>>518781330
>He was a weak ruler
No he wasn’t, the people around him were weak. You are deceiving by implicitly posing a what-if (he acted differently), but no fact begins with an if. The great decisions did not depend on the Tsar. He came to power too early because the kikes killed both Alexander II and Alexander III, but still continued their reforms. The problem being the institution of the monarchy was weakened by the traitors who made the 1905 constitution and the Duma. Also, the kikes who killed Stolypin. If it was only for the Tsar, there would have been no WW1, since he was going to sign an alliance with Germany in Bjalbö in 1907. The Duma blocked it. But the young Black Hundredists and old Slavophiles backing the Tsar simply blinked as retarded Pan-Slavists made a devil’s pact with Francophiles to ally the eternal Anglo and the Frogs, finance the election of Poincaré in France (as exposed by Jean Jaures) and together with England, fund Yugoslavist terrorism against Austria via the embassy in Belgrade. Retarded Pan-Slavists in the military thought Russia would protect brother Serbs and liberate Slavs in Austria, but as Durnovo pointed out in his memorandum, going against multi-ethnic Austria would only open a Pandora’s box for minorities in Russia. Then as Kaiser Wilhelm II said in his memoirs, the Francophile officers never had any intention of winning a war, they just wanted to stir trouble to make a Russian republic. Which they did, but they were even less popular than the Chernosotentsy and more incompetent than Slavophiles and ended up losing to Lenin. You CANNOT rule under these circumstances. A monarchy without a monarchists and too few censors to stop libtards from posting their kikeloving churnalism, will fall. Just as Bourbon France did. No wonder, it was „restored“ by crypto-liberal kike shills too. We need real political theory (Pobedonostsev) instead of „MUH WEAK RULERS“. The subjects are weak. There is no new Suzanin or Minin.
