Why is picrel so widely blamed despite the fact that he did nothing wrong and it was the liberals and commies who destroyed the country and killed millions? It's like blaming a rape victim instead of a rapist

>>17851857 (OP)
>Why is picrel so widely blamed
What did he do to help the jews? I'm being serious what did he do?
So what if Jeremiah in the old testament even said they broke their covenant with God. So what if they needed the new covenant and had access to it first?

He should have given Russia to Israel and not consecrate it like Our Lady asked at Fatima. It makes no sense

>>17851857 (OP)
You're right- but the board isn't ready for that.

>>17851857 (OP)
Because it was his job to stop that from happening.

>>17851869
>What did he do to help the jews
There's an ancient Times article on this. He gave them all of their rights except passports, but that fell through because other countries did not want them. At least, not those from Russia. The Times article is sympathetic towards them but is forced to admit that even as they achieve more rights they increasingly become more violent. It's the exact same thing in 1965 when race riots broke out AFTER the civil rights act was renewed. TLDR rabbinics acted like literal nogs.

Of course if he had any sense he would have sterilized them and put them in the mines wholesale.

>>17851875
You're arguing that he should not have stepped down?

>>17851884
And yet he didn't give them his land. You make no sense. Israel should have been the new Russia.

>>17851886
He didn't step down, he was deposed in all but name, because he was a terrible ruler.

>>17851903
He voluntarily stepped down. He could have had his opponents jailed and shot but did not.

>>17851874
some of us are

>>17851907
After already losing control of a huge part of his army, government, and capital city? Good luck with that.

>>17851929
You're thinking of the communist revolution that overthrew the liberal government.

>>17851934
>Nicholas II supporter/bootlicker
>Over a 100 years later still doesnt know what they fuck is going
Checks out
Read a book moron

>>17851857 (OP)
The buck stops with the monarch.

>>17851938
You're an idiot.

>>17851857 (OP)
Look at how badly things went for the Russian army in WWI (namely against Germany). You think he doesn’t deserve some blame there?

>>17851948
And shit kept rolling down hill.

>>17851956
>namely against Germany
To be fair, nobody did well against Germany. German conscript corps were scoring 1:2/3 k/d ratios against elite British and French corps. No one was as efficient as Germans. The British were checked in Turkey by German machine gunners. Brusilov ranked them as the top fighters in Europe without equal. They're just built different so that comparison isn't fair.

>>17851857 (OP)
Everyone knows that communist Russia was shit so commies try to deflect by saying Imperial Russia and Nicky II were worse.
People are STILL falling for it.

>>17851857 (OP)
Because he was the man of the house and he didn't even put up a fight. He literally just let liberals and commies rape his country and just meh'd when they executed him and his family.

>literally bullied of the throne by his incompetent generals
pathetic.

>>17851857 (OP)
Honestly his father is to blame, he refused to follow through Alexander II reforms because muh tradition and never bothered to teach Nicky anything cause he viewed him as a wimp
>>17851875
At the time there was nothing he could do, becoming a ceremonial monarch like the liberals wanted would've alienated his religious and conservative followers. His only actual mistake was marrying Queen Victoria's cursed genes.

>>17852199
I thought Russia had finally reached synthesis over their Imperial and Communist past

>>17852248
>At the time there was nothing he could do
History doesnt start in 1917, there was 20 years of terrible rulership before then

>>17851857 (OP)
Which ones which

>why is he blamed
because he massively dragged his feet on implementing anything that could actually help, sure its tragic what happened to him and his family but pretending like he didn't do anything wrong is retarded

>>17851857 (OP)

>>17852613

>>17852588
I always distinguish them by Nicholas having a weaker moustache
>>17851857 (OP)
He was an incompetent retard who backed the aristocracy at every opportunity and fucked over the both the urban workers and the peasents so much that they overthrew him with overwhelming support.
If he had literally just accepted that the liberal kadets had the support of the people in the first duma instead of cracking down on it and installing aristocrats then he would have kept his life and russia would have never fallen to communism

>>17851884
To this day they still get mad if you only lend them a hand and not the entire arm.

>>17852602
>its tragic what happened to him and his family
It's not actually tragic. His family was living off the resources of the Russian people while totally insulated from the suffering and famine they were going through. As they say, live by the sword die by the sword, and that also applies to wealth and privilege. If you're happy to exploit those below you, sacrifice their lives for your own gain, conscript them to die against their will in your shitty wars, it's only to be expected they'll eventually blow your brains out for literally stealing from them to fund your own extravagant lifestyle.

