Why is Tsar Nicholas II so venerated Veeky Forums? He was a terrible ruler

Why is Tsar Nicholas II so venerated Veeky Forums? He was a terrible ruler

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917
youtube.com/watch?v=asn8vMlg0B8
youtube.com/watch?v=CuiNW6MjNPE
youtube.com/watch?v=Cte3VvCONf4
youtube.com/watch?v=AasvuIZ6FKc
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

He was a bad ruler
>emancipated urban tatars
>allowed mosque constructure
>he allowed Tatar moslems to move into Russian areas(Commies banned that later)
>build Cathedral mosque in Saint-Petersburg which was biggest European mosque at the time(commies used that as a storage later)
>dragged Russia into war with Japan
>dragged Russia into war with Germany
>he left to some ball after the massacre in public(Hodinka) instead of speaking to his people
But he still was European legitimate Monarch and not some Middle Eastern terroris that changed him and Transition Government eventually

LARPing monarcucks and contrarian edgy kids.

>Looked nice.
>Under him Russia was on the Right Side Of History™ by fighting Germany.
>The rulers who followed after him are seen as evil.
>Disney made Anastasia and it was popular.
>Allowed his competent underlings to rule instead of his incompetent self (Sergei Witte and Peter Stolypin reformed the state) until someone told him to go roleplay as a general and FUCK EVERYTHING UP SHIT FUCK ASS


>not fit to run a village post office
t. Trotsky

>although Nicholas did not have a naturally autocratic personality, his wife Aleksandra and multiple reactionary statesmen forced him to rule the country with an iron fist
t. Moorehead, contemporary historian

people venerate nicholas II?

>had vaguely bad policies
>this means it's okay for him and his family to be slaughtered like cattle by bolsheviks

great

>vaguely bad policies

lmao

In my opinion, there was no good ruler in Russia since Alexander I. Nicholas I was tyrannic emperor and his tyranny did no good, Alexander II was weak and did not understand his people, Alexander III tried and failed, and Nicholas II was just an idiot and sociopath. But that's common decline of Europe aristocracy, Nicholas was just one of them.

Alexander II abolished serfdom and brought moslem barbarians in Caucasus to heel...
Alexander III reign was free from wars and unrest. Economy and the quality of life was in perpetual growth
This. He was multi-kulti war mongering cuck

I do not trying to say they did not have their accomplishments, they aren't Pavel, but when your own people constantly trying to murder you, that's not cool.

>Alexander III reign was free from wars and unrest.
From wars - definitely, but unrest, created by Narodnaya volya and others rebels, was still there. Also, talk about Alex III's rule is impossible without considering Pobedonostsev supervision and Russian conservative ideas. But yeah, maybe I am to harsh on him, who I am to judge great people of the past.

*who am I

Because he had cute daughters and pedophilic alt-righters prefer monarchy to socialism

>he allowed Tatar moslems to move into Russian areas(Commies banned that later)

This is why there's Tatars and Jews in Finland.
They used Russian law to circumvent old Swedish law preventing Jews from living in Finland.

>Naradnaya Volya
>unrest
Single terrorist attacks here and there harshly persecuted is not
>Pobedonostsev conservative ideals
muh couldn't have islam, judaism, gambling centers and interracial sex. What a pitty.

this. normal Russian person have nothing but admiration of Alexandarian Russia

confirm as a Russkie. It's sjw type cucks and blood mixers who dislike Alexander III the most

Russian monarchists do.

>people venerate nicholas II?

I don't really like him, but he at least had his ideal of Russia. Nicolas 2 just didn't give a shit.

Just want to remind everyone that the Bolshevieks had more support from the Russian people than any other faction in the civil war.
Those who disagree may explain how you win a civil war when your enemies got direct foreign support and most minority groups just are trying to break free from the empire leaving you with Russians and other east Slavs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election,_1917

Filthy bolsheviks lost elections, if they had have majority of support there would be no civil war

>may explain how you win a civil

with Red Terror and international brigades of latvians, chinese commies + stockpiled weapons, ammunition in european Russia because of WW1

What not to like?
-nor Slavophilia, nor Germanised Westernism, but Rusocentrism
-ethnic Russian chauvinism
-humane segregation
-cut all the Royal House spending
-cut state official personal spending
-shunned lavish lifestyle of those at Imperial Service
-valued soldier's life, maintained piece
-slept with soldiers and peasants; took time to personally observe ordinary subject's life
-loved his family; held roof of the train when it collapsed and could have killed his family and friends
-friendship with Germany, continental respective dominance
-helped to restore Finnish culture after long Swedifition and Imperial neglect
-cracked down on terrorism
-purged tobacco mob
>Nicolas II didn't do shit
If only. He dragged Russian Empire into pointless wars with Japan and Germany and let Islam to spread in European Russia

/pol/ does because they are butthurt about the commies killing him

>-helped to restore Finnish culture after long Swedifition and Imperial neglect
I think that was his dad

Christians.

Russian Orthodox Christians specifically.

1. Veeky Forums is filled with fags with a homolust for the Czar

2. Veeky Forums is filled with Monarchists who are mad about WWI in general

3. Veeky Forums is filled with stormniggers who are mad that communists overthrew him

They don't like the Czar as much as they like the idea of the Czar.

Because revolutions are, without exception, always worse than whatever they replace.

t. Edmund Burke

I think you mean
>t. butthurt Anglo

>butthurt

I think you mean:

>Vindicated

The world needs a few more French revolutions.

