Mmmm…. Ok. So Nicholas probably shouldn’t be glorified. Not only should most historical rulers or modern rulers not be glorified, but by most contemporary accounts he was not a great ruler, though was not generally considered a horrible person, just not the guy who should be in charge. Did he kill people? Yes. His own citizens…? Yes. But… his total body count for his ENTIRE reign is less Russian citizens than died in a DAY under Stalin.
Political repression is generally bad, especially when you use murder and prison against opponents, but let’s be very clear that we are talking about the last Emperor with a count in the thousands and Stalin and the Bolsheviks with MILLIONS of their own killed.
In other words, Nicholas was far from a perfect man, and generally is regarded as a bad ruler with weak conviction- but he’s not in the same league as the pinkos but a long shot.
The general view was that Nicholas was well meaning but not up to the task, and he relied heavily on advisors who were not up to task or corrupt.
An over simplification is to compare a bumbling but well meaning inept monarch against a cadre of malicious and callous dictators.
A large problem with monarchies is that the life quality of the people so strongly hinge on wether you get a “good” monarch. Much was going on in Russia at the time and huge changes had occurred. The leftists were arguably thinking far too radically to serve the people but the monarchy was thinking far too conservatively for the spirit and needs of the time. With the social problems and the devastating impact of losing a costly war, the generally poor reputation of the Tzar and the negative sentiment created by his repressions all but sealed his fate. Was he an Angel? Few if any rulers are. Monarchs are tried and hopefully by large relegated to history. We probably don’t want to paint NickII as the paragon..
.. of what Russia or by one else should seek, but Stalin and his buddies sit in a club that few people in recorded history can be claimed to be equal to in being objectively terrible. That said there are certain people or groups who would likely have preferred life in Soviet Russia to that under the last empire. Just don’t glorify historical figures. You don’t make it into history books doing things where no one got hurt and everyone went home happy.
Can we stop glorifying Nicholas. The actions of the Bolshevik’s does not excuse or nullify his own terrible actions. He deserved what he got.
.
(TITLE FROM REDDIT r/HistoryMemes)
Political repression is generally bad, especially when you use murder and prison against opponents, but let’s be very clear that we are talking about the last Emperor with a count in the thousands and Stalin and the Bolsheviks with MILLIONS of their own killed.
In other words, Nicholas was far from a perfect man, and generally is regarded as a bad ruler with weak conviction- but he’s not in the same league as the pinkos but a long shot.
An over simplification is to compare a bumbling but well meaning inept monarch against a cadre of malicious and callous dictators.
A large problem with monarchies is that the life quality of the people so strongly hinge on wether you get a “good” monarch. Much was going on in Russia at the time and huge changes had occurred. The leftists were arguably thinking far too radically to serve the people but the monarchy was thinking far too conservatively for the spirit and needs of the time. With the social problems and the devastating impact of losing a costly war, the generally poor reputation of the Tzar and the negative sentiment created by his repressions all but sealed his fate. Was he an Angel? Few if any rulers are. Monarchs are tried and hopefully by large relegated to history. We probably don’t want to paint NickII as the paragon..
.
(TITLE FROM REDDIT r/HistoryMemes)