>>17852615
Christian "kiss of peace", later copied by the Bolsheviks and rebranded as the "socialist fraternal kiss".

>>17852588
They are wearing each others military uniforms. George is on the right.

>>17851857 (OP)
>Why is picrel so widely blamed despite the fact that he did nothing wrong
because he did wrong?

>>17851857 (OP)
Whatever he did his family probably didn't deserve to die.

>>17852199
I see american normies repeat the idea that he was a tyrant
At worst he was incompetent, but a tyrant?

Also even americans dont know how evil Lenin was

Communists won so all the history is pro communist. Oh the communists were just victims fighting for rights, their bombings and murders and propaganda were just their message being conveyed! All the purges and executions and the bloody civil war, that was actually a bunch of freedom fighters!

>>17853005
They didn’t really win though. The Soviet Union collapsing pretty much made communism irrelevant.

>>17853183
Americans and Soviets are both progressives and share the same view of history. That's why they sound so similar when jerking off to Nicholas 2's dead children that you can't tell communist and liberal visions of history apart

>>17851857 (OP)
>Why is picrel so widely blamed
Cause he was the ruler of the empire. That's the thing about being an emperor, you are the ultimate authority. The buck stops with you. There is nowhere for you to dump ultimate responsibility. You wear the crown and style yourself as master of all you survey then you have to take the good and the bad with that. When you lose a major war (badly) and managing the army is kind of one of your chief responsibilities as supreme overlord of the empire, people are gonna hold you accountable for that.

>>17851857 (OP)
>read about the murder of the family
Damn, so fucked up what they did to everyone
>the children had diamonds sewn into their clothing
Opulence pays a price...

>>17853183
They didn't really collapse putin's kgb

>>17851857 (OP)
Yeah, it was all the boyars' doing!

Just like with Louis the XVI, hardcore extreme leftists like the UK conservative party sympathisers wrote histories in which they've said if he only gave in to leftist delusions more than he did irl it would all be fine. Those rabid maoist-pol-potists, hell-bent on reshaping society into communist hellhole don't realise that the reality is the opposite. Had the revolution started during Louis XIV reign it would be a footnote of history and all the jacobines would probably be forgotten or known only as people hanged after the riots were pacified. Likewise with Alexander III or even Nicolaus I. Meanwhile Louis XVI and Nicky II were too soft on the rabid leftists and instead of rounding them up and showing them the beauty of death by impalement wanted to reason with it. Sadly, the academic grants for research are given by organisations such as the extremely bolshevik Republican Party of the US or whatever Putins commie party in Russia is called, not to mention gypsocommunist Orban so there we'll now progress to people telling me that I'm wrong because no academic historian has said what I did(he would be get grants if he did).

>>17851857 (OP)
oh please a nation doesnt just fall apart into actual anarchy under decent governance. Yes a lot of the blame can be put on the out of touch, incompetent aristocracy (who were thinking about reentering the war while fighting the bolsheviks) who could have deposed him if he went for rasputin's peace ideas.
But he didn't listen to the advisor his father told him to for the purpose of industrializing russia.
So his legacy before the revolution was building a bunch of churches that got burnt down immediately and being unfocused.
The best you can say about him is that he was not an exceptional man and was well intentioned. Which does not a peter the great make.

>>17854070
He should have been harder on the commies/anarchists, but he should have simultaneously have made life better for the average person, because that takes away the ammunition that the communists needed to inspire a revolt
Especially since he started sending people into the meat grinder of ww1, giving people the choice of starving at home or starving at the front isn’t a winning platform

>>17854094
The bolsheviks were German agents. There's a reason why Kerensky stayed in the war and if you look at the collapse of Germany just a year after the Bolshevik revolution, despite all the relief the effective defeat of Russia has led to, merely existing in the east and hanging on to territory would've brought the end of the war earlier and then take the spoils, and spoils there would be. But I guess it's better to throw it all away and then get rekt by a recently formed country with 3 different currencies while trying to "spread the revolution".

>>17851857 (OP)
>it was the liberals and commies who destroyed the country and killed millions?
He was literally in charge of the country, he was a bad ruler, a very bad ruler at that and his country collapsed because of it
He was an absolute monarch before he fucked up the war with Japan, then he still remain an autocrat up until his country collapsed, even the Whites in the civil war didn't want him, that's how much of a failure he was

>>17854096
>should have simultaneously have made life better for the average person, because that takes away the ammunition that the communists needed to inspire a revolt
interesting thing Ive learned about revolutionaries is that they dont go for the out-right reactionaries, no always the reformers that can fix the system
Best example is Frans Ferdinand who was willing to give more rights to the slavs but was killed by radicals

>>17854096
That's incredibly retarded since bolsheviks proceeded to starve millions to death and kill 10 millions in a bloody civil war. Everything you accuse Nicholas of happened under bolsheviks yet there was no attempt to revolt because unlike "autocrat" Nicholas 2 bolsheviks didn't tolerate the pluralism of opinion

>>17854759
Which is why they deserved to be in charge, not him.

