You stated Catsman's position can be credibly argued, but you choose not to actually argue that position yourself (at least not with any credibility). If you were pointing out deficiencies, please do so...
Okay, let's walk back through this whole long comment thread. This is going to be a bit tedious, actually, so bear with me. It starts out, actually, rather before you came in, with Catsmate commenting on the prospects of revolution in Russia without World War I:
Not necessarily a communist revolution, but a major (and probably violent) 'readjustment' is IMO inevitable.
The Russian system with it's mix of Tasarist absolutism (for example Alexander's violation of the 1906 constitution to alter the Duma election laws), administrative incompetence and corruption, pan-Slavism (leaving it vulnerable to entanglements in the Balkans), historical problems with Britain (notwithstanding the Anglo-Russian Entente and the agreement around 'spheres of influence'), increasing industrialisation (creating a larger urban working class) and the consequent appalling working conditions, is simply not tenable in the medium-to-long term.
In fact historically the outbreak of the Great War acted to reduce the level of worker unrest; the wave of strikes that began in April 1912 (with the massacre of miner and workers in the Lena goldfields [1]) were damped down by an upsurge in patriotism and nationalism (and anti-semitism)[2]. It also heavily disrupted the organising of labour activity.
Alexander's incoherent and incompetent mix of liberalising and repressing was the worst option for the situation. Sooner or later there will be a repeat of the factors [2] that triggered the 1905 revolution (because the causes haven't been addressed), and the second revolution (heaving learned from the Tsar's renegading on his earlier promises) will not be as easily stopped.
[1] An event that led to the first public notice for Kerensky, who reported on the massacre in the Duma.
[3] In the first seven months of 1914 Russia saw 3,493 strikes involving 1,327,897 participants; in the final five months there were 49 strikes with 9,561 participants.
[3] Shooting unarmed marchers, the peasant communes and their petitions to the Tsar, an upsurge in liberal demands for political reform (e.g. the appointment of Sviatopolk-Mirskii) which led to the General Strike of October 1905 and the Moscow Uprising.
As you can see, this
does provide evidence that Russia was vulnerable to some type of unrest, both qualitatively through the listing of various factors which (at least in Catsmate's opinion) made the Tsarist regime unstable and quantitatively, in the statistics on strikes. Following a little bit of largely irrelevant back and forth between Catsmate and hipper, Catsmate commented
Before the war started in 1914 industrial unrest was on a massive scale, and increasing. I don't see it quietening much without the war, it's possible to argue that the outbreak of WW1 actually saved the Tsarist regime for a period.
This was, of course, the comment that brought you in,
Alexander?
Not with any credibility...
Catsmate responded with,
Really? So there wasn't a huge diminution in urban/industrial and rural/agricultural unrest? No surge of patriotism?
To which you responded with
Not especially, no. Any surge of patriotism would have been firmly behind the monarchy. More Russians considered Nicky a god than wanted rid of him - Russia did have serious educational issues...
This, of course, is where I came in. Now, if you please, look back over this comment chain. Catsmate made an argument, backed up with numbers--albeit from what source, I do not know, since none was provided--that the Tsarist regime was, in fact, facing difficulties in 1914, and at least in the short run the surge of patriotism from the war damped down this unrest. You, in contrast, had been counterarguing merely by saying in various ways "no, you're wrong," without actually making any attempt to
show that Catsmate was wrong. Who do you think looks more credible? Worse than that, you pretty nearly literally repeated Catsmate's argument while apparently trying to counter their point:
Any surge of patriotism would have been firmly behind the monarchy. More Russians considered Nicky a god than wanted rid of him - Russia did have serious educational issues...
Hence,
I believe [that the fact that any surge of patriotism would support the monarchy] was rather Catsmate's point, yes.
It was a gentle reminder that when you're arguing against someone you should probably not simply repeat their points word-for-word. I'm not sure why you interpreted that post as an argument in favor of Catsmate's position, and why you've therefore been demanding that I make their argument for them--and doing so very rudely, I must point out--since.