Yeah, those French peasants were better off starving under the monarchy.

He's only venerated by naive rightists who think the killing of the Tsar and his family is worse than the hundreds of thousands left dead by Tsarist violence

Sure, I love killing revolutionaries.

Yeah, their prospects are much improved/secured in destroying the state - said every dumbass revolutionary whose country descends into chaos and squalor.

>Sure, I love killing revolutionaries.
Think you meant to say "Pay others for doing it"

>destroying the state
Everyone has brief periods of unrest at times, better to have it be about introducing new rights than because of carl the princesdeclaring war at his brother Karl the king because carl think his claim to the throne is slightly better?

Revolutionaries are the ones who do the killing.

why is any of that a bad thing

history isn't some grand autistic clash between le christendom and muslims

>Think you meant to say "Pay others for doing it"

Nah, I like getting my hands dirty. Every revolution demands a restoration. Burke predicted Napoleon, which this board seems to love as much as the actual French Revolution without seeing any contradiction.

>are

Not anymore, kid.

I can't think of a single revolution leading to worse conditions than what came before.

The Arab Spring, maybe?

>I can't think of a single revolution leading to worse conditions than what came before.

You ever heard of Communism, kid?

>Not anymore
Think again

It did lead to better conditions for Russians though.

>Every revolution demands a restoration. Burke predicted Napoleon
1. Napoleon wasn't a counter-revolutionary
2. Burke didn't think the coming of a Napoleonesque figure was a good thing.

You ever heard of the standard of living, education, and upward mobility of the average Russian during the empire, faggot?

He was bad but the soviets were worse

It's not even a Veeky Forums thing, exclusively. Regular people in Russia like the Romanovs (at the same time they like the communists too, it's weird).

Because he was a qt homely guy who was a very bad administrator, but a nice person.

And I would like to fuck him, of course.

Because they are inner immigrants and not native to Europe obviously
>autism
European nationalism is on the rise and there is nothing you can do about that

both, but Alexander III for the most part. He had couple of country houses and Finland for fishing, rowing, hiking and sauna.

>regular person
>government official (who is trying to get a movie that portrays Nicholas II as having a sexual fling with a ballerina before his marriage banned for being 'heretical' to Catholicism)
>also she's carrying an icon of Nicholas II at a fucking war veteran memorial walk like a goon

...

No, he is literally a Saint in the Russian Orthodox Church up there with Paul and John the Baptist

Neither are Hungarians.

Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them.

No, he's canonized as a Passion-Bearer along with his family.

He's not. Him and his families are passion bearers and not saints in the Russian Orthodox Church.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the other hand is a completely different story. But that church is just as based on being butthurt about communism as it is about Jesus.

>He was a terrible ruler

He literally wasn't, he was a victim of circumstance.

Passion-Bearers are a kind of saint. We have an icon of him in my Church, and we aren't ROCOR.

Also, ROCOR is just one part of the Moscow Patriarchate of the EOC.

Willy and Nicky should have swapped countries.

Willy being a reactionary, ham-fisted brute could have been exactly the leader Nicky was pressured to try and be.
Nicky being a sensitive soul that didn't really like leading would have been perfect for a liberal constitutional monarchy like Germany.

Still though. Passion bearers are a less venerated category of saints than the likes of Paul and John the Baptist.

Well yeah, but she's cute! CUTE!

Hungarians are "hunnic" in name only. They are mix of Slavs and Visigoths.
>nothing wrong
When they live in their own place. Tatars have no place in European Russia. None whatsoever. And that what happens when you get multi-multi death cult.
youtube.com/watch?v=asn8vMlg0B8

youtube.com/watch?v=CuiNW6MjNPE

youtube.com/watch?v=Cte3VvCONf4

youtube.com/watch?v=AasvuIZ6FKc

He and his family are martyr's

>Tatars have no place in European Russia. None whatsoever.
Then GTFO out of Siberia, pidorashkas.

>meanwhile tatars and bashkirs are a nice bunch of lads who treat islam about as seriously as russians treat christianity and all this shit is started by caucasian mountain niggers and central asian shitholes who got independence after SU fell
t. a man born in Bashkortostan

Are they European? No, they are not. Thusly, they should stay in their republics or Russian Federation should drop turkic, iranic and mongoloid republics to enjoy homogenous society. If I was Russian I would demand it. No one needs minorities in Russia, its minorities that need Russia.
Siberia is 97% ethnic Russian, cuck. More so than. Moscow. Northern Russia, Central Russia, Southern Russia, Siberia and Far East belongs to the ethnic Russians. After all the minority elements are separated from the country of course. What Nationalist European government would give easy visa regiment to the Russian Federation if some turkic or iranic person can come to the Western Europe with Russian passport? That won't happen and ethnic Russians know that.

Russia in 1927 was undeniably better than Russian in 1917.

wtf i hate jews now

>Hungarians are "hunnic" in name only. They are mix of Slavs and Visigoths.
He means they are Uralics who came from the Asian side of the Urals. They have nothing to do with Visigoths either, you moron.

Why should we take anything you say seriously when obviously you have no idea what you're talking about.

Because muh commie joo conspiracy.

He's right though. Huns didn't leave much genetic legacy. Magyars are a cocktails of Slavs, Illyrian and Germanic tribes