>>17854759
Bolshies were 100% justified in revolting against the liberal system.

>>17854070
Trvth nuke.

He was a tsar of a backward agrarian country and then out of the blue provoked the war against two major industrial powers with the combined population of 115 million people. That kind of suicidal stupidity is quite rare in history.

>>17854759
Yeah because the bolsheviks were actually competent at running an autocracy, unlike Nicholas who was too much of brainlet to run and autocratic regime in literal most autocratic empire in the 20th century.

>>17854759
>there was no attempt to revolt because unlike "autocrat" Nicholas
The majority of the Russian Civil war was in response to the Bolshevik regime's rule.

>>17855537
>literal most autocratic empire in the 20th century.
Lenin in captivity had his own private villa where he could go hunting and write letters to his supporters. Where the fuck this retardation comes from? On one hand he was muh ebil tyrant and should have just let liberals take over and on other he was weak and pathetic. Pick one.
>>17855499
He didn't provoke anything and Russia had the right to defend itself. Russia was rapdly industrializing and had the highest economic growth out of any nation in Europe. It's also kinda silly to call A-H a major industrial power.
>That kind of suicidal stupidity is quite rare in history
It's stupidity only because you're a retard and you think everyone had the ability to see the future. Back then all of his actions made perfect sense. There's nothing "rare". The only thing that rare was the events that were transpiring in the world that he had no control over like rise of liberalism and nihilism, poverty of aristocrats after abolition of serfdom and decline of the church authority after Peter destroyed it.
>>17854814
If a rapist murders and rapes your family and occupies your house does he deserve to be an owner your house? This nihilistic liberal "might makes right" mentality is why mordern world is so fucked right now. There's no moral compass that separates us from animals.
>>17855543
I'm obviously referencing the next decades of starvation and poverty that came after since I explicitly mentioned civil war you moron. Civil war couldn't have had been a response to these actions since they weren't in charge

>>17855598
>On one hand he was muh ebil tyrant and should have just let liberals take over and on other he was weak and pathetic. Pick one
One can very easily be both, Nicholas was assertive and aggressive when he should have been lenient and weak willed and deferential to whoever had his ear when he should have held a backbone. What makes it worse was that Nicholas was unflinching in his ideology of orthodoxy autocracy and nationality for no other real reason then that was what he thought he should be, he never seemed interested in exercising and using this power to actual drive or do anything, everyone should apparently just shut up and do what he commands; which is to do nothing and then proceed to act like this is the best course for a rapidly shifting society.

>>17855598
>I'm obviously referencing the next decades of starvation and poverty that came after
Because the commies won, they killed everyone who tried to resist and had supplanted the failing Tsarists mechanisms for oppression with an even more effective means for suppressing dissent.

>>17851857 (OP)
he was an incompetent autocrat of middling intelligence who refused to modernize or accept concessions- in a backwards country that was SCREAMING for change
plunge a place like that into the worst war in history and see a nation with 400+ years of heritage absolutely have its back broken in such spectacular fashion that it resonates for a century
ya, thats pretty bad

>>17855598
>If a rapist murders and rapes your family and occupies your house does he deserve to be an owner your house? This nihilistic liberal "might makes right" mentality is why mordern world is so fucked right now. There's no moral compass that separates us from animals.
That's literally how the Tsars came to power and without "might makes right" he has no authority. The bolsheviks successfully beat him at his own game, that's all it is.

>>17852613
Haha gay

>>17851961
The Germans lost more men than France in WW1 trench combat

Only in ww2 did they outperform other European countries

>>17856984
the Romanovs were elected by high ranking nobles?

Communism Derangement Syndrome ITT.

The TSAAAAAAR was toppled by liberal democrats, not commies. The commies only became a major force when the democrats failed to deliver on their promises.

