Anyway, the main point is that as nice as getting rid of a dictator sounds, the consequences can be much worse than the dictatorship itself, at least in the short term (which can last for a decade or more…).
I sincerely wish the best to Venezuelans, but previous US toppling of terrible dictatorships don't have a stellar record to say the least.
Living in a country stuck in a decade of counterinsurgency warfare doesn't feel particularly great, and I'm sure the Iraqis or Afghans would agree.
Whereas the Bolsheviks took very little time to effectively surrender to Germany and its allies only half a year before Germany itself surrendered to the former allies of Russia. (Thus freeing up the returning army to wage several years of civil war amongst various parts of itself.) Every option sucked here, much like in every other case during WWI.
And yes, it’s absolutely true that little good usually comes from violently overthrowing a dictator. The best results are obtained from the dictator peacefully resigning after a promise of amnesty for them and their inner circle, however crass and unfair that sounds. Generally speaking, it’s not very helpful to put people in power before a choice of either losing everything or attempting to maintain their hold on that power by whatever means necessary: it’s going to be the second one every time.
Now, can we imagine a world where the Czar was replaced with a Western-style democracy, where the Russian population would have ended up much better than they did? It's possible, sure - but there are no guarantees.
Not during the Russian civil war, which is the point I'm making.
