership activities fell on the Civil War.
Nicholas II reigned for 23 years, a rather serious period. It is known how his reign ended. There are many reasons for this, but in any case, the ruler bears a large share of responsibility for what happens in his country.
Neither Nikolai II nor Ulyanov-Lenin was involved in ruling Russia.
The first reigned and signed decrees drawn up by the cabinet of ministers, high officials and "persons close to the emperor." It was enough to convince, persuade, prove to the tsar the expediency of taking certain steps "for the good of the fatherland."
The second was an irreconcilable struggle to retain power. This struggle was not only with the supporters of the monarchy, the bourgeoisie, the nobility and the clergy, but also with their comrades-in-arms. If the opponents were subject to extermination and exile, then their comrades had to be convinced, and those who disagreed were removed from power, attracting a new revolutionary-minded human resource.
I was somehow impressed by the comparison of the regime of the day of Lenin and Admiral Kolchak during the Civil War. If the "revolutionary writer", as Lenin called himself, worked 24 hours a day with short breaks for rest, then the leader of the White movement, the nobleman Kolchak, owned a completely measured way of life of an aristocrat, with obligatory sleep after dinner (an old tradition of the Russian imperial fleet).
The aristocracy was too gentle and not adapted for effective management of the "Rus Troika", which reared its hind legs.