>>17855634
>>17856964
The only argument I could extract was "he and his family deserves to die because he doesn't accept our religion of liberalism" which seems to be a microcosm of the whole progressive worldview. It's like Christianity and Islam in a sense that it claims to be the answer to all questions and other views should be destroyed with extreme violence and their memory eradicated. This is an inhuman thing to witness if you're a traditionalist who acknowledges that different nations have their own ways to solve their unique problems. Liberalism and communism had brought millions of deaths, poverty, corruption and moral decay to millions of people yet you insist that it could have been avoided if only Nicholas 2 did more to promote liberalism/communism. Absolutely mental
>>17856984
>That's literally how the Tsars came to power
No they didn't you illiterate moron. They were asked to come by the democratic organ Zemsky Sobor which comprised all social classes. They came during a great societal strife and a foreign invasion and united the people against the poles. The bolsheviks came under the similar circumstances but instead of uniting the people and saving the nation they put the final nail down it's coffin, bend their asses over to foreign conquerors and started slaughtering their own people in millions.
>without "might makes right" he has no authority.
Except he has because monarchy relies on morals since it's the most moral form of government because morality can only be encapsulated in a person and not an institution, therefore if people want a moral governance they elect a king. Democracy on other hand is the rule of violence where might is valued the most and every election is a tiny civil war to determine who would win a hypothetical war.

>>17857063
>Liberalism and communism had brought millions of deaths, poverty, corruption and moral decay to millions of people
And Tsarist Russia was some pure utopia where everyone lived in peace and prosperity?

>>17851857 (OP)
The absolute fucking state of the Russian military under his rule and his ill fated attempts at using directly led to the end of the Russian Empire.

>>17857063
> Except he has because monarchy relies on morals since it's the most moral form of government b

Lmao

This might be slightly off topic but relevant to this conversation: people are too polarized now. Tsar Nicholas is le bad guy because otherwise Lenin must be le bad guy and Jews don't want that to be the case. Same with in WW2. People act like saying Stalin was evil somehow is pro-Hitler or anti-American.

Nicholas was a bad leader, he should never have been Tsar. All he wanted to do was spend time with his family. Saying that doesn't mean I'm pro Imperialism

>>17854096
>but he should have simultaneously have made life better for the average person, because that takes away the ammunition that the communists needed to inspire a revolt
Life getting better is exactly what allowed young radicals to appear en masse.
Workers were the first generation of people with a somewhat decent life in comparison to serfdom and free peasantry. Still, they had intolerable working conditions, which was a worldwide problem at the time. But these people were the first mass of educated and well earning commoners. They got convinced by socialists that the government that gave them this better life was also the one that hindered their elevation to an even better life. This is the point at which the pre-war radicals were born.
Life was, in fact, getting better and workers were gradually granted better conditions. War threw everything out of the window.
>giving people the choice of starving at home or starving at the front isn’t a winning platform
There food shortages caused by bad logistics, but people weren't really starving yet, not until after the revolution.

>>17854070
>>17854096
>>17854407
>>17854759
>>17854814

Isn't it interesting how the German nobility & kaiser, officially, helped those Bolsheviks who countered the February revolution in November?
And the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor had to pretend they cared?


Monarchists, aristocracies, are their own worst nightmare.

>>17854816
>>17855537
>>17855543
>>17855598
>>17855634
>>17856984
>>17856994

Ditto >>17857138

>>17851912
>mediocre leader most famous for losing his empire is actually the greatest leader of the century
>also they hate him so it means something good about him (which basically means jews are the best)
Christcucks are beyond stupid.

>>17857063
>The only argument I could extract was: “He and his family deserved to die because he doesn't accept our religion of liberalism.”

Did the families of his subjects, that were affected by his policies (nevermind his predecessors) wanting a representative parliamentary system & entrust to handle the country, deserved to suffer and/or die? For one.

For two, the Bolsheviks wouldn't have existed as a political force had they not been helped by the German kaiser – his wee cousin Willy – and the edel junkers. This' a fact beyond doubt.
Not the kaiser, not the junkers, not the austrohungayrian nobility & Habsburgs, not the SCG-Windsors, nobody really cared.
Not even his Windsar relatives couldn't care less about them, otherwise they would've let their heir, parts of family, to take refuge at the start or before the war was known to be inevitable, in the UK itself, or Canada, or Australia, or...
What a wonderful family networking, isn't it. Lovely, charming.

For three, his system was monarchical. Monarchy is absolute by its design, vertical, like a mafia hierarchy. His system gave his family all the power they could ask for in tandem with absolute responsibility.
You cannot & will never convince anyone that a problem – systemic or not – isn't because of the monarchic system, that it isn't the fault of the “head” for not preventing the problem, for not knowing the problem, for not having a clue how to solve the problem.

>>17857063
>>17857235

Here's another fact: the german kaiser was as absolutist as the tsar in power, the only difference was that he had to contend in a 'primus inter pares' power design with other regional princely houses within his empire itself.

>...which seems to be a microcosm of the whole progressive worldview.

Are you trying to make a case for monarchy, absolutism – an outdated system with serious grave issues in its management?
Just say it, don't pussyfoot around with verbose nonsense.

>It's like Christianity and Islam in a sense that it claims to be the answer to all questions and other views should be destroyed with extreme violence and their memory eradicated.

Yes?
Alongside Judaism, monotheism had proven to be the better belief/religious system – instead of dozens of deities with their own idiosyncracy, one one-in-all proved to be far more potent in how it makes people shape how their brains work & adapt.

To paraphrase a republicanist creed, it's a deathly mistake for humanity to not evolve & adapt your power system, political system, institutional system etcetera, when it's been proven to be compromised, or outdated, or something exists that performs/adds more.

Monarchy is such an outdated system. That's why republicanism won, in spite of all odds & obstacles, destroying the cursed Salian primogeniture rule-set.

>>17851857 (OP)
I just dont get what this guys problem was? He strikes me as having been an idealist and a family man who didnt see his autocratic rule as his right but as his duty, his crown being more a burden than anything. He also wasnt very good at ruling anyway. Did he really not realize people resented him?
Ironically I think he would have been pretty happy as a constitutional monarch, where he could have focused on inspiring pan slavic unity, Russian nationalism, Christianity and spending time with his family while others would have had to take responsibility for lame shit like fiscal policy, (((Communist))) chimp outs, (((European))) chimp outs, social policies and whatnot.
The constitution of 1906 was perfect for him and would have most likely prevented 1917 and a century of Communist brutality, yet he immediately dissolved parliament and continued to LARP as Alexander II. It ended up costing him his and, even worse, his families lives.
A tragic figure but a total retard and he totally should be blamed for 1917 because it was all his responsibility.

>>17857063
>This is an inhuman thing to witness if you're a traditionalist who acknowledges that different nations have their own ways to solve their unique problems. Liberalism and communism had brought millions of deaths, poverty, corruption and moral decay to millions of people yet you insist that it could have been avoided if only Nicholas 2 did more to promote liberalism/communism. Absolutely mental.

I've already spelled it out here >>17857138 but you really want to equate liberalism=communism.

(1) If liberalism and communism are one and the same to you, why were the Bolsheviks -the communists- helped by the tsars' very own bloodkin, the kaiser & his junkers?

(2) Was Wilhelm II & his junkers, respectively austrohungary's emperor & his nobility, all secretly communists that parasited their respective former empires & subjects, since they helped the Bolsheviks to counter-revolt against the February Revolution?

(3) Why were the Bolsheviks so thankful to the German Empire & Austro-Hungary for their help in destroying the ruzzian state after February 1917, respectively a bloody civil war of autoextinction for any fledgling republican force opposed to the Central Powers, that only helped the German Empire & A-H?

(4) You make a dangerous, serious, error of judgement in your – communism = liberalism – purview.

>>17857063
>Except he has because monarchy relies on morals since it's the most moral form of government because morality can only be encapsulated in a person and not an institution, therefore if people want a moral governance they elect a king.

Who decides the morals?
Exactly – such a circular reasoning.... GFY your majestic sireness.

>Democracy on other hand is the rule of violence where might is valued the most and every election is a tiny civil war to determine who would win a hypothetical war.

Elections aren't “violent civil wars”, you absolute dunce.

Why, and how, is it outside your scope to understand that elections, in a liberal democratic system, are a process for a rotative-elective – non-hegemonic, non-hereditary – “monarchy” in all but name?

Power-sharing, responsibility-sharing system > Absolute power, sole responsibility

Unfortunately, you equate liberalism with communism...

How is it that communism, wherever it was applied, always ended as a system to that (and described as) of an absolute/monarchical system without a crown?

How is it, you total cretin, that Ulyanov&CoBolsheviks proved themselves to be more loyal & reliant to the kaiser&junkers' war goals, than the German liberals which were fed up by the monarchic system just as much?


It's up to you from now on to figure out yourself & decide whether you'll consciously continue to be a dunce.

>>17851857 (OP)
He was stupid and did dumb things.

>NOOOOOOO
>YOU CAN'T BE ANTI SEMITIC AFTER WATCHING JEWS TRY AND TEAR DOWN YOUR BIRTHRIGHT EMPIRE FOR 40 YEARS

>>17851857 (OP)
This dumbass did literally everything wrong and pissed off everyone in his empire. What happened to him and his family was regrettable but completely avoidable

>>17857063
>Except he has because monarchy relies on morals since it's the most moral form of government because morality can only be encapsulated in a person and not an institution
The amount of succession crises and civil wars caused by nobody knowing who the legitimate monarch is proves this to be false

>>17857063
Nicholas killed millions of Russians with getting them involved in the First World War

>>17854070
Truth nvke. Every political party is communist by design. Mass politics is communist. The working class is inherently communist. It must all be destroyed

>>17854070
>the republican party is responsible for the narrative that the tsar is bad
The Tsar was almost entirely focused on by international communists, including those receiving money from england, germany and the US

>>17857077
When compared to a shithole where people were eating their dead children and couldn't leave? Yes. A rapidly industrializing country with highest economic growth, low taxes, massive territories and strong civil rights was indeed a utopia. Russia had never achieved any of that under liberalism or communism which is somehow better in your opinion despite providing no proof.
>>17857235
Pointless propaganda piece without any real argument made. You can say exactly the same about peasants who wanted the tsar but were forced to die under soviet collectivization without the ability to leave their village.
>For two, the Bolsheviks wouldn't have existed as a political force had they not been helped by the German kaiser
Yeah I agree. So what? This is pointless and I'm going to ignore it since it doesn't relate to the topic at all.
>You cannot & will never convince anyone that a problem – systemic or not – isn't because of the monarchic system
By this logic if something bad happens under any other system then it means that the whole system is bad and needs to be replaced. But you aren't making that argument with liberalism and communism for some reason? It's a really strange argument. Monarchy has been around for thousands of years but the collapse of one country should be definitive evidence to discard all of that in favor of a system that produced much worse results?
>an outdated system
There's no such thing. Aristotle defined three forms of government and there hasn't been anything new invented
>proven to be the better belief/religious system
What does it mean better? I don't think blowing up statues and destroying local cultures is a good thing even if their barbarism is more stable and expansionist.
>or something exists that performs/adds more
Adds more death, corruption and poverty? That's all liberalism and communism has brought to the table. All countries that have evaded those ideas are much richer than those who did. Look at middle east

>>17857285
1. You're really stupid. Obviously ethnic conflicts are more important than types of government. Germans planted a bomb to kill their enemies. They didn't care who it was as long as it made their enemies break.
>How is it, you total cretin, that Ulyanov&CoBolsheviks proved themselves to be more loyal & reliant to the kaiser&junkers' war goals, than the German liberals which were fed up by the monarchic system just as much?
Because all leftists are cancerous and German liberals will want to butcher their country while Russian liberals will want to butcher their country? Therefore if I want to kill Germany I would support their leftists while killing my leftists and vice versa. Is that really a hard thing to grasp?
All other points are too dumb for me to engage with.
>>17857328
I wanted to respond but this is too retarded and not worth it. They are too similar to eachother and I already debunked the core points made. You don't understand the word "morality" means and how monarchies rely on moral authorities to gain legitimacy as oppose to the strenght of masses in democracy or expertise in aristocracy. I suggest you try inserting my text into chatgpt for it to digest it for you even though it's heavily biased I think it's smarter than you honestly.

>>17857284
It was the responsibility of the people who have pledged loyalty to him and stabbed him in the back. They wanted more muh freedoms but instead got a bullet in the head and a life in poverty and misery. If you betray someone like that shouldn't you also bear responsibility for the consequences of your actions? If the betrayal had lead to a satisfactory outcome for you then you could say that it was worth it and I have no regrets. But how can anyone with hindsight and knowledge of how God would punish Russians still put all the blame on him? The tsar is just a single person and he's as powerful as you make him out to be. Think of Hobbes Leviathan which is comprised of all the people in the country turning the king into a giant. The people need to humble themselves and ask for forgiveness, only then Russia will stop being a miserable shithole. But doing so would require the abandoment of liberal nihilistic morality which puts the individual at the centerpiece of everything and makes them unable to humble themselves in the service of higher purpose, to them any sort of authority is an insult, he's a perpetual teenager who's mad at parents and teachers and thinks he's the smartest person. People like that can't unite or do anything great like their ancestors did in 1613

>>17857584
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with russia, the people there are stronger than the people in the west. They still build their own houses over there

>>17857584
>It was the responsibility of the people who have pledged loyalty to him and stabbed him in the back.
>"so hey guys i know i basically massacred a bunch of you in bloody sunday and was basically nonchalant about the whole ordeal, i know i promised reform and parliamentarian after the 1905 revolution, then proceeded to walk it back to tsarist autocracy and i know i just plunged you all into the most cataclysmic war that eclipses even the napeolonic wars and I know i'm managing the war terribly even putting myself on the front giving terrible advice and leaving my even more incompetent wife in charge who kowtows to a demented corrupt siberian priest BUT you said "i promise" to me one time that means you have to obey and live with it otherwise it's le hecking hypocrisy"

>>17857604
>Upjumped religious sage causes civil war with his retarded activism
sounds familiar

>>17857620
To be clear it wasn't as if Rasputin caused the civil war, he was just an easy objection to point to, it wasn't as if killing him changed the course of events.

>>17857627
I meant the cossack priest that thought it was a good idea to suicide at the capital

>>17857631
Oh, get this, haha, that cossack priest was being paid by japanese intelligence to disrupt russia

He wan unable to calculate risks and unable to predict the consequences of his actions. A kind of a guy who would sleep on a railway.

>>17857514
>Pointless propaganda piece without any real argument made.

“I cannot admit being a disinformation troglodyte, therefore it's «pointless propaganda».”

Get bent on your pro-absolutism / pro-monarchism rhetoric.

>You can say exactly the same about peasants who wanted the tsar but were forced to die under soviet collectivization without the ability to leave their village.

You mean brutalized slave zombies. Remind me, how did they turned zombies under a monarchical system, in the first place?
Literal brutalized peasant zombies, amorphous serfs in their miserable way of living that didn't cared AT ALL about themselves; except hating Europeans for being free & fantasizing enslaving others, to paraphrase a French diplomat & academic.

Let's say you're correct — that such specie of peasant still existed; that they cared more about a guy & his family living in such unimaginable concentrated wealth (with his nobility posse of course) because he was born in the “correct” family name, from the “correct” twat & “correct” set of ballsack; not caring at all about themselves & their living conditions; their love for the tsar overriding their love for their own families, if they had any; that they viscerally hated anyone that was free and not serfs like them in Europe — good riddance.

Louis XVI & Marie-Antoinette had their share of zombie supporters, and dealt with accordingly. Nothing new under the sun.
Whoever supports the monarchy is the antipode of the republican interests & society at large; literally against their interests for supporting “royals/nobility” living in castles & palaces, while they mud their feet in shitholes.

>>17857514
>>17857771
>Yeah I agree. So what? This is pointless and I'm going to ignore it since it doesn't relate to the topic at all.

It's not pointless because you want it to be pointless.
It's not pointless, since you compared liberalism with communism.
It's not pointless for gnawing at your pro-absolute/monarchy and hypothetical pro-germanic absolutism/monarchy disease.
It's not pointless to prove how communism(bolshevism) has nothing in common with liberalism/jacobinism.

>By this logic if something bad happens under any other system then it means that the whole system is bad and needs to be replaced. But you aren't making that argument with liberalism and communism for some reason? It's a really strange argument

Monarchy is absolute, the crowned heads have the sole (together with their posse oligarchical nobility, their bloodkin) responsibility for everything wrong in the system, including you living in a shithole, being told on Sundays by their clergy allies for you to live in constant fear, ignorant, never to question their god's mandate upon the “sinful” material world & “divine right” to own everything in their name.

The republicanist system has proven to be infinitely more resilient, compact, and throughout for humanity's interests than the monarchy ever had.


We're all slaves to Pharaohs under a monarchy – power is unilaterally vertical, like a mafia.

We're all equals in a liberal democratic republic – power is unidirectionally horizontal, a consistory sharing power and responsibilities, resilient via sortition/electoral revigoration.

>>17857514
>>17857771
>>17857776

>Monarchy has been around for thousands of years but the collapse of one country should be definitive evidence to discard all of that in favor of a system that produced much worse results?

“When Adam plowed the land and Eve sewed threads, who & where were the emperors, empresses, kings, queens, and nobles?”

You're terribly, horribly miseducated (or diseducated), to think it happened only once in history...
...Or you're a cynical cipher.

>There's no such thing. Aristotle defined three forms of government and there hasn't been anything new invented

You don't understand Aristotle's works, for one.
For two, political theory (and history) didn't ended with Aristotle.
Three, oligophrenia is to be avoided.

>What does it mean better? I don't think blowing up statues and destroying local cultures is a good thing even if their barbarism is more stable and expansionist.

Did I forgot to mention that monarchy is tied with religion, respectively faith, and it's in a constant demented competition of who dominates whom – resulting in eventual destruction & debasement?
The reason statues & cultures went extinct is because the very same systems of those polities were monarchical as well. That's it.

Another proof why republicanism is superior, why secularism/laicite/separation of state & religion is a must.

>>17857514
>>17857771
>>17857776
>>17857786

>Adds more death, corruption and poverty? That's all liberalism and communism has brought to the table.

Comparing communism & liberalism, yet again...

>All countries that have evaded those ideas are much richer than those who did. Look at middle east

The Middle East, bar some very few exceptions in the area, is horrid vis-a-vis human rights, freedoms, representativeness (power sharing in policy-making & decision-making), and religious dogmatic that proliferates absolutist mindset.

>>17857595
Everything after 1917 has been a massive series of L's after L's. Millions of people starved to death, almost all European posessions have been lost. Dozens of millions died for nothing in WW2. All it's lands were stolen by the west after 1991 and it's currently completely politically isolated with even azeris and kazakhs showing them middle finger. People are living in rampant corruption and poverty and half of the country hates itself. Without the betrayal the population of Russia would be around 300-400 millions and it would be a superpower like China. It's impossible to objectively study history without coming to that conclusion
>>17857604
>>17857771
>>17857776
I couldn't find a single legit point being made that goes beyond slogans. I'm not going to put an effort into writing coherent high effort arguments if I'm going to get low effort answers that don't go beyond vibes of the soviet propaganda posters where there a fat aristocrats and popes sitting on top of the starving peasants or something.

>>17857568
>You're really stupid. Obviously ethnic conflicts are more important than types of government. Germans planted a bomb to kill their enemies. They didn't care who it was as long as it made their enemies break.

Spell it out: a monarchy butchered another monarchy.
Not ethnic conflicts.

Where are the liberals?
I don't see them, except fighting the very same communists that were helped by that aforementioned monarchy ruled by a kaiser & his junker nobility.

Which is it, dunce? Have you figured out your cognitive dissonance, why are you comparing communists & liberals/jacobins as being the same thing?

>Because all leftists are cancerous and German liberals will want to butcher their country while Russian liberals will want to butcher their country?

Why did the german monarchy supported bolsheviks to butcher the ruzzian monarchy, and subsequently fight against the liberals to the death?
You utter dunce, can you figure this one out and answer, or are you impaired in your agenda with a dissonance you cannot explain to yourself?

>Therefore if I want to kill Germany I would support their leftists while killing my leftists and vice versa. Is that really a hard thing to grasp?

So the German kaiser & junkers were allies with the bolsheviks, the butcherers of their bloodkin.

Yet, you blame liberalism & liberals, for whatever reason.

>They are too similar to each other and I already debunked the core points made.

They're not and you debunked zilch.

Communists/Bolsheviks are absolutists posing as & pretending to be republicanists.
There's nothing in common between liberalism/jacobinism and the twisted inversion supported by monarchists known as communism.

>>17857809
>I couldn't find a single legit point being made that goes beyond slogans. I'm not going to put an effort into writing coherent high effort arguments if I'm going to get low effort answers that don't go beyond vibes of the soviet propaganda posters where there a fat aristocrats and popes sitting on top of the starving peasants or something.

Got it – so you're either a degenerate moron, a ruzzian cipher, or some bizarro MENA inbred lost on /his/ arguing in favor of a repressive anti-human system structured like the mafia.
Dunce.

>>17857809
Tragically enough after all they went through with the (((communists))) and WW2 Russia ultimately ended up with the same borders and political position they would have had under Brest-Litovsk anyway.
All for nothing.

>>17851857 (OP)
He couldn't run the fucking country. There was a point in time where his army was fighting in WW1 and doing pretty well and he goes out,fucks up battle strategy and leaves his idiot wife and the "mystic: to run the nation.

Nicolas II was not a good ruler and he got what he deserved. His children? Not so much.

>>17851857 (OP)
You can dislike communism and feudalism you know.
But without incompetents around like Nichloas II you wouldn't have so many communists to hate, I think I understand the excessive hatred of communists and complete defense of
horrendous autocrats now.

>>17851857 (OP)
I will never for the life of me understand why people simp for this incompetent manlet, why are there still Romonov apologists post 1950?

>>17858760
Once he faded from collective memory White Russians emigres romanticized him (even though 90% of them helped overthrow him or hated him)

>>17851869
He was considered weak, I hate to say that he was. RIP. There was too much going on and being completely overwhelmed didn't help.

>>17851857 (OP)
So, why did freedom of speech, civil rights, independent courts, parliament, and developed local self-government exist under the "authoritarian" rule of Nicholas II?

>>17851857 (OP)
>Why is picrel so widely blamed despite the fact that he did nothing wrong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willy%E2%80%93Nicky_correspondence

He quite literally started WW1. He was a fucking idiot who did nothing right and doomed Russia forevermore.